::::Yeah, bummer, I wanted to put it up :( [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Yeah, bummer, I wanted to put it up :( [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::But can you imagine the uproar we'd get for having a topless women (albeit a very odd painted one) on the main page. It'd be [[Gropecunt Lane]] all over again --[[User:Daviessimo|Daviessimo]] ([[User talk:Daviessimo|talk]]) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::But can you imagine the uproar we'd get for having a topless women (albeit a very odd painted one) on the main page. It'd be [[Gropecunt Lane]] all over again --[[User:Daviessimo|Daviessimo]] ([[User talk:Daviessimo|talk]]) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Lol, the peanut gallery never will be happy with ITN- they're criticising us for having it up there in the first place! [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
An Egyptian-led proposal for a nuclear armsfree Middle East receives support from the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China. Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation believed to possess nuclear weapons. (Reuters)
The European Parliament calls on Canada to ensure visa-free travel for all EU citizens in a wide-ranging resolution, while expressing hope that the EU-Canada summit will speed up negotiations on a comprehensive trade agreement. (Europarl)(Isria)(MSNBC)
Two men are killed and another one is wounded when unidentified gunmen open fire at a Lexus in the capital of Russia’s Caucasian republic of Dagestan, Makhachkala. (ITAR)
Comment Did we feature the Greek crisis before ? --yousaf465' 09:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We posted when Standard and Poors downgraded Greece's debt recently. However, these strikes are having the following effects (most decribed in the linked article above):
Flights in and out of Greece halted
Trains and ferries not running on Wednesday (ferries would be pretty signficant in Greece).
Three deaths in the civil unrest this morning should bump this up I would think. Leaky Caldron 12:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support once update/new article created. this is turning out to be a big deal--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm not a native speaker, but you can try something such:
General nationwide strike and demonstrations (in major cities) in Greece localy turned violent against austerity measures.Yug(talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Support also, when an article is created. Three people have been killed, several buildings set on fire, there are no flights into or out of the country, trains and ferries are not running and schools and hospitals have closed. Not your average day I would say --Daviessimo (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone want to suggest a blurb? The article also needs expanding before it can go up, or is there a postable update elsewhere? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirchner @ UNASUR
yesterday there was a posting about Nestor Kirchner being appointed the first Secretary General of UNASUR, this is a big step as it is on the lines towards a S. American unity and becoming another EU/ASEAN/AU. (List of Secretaries General of UNASUR)Lihaas (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Just a note, please continue the discussion down below; splitting this conversation up will cause disorganisation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A new European Jewish group, JCall, supported by thousands of European Jews is founded to lobby for a resolution to the Middle East conflict.(Jerusalem Post)(Al Jazeera)
Saw this in the portal but no nomination. Pablo Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves, and Bust sold for 106.4 USD, an at-auction record. Grsz11 01:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me- it would be easier to link to from the template if you can create a subheading. Please forgive my sheer ignorance of art ;). Someone'll probably create an article at some point, especially if it goes on the MP unlinked. I'd support, but for admin purposes, I'm neutral! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time or knowledge to create an article for the piece, but I have updated that section. Grsz11 01:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not usable, but HJ proves prophetic, even though it's not on the MP yet. Nude, Green Leaves and Bust has turned blue. Unfortunately, it's not usable it its current state. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am so bummed that I didn't see this (must have happened after I went to bed), I would have given my Support though. I'll just have to wait to the auctions in June and July to see if the record is broken again. - JuneGloom07Talk? 11:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sigh what sucks is we cant put the painting on the page. picasso should really not have copyright (or atleast images of his paintings) lol -- Ashish-g55 13:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But can you imagine the uproar we'd get for having a topless women (albeit a very odd painted one) on the main page. It'd be Gropecunt Lane all over again --Daviessimo (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, the peanut gallery never will be happy with ITN- they're criticising us for having it up there in the first place! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see how widespread the disruption is. And this is coming from someone who's outbound flight was delayed by 6 days, and whose return is due on Friday. <crosses fingers> Modest Geniustalk 21:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm flying over to Europe, through Heathrow on Friday. Nevertheless, waiting is good; if this is just one day's closing of Irish and Scottish airspace, it's not significant enough to post. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kirchner's are becoming quite the powerful couple. I'll Support when there's an update to the USAN article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already updated that info on USAN article. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but you added one line of prose. I'd like to see a full paragraph before fully supporting this item. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: whilst this does seem significant, it's worth noting that UNASUR has not entered into operation yet. Would it not be better to wait until it actually starts up, and then post a story along the lines of 'UNASUR comes into force, with Kirchner as its first secretary general'? Modest Geniustalk 19:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unasur is operative since 2005/2008, depending on considerations. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to our own article, 'The UNASUR Constitutive Treaty was signed on May 23, 2008, at the Third Summit of Heads of State, held in Brasília, Brazil, but not as of yet ratified by the required ninth nation.' Is this incorrect? Although some preparatory activity is underway (including setting up the relevant bank), there's no secretariat and most activities seem to awaiting that ninth ratification. Modest Geniustalk 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The operativity and legitimacy of existing and/or developing policies (not to mention the designation of a secretary general itself) should be considered as effective (factual) operational capabilities of the union, regardless of the yet unfinished Constitutive Treaty formal ratification processes by national legislatures. For the permanent establishment of the regional institutions we'd have to wait some years, and yet some more so as to see their fully operational capabilities. Nevertheless, this election is of itself a major and relevant step in Unasur's institutionalization as well as regarding the union's political autonomy. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 20:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big step to a more active body (a future EU-Type org.?). In particular an oft-negelcted region standing on its own and against the "global order."
