*Belated '''support''' per Eraserhead1's use of multiple international front page sources and the biggest such event in that country since the Iraq War plus HJ Mitchell's point about the six-figure numbers which seem to be used by at least two different sources (''The Guardian'' and ''The Daily Telegraph''). --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|•]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
*Belated '''support''' per Eraserhead1's use of multiple international front page sources and the biggest such event in that country since the Iraq War plus HJ Mitchell's point about the six-figure numbers which seem to be used by at least two different sources (''The Guardian'' and ''The Daily Telegraph''). --<font face="serif">[[User: Candlewicke|<span style="color:red">can</span>]][[User:Candlewicke/List of signatories|<span style="color:black">dle</span>]][[WP:ITN/C|•]][[User talk:Candlewicke|<span style="color:green">wicke</span>]]</font> 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' London is a major world hub, and although these numbers aren't overwhelming, I think we could afford this event a spot as part of the continuing protests against the austerity measures in the UK. The article also is in a decent state and worthy of highlighting. __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' London is a major world hub, and although these numbers aren't overwhelming, I think we could afford this event a spot as part of the continuing protests against the austerity measures in the UK. The article also is in a decent state and worthy of highlighting. __[[User:Meco|meco]] ([[User talk:Meco|talk]]) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' we did post the wisconsin ones after all. [[User:WhiteKongMan|WhiteKongMan]] ([[User talk:WhiteKongMan|talk]]) 03:33, 27 March 2011 (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).
Libyan authorities detain and forcibly drive Iman al-Obeidi to an unknown location, declaring her "possibly mentally challenged", after she publicly accuses Muammar Gaddafi's troops of gang-raping her. (Associated Press)
Well, it is broadcast to 200 countries and 292 million households. Perhaps not as notable as a US politician dying after suffering from cancer for many years, but significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is an annual event. Unless something particularly out of the ordinary occurs this time round, I can't see a reason for including it. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of funny considering we have a "Canada" item on the main page which, clearly, only Canada cares about! To be fair, the race is broadcast to hundreds of millions, but it is a niche event, albeit of minor worldwide interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly because it's a regular event featuring teams with little general relevance beyond the Alumni of the Universities, but mostly because the wrong side won this time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not. But seriously, what's the over/under on how many times it's non-inclusion this year is referenced when the NCAA Championship game is nominated next week? I put it a 4.5 WhiteKongMan (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say she was particularly well known, however she was the first female major US party vice presidential candidate, and her article is a GA.Support due to her article being a GA, and the vice presidential thing being reasonably notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All a bit tenuous though isn't it? "the first female major party US vice presidential candidate" "major" party, "vice" president, "candidate", who died after being ill for some years. Not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Major party means republicans or democrats, the two parties who actually matter in US politics. And I don't believe there have been any female US vice presidents or female presidents, so actually its not as minor as it might seem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. The article should be updated to include information about the death's impact (e.g. statements by prominent politicians). —David Levy17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support based on the GA status, pending a good update. I agree with TRM's concerns about her real significance. Aside from her VP nomination, the highest position she held was a House Representative. On the whole she doesn't seem all that notable but the first woman VP candidate did seem like a big deal at the time as I remember.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only speculating but from what I've read, her nomination came as a bit of a shock to her, and it was, overall, pretty unsuccessful. It may mean a lot to some folks in the US who remember this at the time, but it's really not ITN-material, despite the fact it's a decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest there is always someone who did it first in some specific way. Thats a lot of deaths on ITN. but i will stay neutral as i dont want some anti-american misconception to start. -- Ashish-g5520:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Never held high elective office; has been out of public life for some time; death has little to no impact on current events; worldwide media coverage is not overwhelming. If wikipedia had existed for the last 30 years, she would never have done anything to make it onto ITN, which suggests that she shouldn't in her death. The fact that the article is a GA helps but in my view that shouldn't overcome the need to avoid an ITN post every single time a famous person dies. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polar bear, perhaps, cricket, I doubt it. Cricket affects hundreds of millions of people. The death of a US politician who never made the office she was suddenly nominated for 30 years ago doesn't, and isn't ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
kinda getting tired of people comparing deaths to polar bear for inclusion. we dont post animal deaths everyday and the topic at the time of posting had consensus. just because that got posted we can not post every death afterwards since clearly the next one is more important. -- Ashish-g5521:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, because there must be thousands of these first woman/ethnic minority/insert discriminated-against group of your choice to be nominated for something important and if we posted all their deaths, we'd have nothing else on ITN. If she had actually been the first female VP, I'd probably support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have an interesting recent parallel, in another failed vice-presidential candidate who died this year, Sargent Shriver. His death