Oppose Nothing special. I think many other countries already do so.--yousaf465' 04:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose when it comes to nuclear weapons, the US isn't just any country, though the number isn't very surprising and I have a hard time seeing this as its own news item, given the nuclear meetings right now.. --PlasmaTwa2 05:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the conference itself might of some importance.--yousaf465' 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe if the number had been surprising, but the number was within reasonable predictions, perhaps even on the low side. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Until we have more detail on this.--yousaf465' 06:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably over 50 deaths, which is around the number of incidents in third-world countries that we post. Grsz11 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant casualties and damage across a number of US states make this a major natural disaster PopularMax (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support AP is already reporting 29 dead across 3 states due to the flood, and more victims might be found as floodwaters recede. There is significant flooding in downtown Nashville, the 26th-largest US city, larger than New Orleans was during Katrina and like New Orleans, a major center of Southern US culture, music and tourism. In Nashville, flooding is affecting athletic and cultural buildings. Nutmegger (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated death toll to 19 in the state of TN - will update now to reflect other states and add infobox similar to those of other floods we've had this year (Madeira and Brazil). Nutmegger (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you've added the total to the prose with a reference, I'll update the blurb. Good work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a casualties section doing the death breakdown state-by-state - 19 dead in TN; 6 in MS and 4 in KY. It's sourced to local newspapers and Wall Street Journal. Have a county-by-county breakdown for MS as well. Nutmegger (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT pretty big move in the light of what is happening in the Middle East. More pressure on the israeli's it seems, especially in light of Obama's attempt to marginalize Aipac with the introduction of JStreet (they now have supporters in the other big centre of geo-politics.Lihaas (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is about an online petition that has gathered 3,000 names, and it's disputed as to what exactly they support anyway. Hardly a major development. PopularMax (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both the jpost (right-winged more-aipac friendly) and al jazeera have shown what they feature, that they are the euro-version of JStreet. that is almost diametrically opposites.Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is this about a petition or something else? Please suggest a blurb so I can properly evaluate what you are proposing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with ThaddeusB; when you make a nomination, please be clear what is newsworthy in your proposal. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the petition that is landmark, its the formation of the group (which was founded officially on Monday. I'll update the paraphrase for the main page above..Lihaas (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, are you proposing ITN feature the setting up of a new lobbying group? Because that really doesn't sound like significant news to me. I too would like to see a blurb, because I must be missing something here. Modest Geniustalk 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T:TDYK, however, would be much more likely to run it on the main page, as the article meets the requirements for length and newness. Just format the reference to hide the bare URL, and try to find another ref to go along with it. I'm not seeing anything here that's significant enough for ITN, however. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay good, idea. S'pose it better than the news. More refs are added, just removing the bare references Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thai elections, 2010
The Thai politic crisis that has been going on for 3 years (but espcially the last 2 months that paralyzed the capital seem to have come to an end with the announcement of elections.Lihaas (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If confirmed that this is the end of the protests and has been resolved by acceptance of elections PopularMax (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait till confirmed - Having followed the crisis for a while now, I find it unlikely the opposition will accept the proposed November date.[1] That said, if they do, it is n obvious support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if confirmed, important news, I hope Thailand can move forwards. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support after it actually happens. --yousaf465' 02:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, so I can get the blurb right, is this an acceptance of a general election date and an end to the recent unrest? Also, do we have an update? I note that Thai general election, 2010 is currently a red link. I'm happy to post once there's an update, though a blurb suggestion would be nice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a red link, the page existed when posted above. You should be able to read it.
the election date was accepted by the protestors are now holding out for a dissolution of parliament. So i guess you can make the call on posting or not. Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Journalists protesting against the prison death of Cameroon newspaper editor Bibi Ngota clash with police in Yaoundé as hundreds are prevented from staging a sit-in at the office of the prime minister. (BBC)
The ash has come back to haunt us (who live in Europe, or more specifically where I live, Ireland. Maybe it will spread.). [3] — Cargoking talk 20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless it brings back another bout of large-scale airport closings. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the moment; we're going to get lots of stories like this over the coming months, so we should save ITN pieces for the really big disruptions. Physchim62(talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. One to keep an eye on, but it's not for ITN yet- obviously if it causes anything like the disruption from last time, I'll reconsider. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless it leads to widespread disruption.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, by all means this is not ITN material. Truthsort (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Until it causes a "massive air traffic disruption".--yousaf465' 04:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty big news... its on front page (top story) of pretty much any international news paper including bbc, cnn, star, guardian... -- Ashish-g55 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the update can be expanded beyond one sentence. I don't think the claim that it is the lead story everywhere is accurate, but it is still major news. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not everyday that someone is convicted of killing over 100 people.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Thaddeus says, a little more detail in the update is required, but I'm willing to post when that's been done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The attack was big news, he was captured at the site and with video evidence that he participated in it. It's hardly big news that a court of law found him guilty of participating in the attack. And, on a practical note, there are still more "news" stories to come: his sentencing and his (probable) execution. Posting this conviction is to fall into the trap that terrorist crimes somehow deserve more coverage than other crimes simply because their authors are terrorists. Physchim62(talk) 16:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no strong opinion on this, but the conviction, while not unexpected, seems to attracting a lot of attention. If we posted this, though, I would certainly oppose the sentencing or execution. I think it's worth posting one of the three, but I've no opinion on which. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we can wait a bit before deciding on this item faith. --yousaf465' 17:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is a big deal, though I'd be happy to wait until the sentencing/execution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this was not an ordinary crime and this is no ordinary criminal. In addition to the number of victims some of them were chosen because they belonged to a certain faith / country. also the attacks were notable for widespread impact they had. India Pakistan peace process was derailed because of this attack ( and still is). Also unusual in that a Fedayeen was caught alive and finally convicted. though sentencing should happen quickly at the rate India executes its criminals it could be decades before the execution--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if he is sentenced to death, how long would it be before the sentence is carried out? If it's a matter of days or weeks, we might be better off waiting for that. If longer, the sentencing would probably be best. Modest Geniustalk 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure guesswork, but I'd imagine they'd set an execution date at the sentencing. Assuming, of course, that that's the sentence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he will be handed the death sentence. but I am sure it will probably be decades before it is carried out . Mohammad Afzal who was sentenced to death for 2001 Indian Parliament attack is still alive an kicking.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd support posting it now, and tweaking the blurb when the sentence is announced. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, posting- there's a fair bit of support for this and the blurb can be refactored tomorrow assuming the sentencing goes ahead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a source for "never happened in 400 years?" --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - According to the BBC, even though 5 wickets fell in the over, only 3 a being given to Mohammad Aamer and they don't seem to be making much fuss about it. But again, if you can provide a source for this being the first time it has happened then I'm happy to change my vote --Daviessimo (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sacrificial runouts (2 in this over) are a new phenomenon due to the restrictions of limited-overs cricket, but are now quite common as the wicket is worthless in that context and to just randomly steal runs in the last over. Even in ODIs, the non-striker will randomly sprint 10 metres down the pitch as soon as the ball is bowled now that you can't get Mankaded, and if it is hit back to the bowler (eg straight yorker) then non-striker is dead. This happened twice in a 50th over by Harbhajan Singh v Australia at the SCG in early 2008. Three wickets by a bowler in one over isn't new. Lasith Malinga took a double hattrick in the 2007 50-over WC. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support if first ever... once only thing. the reasoning or context behind it is all POV. if this happened first time ever then should be posted. Given proper updates though. there isnt much right now... -- Ashish-g55 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The reason why it has never happened in 400 years is because Twenty20 has only existed for the last seven of them. This would never happen in other forms of the game, and comparing them is totally disingenuous. Besides, we're still missing a reference saying it's the first, it wouldn't surprise me if it had already happened at lower levels of the game. Modest Geniustalk 18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds very impressive, only became interested in the sport five years ago, relatively young, it made him bleed! This from The Sydney Morning Herald: "It is highly doubtful any first-class team has managed 5-0 in an over, let alone in a World Cup. Aamer, 18, has admitted he had only picked up a real cricket ball five years ago, and the experience left his tender fingers bleeding because they were not used to the seam". The Guardian says it was "surely the greatest death over full stop". It is being reported around the world. Not a cricket fan but it seems like a sport that is popular enough to feature more on ITN. --candle•wicke 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before this only 4 wickets have been taken in a an "over" let alone a "maiden over" Most wickets in an over. For cricinfo as a soruce we will have to wait for a few hours. --yousaf465' 04:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's just an announcement but it sounds at least as significant as a Barack Obama speech. Since they are going to be created by a certain date, now is the time it is being reported could it be posted now (after an update, if one is needed, etc)? How often does an announcement like this happen? And Nigerians officially speak English if that helps. --candle•wicke 03:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we supposed to wiat once the states are established? –Howard the Duck 03:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But will they all be established together? I doubt the creation of each state would be posted? But maybe? --candle•wicke 04:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to give way on federal states such as Nigeria, so they could be posted. Not really sold on unitary ones. –Howard the Duck 04:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor point, it looks like the news is from 4/30, which isn't fatal, but should be noted. That said, I don't really see any international significance in what amounts to an internal reorganization of the way the country is sub-divided. I searched, but couldn't find a single news story about this other than the one AllAfrica.com post. As such, I'll oppose at this time, but am open to reconsidering my decision. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I'm included towards a weak support, but only when they are actually created. This announcement is not enough. Modest Geniustalk 18:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We posted the BA-Iberia merger. Is there an update? I'd suggest creating an article under the name of the new company. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new company will keep the United name. The United article has already been updated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I see you're way ahead of me. this should be a no-brainer, but I'd like a few supports before I post it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support when confirmed. Major merger --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for official confirmation, which should come in a few hours time. The current NYT headline – "United and Continental Said to Agree to Merge" – is not the sort of certainty we usually look for on an ITN piece, and the NYT story is based entirely on anonymous sources. Apart from that, I've no problems with posting a story of this nature: indeed it's nice if we can find consensus for a business story from time to time. Physchim62(talk) 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if it hasn't been confirmed as that would be posting speculation and rumours based upon what anonymous "people" who have been "briefed" have said. Sounds quite suspicious and more than a little tabloidy. --candle•wicke 03:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The update to the article is a tad weak, in my opinion. Or perhaps because it's because every section in that paragraph begins with "On X Y, Z date ...". -- tariqabjotu 11:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned it up and posted it.--Chaser (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to [6], "Both a full-scale Justice Department review and Senate hearings are expected, and the Obama administration has vowed to step up enforcement of antitrust laws." and so technically the merger could still be prevented. I'm not sure it should be up if further hearings could prevent the merger, as it has not been fully finalized. SpencerT♦Nominate! 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're applying the same criterion as to other big mergers (eg, British Airways–Iberia): the merger is subject to administrative (anti-trust) approval, but that's all. Physchim62(talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shareholder and union approval, as well. But the hook says "agree to merge", which is sufficient qualification. Or does the "forming" language that follows cause ambiguity?--Chaser (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May 2
The death toll from the Mogadishu bombings on May 1 rising to at least 45; authorities say al Qaeda is likely to blame for the attack. (CNN)(VOA)
A group of Asian finance ministers announce a new US$700 million bond fund to promote the issuance of local bonds because of the guarantee the new funds would provide potential investors. (The Wall Street Journal)
Japanese supercentenarian and oldest living person in the world Kama Chinen dies 8 days short of 115 and leaves French supercentenarian Eugénie Blanchard as the oldest living person.
ITN candidates for May 2
Johnson & Johnson recall
Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Jersey, United States
Nom: sounds like a pretty major recall - "a vast portion of the children's medicine market" in the USA is affected. Any update probably should go in its own article as the main J&J article would result in undue weight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:' a have started a stand-alone 2010 Johnson & Johnson children's product recall so that the event can be described in more detail without violating WP:UNDUE. I used Candlewicke's text to start it, so if/when this gets posted please make sure to give him ITN credit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dedicated article is good to go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - article looks very good. Well done --Daviessimo (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Solinsky ran 26:59 in his first 10k race ever becoming the first non-African in history to break the 27 minute barrier. Greatest American track performance since 1996. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.218.30 (talk • contribs)
Oppose Not a world record. Grsz11 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support First time ever a non-East African has gone under 27:10, much less 27. Time is also the Americas Record (North America, South America and Caribbean). Also beat the Olympic Record time. Canadian Simon Bairu set the Canadian Record and Kenyan Sam Chelenga set the Collegiate Record in the same race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.218.30 (talk • contribs)
Oppose per Grsz. This is not a world record so it is not notable enough to be on the main page --Daviessimo (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why then was the "Floyd Mayweather vs. Shane Mosley" on the front page? This is far more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.218.30 (talk • contribs)
Oppose, not a world record, and I'm not convinced the 10k is high-profile enough to post even if it were. Modest Geniustalk 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good feat, but maybe not world-record level. f o x 20:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would seriously consider a world record, but a continental record isn't enough, IMO. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it isn't a world record. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and express concern that achievement by race seems to be under proposal as worthy of inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The item is clearly not going to be featured, so your concern is unfounded. That said, when did anyone other than you mention race? A North American continental record is not the same thing as a "white guy record". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First white guy was my initial take on the hook as well. It's a reasonable misinterpretation of what was being suggested.--Chaser (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, particularly from the support remarks of the IP. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This doesn't seem to have much international coverage. If an African had that continent's greatest track performance in only 14 years and beat an American-only record the same might be true, i.e. it wouldn't be noticed outside Africa. --candle•wicke 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though I still think it should have been featured, the reasons why it shouldn't are also equally valid. And as far as race goes, Africans are by far the best in the sport. I'm not sure why acknowledging that they are better at something is being interpreted as racist. If an African swimmer were to break the 15 minute 1500 meter barrier it would also be worthy of mention, despite not being a world record, as it is a major barrier and would signify their emergence into the sport.98.247.218.30 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the Kevin McE mistook African American for African, presuming the hook would have been basically a record about a non-black runner. But of course, African technically makes no racial demarcation, after all there are plenty of white Zimbabweans and South Africans who are 'African' and North Africans from Egypt, Morocco and the like are a predominantly different ethnic group, so in reality the comment was unfounded. --Daviessimo (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--If a football team from outside Europe or South America won the World Cup for the first time I think we would consider including that detail in the inevitable blurb on the World Cup. I don't think the significance of a non-East African runner here is any different. That said, Oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to conclude either tonight or tomorrow (depending on how close the game is). Listed on ITNR so should be a formality when updated --Daviessimo (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World number one and last year's champion has just been suspended. Is that important enough for ITN? --candle•wicke 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - leading figure in international sport involved in scandal, immediately suspended by his governing body. Leaky Caldron 14:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support immediate posting, with a later refactor to announce the winner, which may not be known until late tommorrow. I've updated Higgins article on what is a serious sporting scandal. Suggested blurb:
I'm reluctant to post before the winner is announced (though I don't object to another admin doing so) but I'm happy to post when we have a winner and an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't express how strongly I'm opposed to this. Putting a weakly-sourced, highly negative item about a BLP on the main page of the encyclopaedia? Two of the three sources given are the News of the World, which while they make their living with this level of thing, we should be able to rise above. Support posting world champion, though. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we're OK as far as libel with the hook above (but IANAL). However, BLP is also about the negative impact on individuals' lives. Higgins has a plausible explanation for this video, so I'm not keen on putting the allegation on our front page.--Chaser (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are people getting this idea that BLP means Wikiepdia just pretends notable events just never happened? This article update does not violate BLP. It is appropriatley sourced and attributed, and entirely neutral and in correct proportion to the severity and coverage of the allegations. Any talk of libel is just nonsense. If people want to keep abusing BLP! in this manner, people will simply stop writing and for and reading Wikipedia. It is getting beyond a joke now, I am convinced people don't even bother to read the policy they invoke with the three magic letters. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an incredibly large continuum between "pretend it never happened" and slapping it on our front page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Come up with a BLP-compliant blurb that includes this and I'll post it when we have a winner. You can't argue your way put of BLP, which is about human dignity and reputation as much as libel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing (BBC and Telegraph) is fine for the article. But they're both reporting that the supermarket tabloid News of the World claims to have a video and promises to publish more next week. Even if everything the tabloid alleges is true (and Higgins and Mooney admit as much about the contents of the video), Higgins' claim about the video is plausible. Mooney, despite resigning, corroborates Higgins' story that they feared for their safety and just wanted to agree and get out of the country. That level of complexity can be stated in the article, but it can't be encapsulated in a ten or twenty word ITN hook, which is all many front page readers will see about Higgins. So I oppose posting.--Chaser (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing anything. The suggested blurb is accurate and BLP compliant. I am truly sorry that this site is in such a state, people can't see that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed blurb is BLP compliant, IMO. However, I am uneasy about combining the WC results with a only marginally related story. I am also uneasy about two postings back-to-back for the same sport. On the other hand, I don't know how valid it is to exclude one story based on the inclusion of another, so overall call me undecided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the logical thing to do here is apply the same rationale we would do with any criminal case and assume innocence until otherwise proven. At the moment, Higgins has been accused of taking a bribe and it likely that an investigation will follow, during which time he will more than likely be suspended. Nothing has been proven as of yet and we never normally post a criminal story until there is a definitive outcome, usually through the means of a sentence being handed out by the courts (for case in point look at the Goldman Sachs nominations of recent weeks). Thus, I would argue we should list the winner of the World Snooker Championships, as per normal and wait on Higgins until there is a definitive outcome of any case brought against him --Daviessimo (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is already suspended, and there is no suggestion he has actually fixed a match, or taken a bribe, only that he allegedly planned to. Therefore, there won't be any trial here, there is nothing actionable in that sense. That doesn't stop it being a major scandal in a world sport though. This is a matter for the WPBSA only, who will either ban, clear, or otherwise deal with Higgins. With the last major sporting scandal I am aware of being posted to ITN, Crashgate, news of that was also posted before any proceedings had taken place, and even in that, where something had actually happened, no trial took place. For the purposes of ITN, interest in this story will never be higher than right here, right now. Ignoring it, while posting the result of the final, when all sources are saying this has had just about the same effect on snooker as the Crashgate revelations did on F1, will frankly just be perverse. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but should wait on including Higgins--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support World Championship result ONLY. Regardless of BLP issues, the Higgins allegations are a) just that, allegations, b) not notable in themselves, c) only tangentially related and d) make the blurb too long. Modest Geniustalk 20:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in themselves?. It is a huge scandal in a world sport, it has totally eclisped the ongoing world final. Only tangentially related? He is the defending champion, one of only five Snooker knights, one of only four players to ever win it three times in the history of the sport. Wonders never cease with ITN tbh. I shudder to think what could be considered a more notable snooker scandal. Steve Davis decking the frail Alex Higgins when he appeared yesterday maybe? MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was knocked out in the second round, ergo he is not related to the final. He is no longer defending his title, because he has been knocked out. The Higgins story really has nothing to do with the world championship final. Notability can be argued either way (I happen to think it isn't), but the relationship to the final is clearly circumstantial and merely down to timing of the allegations. Modest Geniustalk 18:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find this assessment of yours repeated in any credible source, nobody who knows anything about this incident or the sport of snooker would believe it for a second, and it depresses me that ITN might be used to give out this totally false impression of events to the rest of the world. Barry Hearn certainly recognises that this is no mere coincidence, or that the scandal is of little notability, and he is certainly not extremely relieved that Higgins was already knocked out. We are after all dealing with allegations of throwing matches, so pretty obviously, the absence of the defending champion is not unimportant, even if we were to sit here and pretend that this does not have wider ramifications for, and is not totally bound up in, the credibility and standing of the sport, from this final onwards. The true irony, which goes to the heart of the impact of the scandal and which is why Barry Hearn is having a heart attack right now, is precisely because the final this year was a total non-event, and this scandal threatens to destroy his masterplan for fixing that. The only way ITN could possibly ignore this news, while still posting the result of the final, is if it pretended it really was just a sports ticker. Everybody here knows that isn't what it is supposed to be (not least because it is as slow as hell in even fulfilling even that basic function). MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course the release of the footage was timed to attract the maximum possible attention - that's journalism. And yes, it's resulted in a lot of media attention which has mostly been diverted from the final. That doesn't mean the story is intrinsically related - as I mentioned, it's down to the timing of the allegations. I never suggested the timing was coincidental - it clearly was not. Modest Geniustalk 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't related btw, how come the BBC are beginning each session of their coverage of this final with a rundown of the situation, and have Higgin's statement and Hearn's interview on a running loop for these bits? MickMacNee (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well while you're arguing that, Mick, the article still needs work- it has barely any prose and needs a reasonable lead section before I'd consider posting it in any blurb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't look at me. I think that it would be a hundred times worse for Wikipedia to post the result of the final and ignore the elephant in the room, so I'm not going to update it myself, if that's all right with my volunteer collegues.... MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting Higgins allegations per Modest Genius. --Elekhh (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not extraordinary in the slightest. There have only been about 6 Aussie players in the final stages in 70 years and over 90% of players since 1980 have been UK nationals. Leaky Caldron 20:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That enough? I added some more sentences and an Australian source. Be careful, there seems to be an edit war going on judging by the page history. ;) --candle•wicke 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the article from a list of facts to prose, Candlewicke expanded it a bit. I'll come back to it and see if there is anything to add in another 15 or so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. It's still not perfect, but I'll post it. Anyone got a good elephant pic to put up with it to make Mick happy? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a crying one (not really, but it looks like it). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a white one from Thailand. --candle•wicke 02:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty lame - looks like it was the first edit after you left actually. Based on the day long edit war, it looks like a certain someone has WP:OWN issues with this article (and the 2009 one as well). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've watchlisted the article and I will block any edit warrior while it's on ITN. I've made this clear to the two editors I could see warring as well. Nice elephant, btw! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done guys. Brilliant Elephant pictures. Very apt, seeing that yesterday, in the morning sports bulletins the scandal was covered first, with the final result being reported as a footnote, and by the evening it wasn't even being reported at all while the scandal still made top billing. Today, nothing but the scandal. Front page, middle pages, back pages. Still, whatever you guys use to figure out significance, I'm sure it works most of the time.... MickMacNee (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. The best improvement someone here thought to make was add that Robertson's mother had travelled from Australia and that his g/f was pregnant so couldn't attend. Let's hope we get a bit more sensible consideration when the outcome of the disciplinary investigation is published sometime in the next 2-4 weeks. Leaky Caldron 12:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. How many successful car bombs do not get posted. I don't care that it's NY--78.2.17.149 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC) It's me--DAI (Δ) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support Really, people? Yeah, we don't post many successful car bombs, primarily because they happen in places where car bombings are more common, and hence they do not make it much into the news. But, this is the top story on nearly every major news outlet in the world. Yes, that may be because this is New York and not Baghdad, but that's the point; a thwarted car bombing in the middle of New York City is news, while a thwarted car bombing in Baghdad is not. That's how news works; if it's unusual given the circumstances, it's news -- save the systematic bias card for another time. Open your newspaper. Visit your favorite news site. This is very much in the news and we have a decent article on this; this ought to be a no-brainer. -- tariqabjotu 13:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I'll support. I don't think we should make a habit of posting this kind of item, but a car bomb in New York is pretty exceptional. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I don't want to set a precedent of reporting failed attempts, but the attention this is getting is undeniable. Weak support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This bomb, which is rather being characterized as an incendiary device, was so small I think that too becomes an argument for not posting this. __meco (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Support. Car bombs in the Western world is a very rare and noteworthy event. Thue | talk 13:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not very rare, it's just that they aren't usually acts of "terrorism". __meco (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Happens more often in targeted killings. But, it's quite obvious this was not a targeted killing whether it's technically "terrorism" or not; and for that reason, this type of incident, whatever you want to call it, is rare. -- tariqabjotu 13:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the level of international press coverage this is getting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As horribly systemic the bias here is, I support due to the obvious rarity of this event, even if unsuccessful. That and it's covered pretty widely. f o x 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! There's no consensus to post! __meco (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my mind and Support, I see the point from the supporting arguments, especially if similar attacks have been posted before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Granted, another few supports would have been nice- hence my comment above, but there is a majority and there doens;t seem to be a strong argument against posting it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, the consensus is established, however, I think this headline sticks out like a sore thumb, looking like a local interest item. I also think that maybe we're feeding into the mainstream news media hysteria about "the terrorism monster". __meco (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that was my initial argument for not posting it, but as similar stuff has been posted before and the media does get obsessed about it so its difficult to ignore :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but let the previous headline slide off in ordinary fashion. __meco (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait until the deal has finally been approved by the eurozone governments, which should be around the end of the week. Physchim62(talk) 20:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A major pipe rupture in Weston, Massachusetts leaves up to 2 million people in the Greater Boston area without drinkable tap water for 59 hours. (Boston Globe)
The two fight later (9 pm EDT, 0100 UTC tomorrow) but we should probably start discussing it now. These are easily two of the three best fighters in the world. But technically this isn't a title fight (Mosley would lose his welterweight title with a defeat, but Mayweather can't win it). ~DCTalk To Me 14:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before saying that this is a fight between 2 African Americans, judging by the "International broadcasting" section this seems pretty well-followed elsewhere. Being shown on free TV in Mexico, China, and the Philippines, the latter two in the late morning hours. –Howard the Duck 17:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't a title fight, then I oppose. --PlasmaTwa2 21:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not a title fight (even if it's supposed to be a good one!) f o x 22:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh oh no, here we go again we restrictive thinking that "not a title fight = not news". We had this mistake with the Pacquiao-De La Hoya fight we shouldn't do that again. If it helps, in most rankings (such as the The Ring's and BBC's), the two boxers are ranked 2nd and 3rd. –Howard the Duck 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Oppose not even a title fight! In no way is this internationally significant. Reywas92Talk 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was broadcast in at least 29 countries, and in the news in even more. How does that translate into no international interest. If the "most highly anticipated welterweight matchup since ... 1981"[9] can't make ITN, than what fight can? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on Pay-Per-View in the US. There is a heck of a lot of news more important than this. Reywas92Talk 17:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is, or is not, important is a matter of opinion. Saying this is not important doesn't make it so. What is not in doubt, is that the event was covered in a lot more places than the USA. In fact, it was a much bigger deal in several other countries than in the USA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Banning the championship results of entire world sports from ITN, while posting just interesting matches like this for others, is not a sustainable position for ITN. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... by this thinking, strawweight title fights have a bigger chance of being posted at ITN. Titles don't matter in boxing anyway... now they're into money and the two boxers split up the US$25 million prize pot. –Howard the Duck 15:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, ITN is rapidly becoming the standing contradiction to NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia's very own news ticker, even though a ticker format would actually allow this irrelevent behemoth of a section to be evicted and allow the Main Page real estate to be better used for the beneift of actual content writers and encycolpoedic content readers, rather than the improper self-serving risk-reward mechanism which means Wikinews, now and forever, sucks balls, and debates as to whether Gillian Duffy was involved in a notable incident this week as total contradictory farce. You won't find me disagreeing with the idea that ITN/C's stock and trade is pure random POV btw. This week it will be money, next week it will be titles, a week later it will be television subscribers, and all day everyday it is page views or not page not views, depending on where the story comes from. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's one sport that is managed differently it's boxing. And supporters will dig up any reasoning to convince the people here. We don't have to be limited to such pseudo-rules (such as not a title fight = automatical ITN denial). –Howard the Duck 16:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a decent reason that this non-title fight is so significant, other than 'its in the news', which as everyone knows, is bizarrely not the criteria for In The News, then it of course is going to apply to other fights as well, lending itself to some sort of sensible rule change which recognises boxing's unique features, rather than just justifying it by effectively saying, IAR means ITN/C can just be random bollocks all day every day, which runs into the problem that only the supporters are the people that think that the nomination succeeding represents the goal of IAR, improving the pedia. Quite obviously that is a paradox, but a common one when IAR is invoked. IAR is as misunderstood as BLP nowadays tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has international interest? I don't see the criteria that a championship must be disputed. The two boxers are ranked numbers 2 and 3 in almost all pound-for-pound rankings (there is no universal ranking). This is not tennis where Federer and Nadal (or Djokovic) can play each other multiple times a year -- boxers only face each other at most thrice in their careers, and "trilogies" are rare. Plus, not all of those ranked are guaranteed to face each other at least once due to age, weight division (it'll be unfair for Bernard Hopkins to face... say Celestino Caballero), who handles them and the different sanctioning authorities. –Howard the Duck 17:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for rule changes, the fights that have the most press nowadays always involve anyone who is in the top 3 of the pound-for-pound rankings, whether it is a title fight or not. Examples are the Pacquiao fights (including his ITN-snubbed fight vs. De La Hoya) and the also ITN-snubbed Mayweather-Marquez fight. Both fights didn't have title belts on the line but drew a lot more attention than say a world championship fight for bantamweights. –Howard the Duck 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it looks like being simply 'in the news'. Your arguments aren't convincing me that posting this serves anybody who isn't already a boxing fanatic, and therefore knows all about the fight already. That is not international significance in ITN terms, it is turning the Main Page into a news ticker for boxing fans. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way boxers are ranked 2nd and 3rd, is throught the title system? Big money fights? That doesn't translate to anything tbh. A movie can smash all box office records and its still touch and go whether it gets posted, so I don't think merely being a widely watched critically acclaimed big money earning film would cut it at ITN/C. Which is pretty much all this fight is by comparison. MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you measure international interest significance? Note that previously, you can only satisfy one criteria (international significance or interest) and you're good to go. When I read the new criteria, it basically says, you'd just have to obtain consensus. –Howard the Duck 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By proving that not just boxing fans took notice of the fight maybe? Should be easy if it eclipses or is at least equal to title fights of the same class, in importance. Something, anything, that does not resemble an argument that routinely fails for other listings, frequently, meaning that this looks for all the world like just another POV listing. Reviewing above, nearly every argument presented has failed before for other listings, and the reduced importance of title fights in boxing is not enough to explain that away, especially given other world championships in other sports are simply banned, and as said, this model patently wouldn't even translate to a different field like movies on current working practices. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By hyperbole? Let's see. I dunno if the Philippines is just a boxing-crazed nation, but it was shown live late morning to early afternoon on one of the largest TV networks in the country, preempting all programming until the fight has ended (actually it's delayed by an hour since they'd have to make way for a gazillion ads). It's safe bet, the network won't risk doing that if only boxing fans will watch. Same case in Mexico.
Sports are banned? Not if something truly happens. or almost happens. Ask Butler fans. –Howard the Duck 19:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think its well known the Phillipines love their boxing, no? And yes, 'it was on this network in this country that loves it', was an argument that failed for the banned sport I'm thinking of. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it all boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS??? What's next, discounting British interest in snooker because it is popular there? –Howard the Duck 02:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF, no "entire world sport" has been "banned" from ITN. Plus, boxing is one of the most internationally participated in sports there is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I want you to be absolutely sure of your facts before making such statements. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google News collected ~99 articles about this fight in Venezuela alone. That has to mean something, considering there were no Venezuelans in the entire card. –Howard the Duck 16:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76 different countries have earned an Olympic medal in boxing. If that isn't strong evidence that the sport is international, I don't know what is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christ. The claim I was questioning was of course not that boxing is not a major international sport. Jesus wept. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not a mind reader. Is this what you were looking for? If you are referring to the "banned" comment, yes I am quite sure no sport - or anything else - has been banned from ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it a little weird that we post a non-title fight when we have items like the KHL below that had enough support and yet were not posted. And I'm pretty sure pro wrestling (Wrestlemania) was shot down for itn pretty damn fast, so if you are looking for a ban, it's pretty much right there. --PlasmaTwa2 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I supported both KHL and IPL (I suppose the "banned" comment is referred to one of those). They both were slightly net support, but neither got posted. Those who opposed mostly did so on the basis of level of competition. That isn't a valid argument here. Title or not, this was the biggest fight of the year and will likely remain that way. As explained, titles aren't currently very important in boxing. "Other stuff" is also a poor argument to begin with - mistakes are naturally made and shouldn't be used to justify further mistakes. And its not like the KHL championship was the world's 2nd best vs. 3rd best teams anyway, so comparison is invalid. Additionally, the only reason it wasn't a "title fight" is because Mayweather said he wasn't interested in claiming Mosley's title.
Finally, keep in mind that the level of update also matters. IPL and KHL were both minor updates to the article (i.e. minimal new prose added). This update was much more extensive than either of those. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"biggest fight of the year"? I can think of two earlier fights this year that have also been described as this, and they were title fights, and the title was important. Arguments of the form "biggest XYZ of the year" are never going to suffice as an argument for ITN, if it wants to be taken seriously as a process. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In today's alphabet soup world of boxing, title fights are not as significant as they once were. Truthsort (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Kentucky Derby is today. Once results are known and the article is updated with sufficient prose, I feel strongly that it should be posted. The Derby is the most prestigious annual horse race in the world. (If you doubt that, check this unofficial search - everything is about the Derby). The phrase "Kentucky Derby" gets 14,000-20,000 news hits per year (Based on the last 10 years). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTriple Crown is on ITNR, but there hasn't been one since 1978. This should be there as well. Grsz11 14:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why isn't this on ITNR already? It gets more attention than about half the sports items on there already. The other two triple crown races (Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes) should be on there too. ~DCTalk To Me 14:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really see why three American horseraces should go on ITN/R, I'm not opposed to one of them going on though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They get a lot of coverage. I'd have no problem with other ones being added, but I'm not sure how popular the sport is elsewhere. ~DCTalk To Me 15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, while I support the Kentucky Derby,in the hierarchy of the Triple Crown, it's the least important of the three. I guess I'm indifferent to the others, though the Belmont would be a shoe-in if it results in a Triple Crown. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Grand National was nominated earlier this month and the discussion that it prompted seemed to just peter out. I would support the listing and inclusion of the Kentucky Derby (US) on ITNR along with the Grand National (UK) and Melbourne Cup (Aus), all of which are significant cultural events within their countries of origin. That would be three horse racing events on ITNR and even though they may not be the most prestigious they are the ones which are most widely followed by non horse racing enthusiasts. Any others can be considered as and when they are nominated. Regarding the Triple Crown, I presume that refers to any of the triple crowns as opposed to just the US one. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daviessimo's arguments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support what Daviessimo said. I don't know anything about the Kentucky Derby but have heard of the Grand National. --candle•wicke 19:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Davissimo, with the caveat that we may struggle to get decent articles for all of these (how much is there to say about a horse race anyway, except the runners, riders, and finishing order?). Modest Geniustalk 20:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm rather late, but I believe the previous ITN/R decision was not to put up an item about this unless the whole Triple Crown was won and was applied to the previous 2 Kentucky Derbies, if I can remember correctly. SpencerT♦Nominate! 03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mogadishu blasts kill at least 39
39 dead and 70 injured in twin bomb attacks near a mosque in Mogadishu, Somalia. AP. Not sure if there's an article anywhere just yet. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is created/updated. Not sure if Battle of Mogadishu (2010) is related or not (was in a hurry and didn't have time to check). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article, while not finished, isn't a one-sentence stub any longer. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let my posting it discourage you from working on it. The fact that Wikipedia articles are continuously in progress is an intergral part of the project, something newcomers will see when they see it changing before their eyes. Just drop a note at WP:ERRORS if something in the ITN hook needs updating. Thanks for your hard work on this one.--Chaser (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(BBC) Up to half a million are expected to attend Maoist demonstrations in Nepal in an attempt to get the government to stand down.
(BBC) In Greece thousands are expected to protest against the government's austerity plans.
Obviously more info will be available as they get underway. I will keep an eye out for articles on them - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Oppose, a random talkshow host? Nah. f o x 09:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than a random talkshow host. He is said to be the person who revolutionized Irish radio. He was considered to be an 'institution'. His programme broke many taboos and was respected by many. Chris Evans from the BBC expressed sadness along with the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) and President of Ireland. (If anyone cares, there is a substantial update) — Cargoking talk 11:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support since there is a more than substantial update and the opposition's arguments are, with all due respect in this case, unconvincing. His death apparently brought an entire country "to a standstill". Also, the book of condolence signed by hundreds of people on day one alone, reactions from politicians, including current and former heads of state and government. International coverage, for example, in The Vancouver Sun, The Guardian, Australia's Herald Sun, Times of Malta and The Daily Telegraph. It is my belief that this is the death of someone who had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region and was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such (even by broadcasters outside his own country). This person was in the middle of a highly successful decades-long career on national radio, appealed to several generations, had presented their last show less than 24 hours before their death and was not expected to retire any time soon. At the very least they are not "a random talkshow host" if the reaction is anything to go by. But I don't expect this to lead anywhere. --candle•wicke 19:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've made it weak. I still don't believe he's a big enough loss to warrant inclusion. f o x 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, I just don't see the significance. Modest Geniustalk 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature. The bill won't become law until the Senate passes it (which is seen as highly likely,, but you never know). Will support when it actually becomes law. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per above. --yousaf465' 09:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goldman Sachs
I hesitate to nominate this since an ill-timed "renomination" took place yesterday; however, there has now been a real development, so I thought I'd throw it out there...
In the original discussion a significant portion of the opposition was based on it being a civil case only. That is no longer the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I'm a lot less averse to the idea now that there's a criminal case, but I'd be inclined to wait fir the outcome of any litigation. That said, I'm not a huge fan of that rule and this could take years to conclude and is news now. All things considered, neutral for the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless/until there's a conviction. Modest Geniustalk 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoJ can investigate anything; I'd be likely to support an indictment in this case, but not just the opening of a probe. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a huge story regardless of whether a conviction happens or not.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm inclined to agree with Brad- an investigation doesn't mean much, but I could get behind posting an indictment despite the convention for only posting the results of litigation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most ITN people understand the way this works. The major impact comes when the story first breaks, which in this case was last week with the SEC lawsuit. Today's news from the Justice Department, while significant, is not the key thing -- I believe the US attorney's office said they always review high-profile cases like this to see if it falls under their jurisdiction. (Although if it gives us reason to finally put the Goldman thing up, so much the better.) There's probably not going to be a conviction. Goldman is probably going to come to a settlement with the SEC in which it will pay a fine and probably make no admission of wrongdoing. That will have far less of an impact on the markets and on government than last week's announcement of the SEC lawsuit. It was the charges that led to the evaporation of billions of dollars in market value and that got Congress all worked up. That's why pretty much the entire world media made it such a huge story and why Goldman executives were testifying to Congress on live TV the other day. When the settlement comes, it will be "old news" and probably not have nearly the same impact. We should have these things on ITN when the break (assuming there's quality Wikipedia content to link to), because that's when people will be coming to Wikipedia searching for information on the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with HJM and Brad on this. I think our rules for court cases are a bit too strict, and I could support posting the notice of a formal indictment, but a simple "police" invesigation is not enough. Goldman Sachs is not a living person, so BLP doesn't strictly apply, but the presumption of innocence in criminal prceedings is not there for nothing! Physchim62(talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the point here is NOT that Goldman Sachs is guilty or innocent. the reason i think it belongs because it meets WP:ITN & is a very significant 'news' story 'widely' reported by world media and likely to be of interest to readers 'all over the world'. I tried to actually look up how widely this was reported and here is what I came up
Oppose We never highlight criminal cases unless a verdict has been reached. HonouraryMix (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HonouraryMix and the fact that it's just opened. We can't set the precedent of putting every opened case up. f o x 09:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the many users above who have stated that we only list verdicts on ITN and not charges --Daviessimo (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no idea where the 'we only post verdicts' thing is coming from, a far as I'm concerned, we post it when it's in the news, which seems to be right now. Random89 18:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expo 2010 Shanghai China
Expo 2010 Shanghai China. Every significant news agency will show the expo. This picture is good for the main page of en.wikipedia.org . --Dialogue.zh (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have this item down below with good enough support.--yousaf465' 07:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your picture from this page. It is copyrighted and fair use is only allowed in articles (and then in a limited set of circumstances) - Dumelow (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spinoloricus cinzia
Scientists discover Spinoloricus cinzia, the first animal species to be named that does not require oxygen at any point during its life. SourceRabbit Seasoning (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Interesting discovery, though the article could use a little work- another paragraph or two would be nice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unfortunately the discovery was announced back on April 9, so its too stale to post at this point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more info to the article. I just found out about this subject today, and I do hope that the lateness of my nomination does not prevent it from being included. Rabbit Seasoning (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ITN items go up in reverse chronological order. Unfortunately this item is older than the oldest one currently on the template, so can't go up. I would encourage you to take it to WP:DYK though. Modest Geniustalk 20:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you can add another 1,249 characters of prose, it will work well as a DYK hook, but it is a little too stale for ITN at this point, sorry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nom: article will need a bit of work (which I'll do tomorrow if no one else does it first), but this appears to be a highly significant drug approval. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support its the first cancer vaccine approved by the FDA.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Maybe not as significant as DCA, but a major step forward in cancer research approval. ~AH1(TCU) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article is updated and ready to go. The Wall Street Journal says "The approval of Provenge is a dramatic development in the fight against cancer and could pave the way for a host of similar therapies" [29] --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above, this is a big step forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a treatment that costs 93,000 USD and extends someone's life four months? Calling this a vaccine is a little strange- not in a clinical sense- but in the traditional layman's understanding of a treatment that prevents disease. It's not the "first cancer vaccine", just the first of its type, and in general, I'm against putting commercial stories such as this on the main page- it serves to give even more free publicity to the company. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it really costs $100k and only extends people's life by 4 months its not that impressive or value for money for anyone but the very rich. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the cost is very relevant. The first of anything is usually very expensive, and many existing cancer treatments cost in excess of 10,000 per month, so the cost is not excessively out of line with existing treatments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this really is the first commercially available cancer vaccine. the theoretical concept that it may be possible to immunize your body against cancer has been around for a hundred years. this is the first time it has been shown to work. hopefully it will lead to new category of cancer therapeutics. to put the survival statistics in perspective few treatments for advanced cancer have been shown to prolong life by 4 months on the average. the cost though stunning for non US readers is par for the course in US. would we have rejected an ITN item in 1903 about Wright Flyer just because it flew 125 feet in its first flight ?--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except to most non-technical readers, Gardasil was the first. (Yes, I know, not really, it's an HPV vaccine not a cancer one. But to the average layman...) --Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gardasil is a vaccine to prevent a viral infection (HPV) which in some cases may lead to cancer. Hepatitis B vaccine was the first vaccine against a virus which can cause cancer Hepatocellular carcinoma. BTW Gardasil has not been proven to prolong survival by even one minute.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fortunately, nobody was killed in this attack. Also, these seem to happen every week in China. ~DCTalk To Me 19:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds serious enough despite the lack of death. --candle•wicke 20:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if there were any death, the event is not notable beyond novelty. FixmanPraise me 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis that there have been three attacks of a similar nature in the space of a week (another one occurring this morning [30]) --Daviessimo (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The one of these to post would have been the eight deaths last month; these are too common and too individually-insignificant at this point. The only thing that might work at the point would be something like 2010 school stabbings in the People's Republic of China. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support - this is the largest world's fair, possibly event, in history. The opening ceremony will happen in a few hours. Many heads of states will be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperspacing (talk • contribs)
Support - although I believe it doesn't actually open until tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happens 30 Apr., which is today in the PRC. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it doesn't open at midnight :-p --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems like a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This should be in ITN/R. Roast chicken costs 1160 Yuan each! ~AH1(TCU) 23:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this should be a regular posting. For those who are interested: big ones like the this universal expo in Shanghai are held every 5 years. A smaller specialized expo is held in between those five years. by Hyperspacing
Support Can't say more.--yousaf465' 02:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The event doesn't officially open until Friday night in China (several hours from now). As such, lets hold off on posting "Expo 2010 opens" until it actually does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant event so definitely ITN worthy, although I agree with Thaddeus that we should wait until it officially opens before we post it --Daviessimo (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The opening ceremony has begun. May I suggest this photo of the Expo Axis main building as a front page picture? Arsonal (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is good for the front page.--Dialogue.zh (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the item. The Expo 2010 article has not been updated at all; it still looks like the event will be happening in the future, even in the "Opening ceremony" section. -- tariqabjotu 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I updated the article and Tariqabjotu re-added the item. Cenarium (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oil slick in Gulf of Mexico
The US Coastguard has started a "controlled burning" of an oil slick almost the size of Jamaica in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion.(BBC)
I know we featured the original incident, but this seems a highly unusual event, it's being compared to the fires in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and is attracting a lot of media attention not just in the US. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. especially since the US military seems to have been called in to help.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just coming across that Gov. Jindal has declared a state of emergency in Louisiana, and that the spill may reach land Friday evening. SupportBradjamesbrown (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've seen the US Coast Guard describe it as the largest oil containment effort they've ever undertaken. (Not yet, the largest spill by number of gallons, but it covers a huge swath of ocean.) Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, significant spill and the article looks good. Modest Geniustalk 19:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Perhaps somehow include the US Military involvement in the feed, and perhaps the fact that the leak is still uncontrolled? I'm not sure how long is too long for these things, these are just thoughts. It should go up in some form regardless.Aalox (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SWAT teams have been sent in. The spill is five times larger than previously thought and could take months to cap off completely. A hurricane in a few months' time could seriously damage the surrounding areas with oil. ~AH1(TCU) 23:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Surprised this isn't up already. That blob is now bigger than Rhode Island. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posted While I think the inclusion of the size of the spill looks a bit unwieldy on ITN, I think it's extremely important to the story; hence, I put it in. -- tariqabjotu 00:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that size is correct, actually. The Telegraph says, "The slick is estimated to cover an area 105 miles by 45 miles, or 4700 square miles." That would be true if the slick were a rectangle, but it's not. The Wall Street Journal and CNN are saying 600 square miles (actually not as big as Rhode Island). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links? On what date? Because that's a significant difference. Even if it's not taking up the full 105 mi by 45 mi area, 600 sq miles is practically nothing of that. A lot of sources also mention "almost the size of Jamaica", which is much closer to 4700 sq. mi. -- tariqabjotu 00:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CNN: "Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Thursday declared a state of emergency ahead of the oil slick's arrival, warning it covered as much as 600 square miles of water."
Wall Street Journal (from 7:51 p.m. Eastern tonight): "The slick spans about 600 square miles."
If you look at photos (as in the WSJ article) you can see the slick takes up only a small portion of the 105 mile by 45 mile "rectangle" you would draw from its greatest north-south and east-west distances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bit should imo be reworded to make mention of the oil reaching the coast, controlled burning is not that significant. Suggestion: "The oil spill resulting from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico reaches Louisiana coast." Cenarium (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection here if you want to go ahead and do it- the blurb's probably a little outdated now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the news toolbox
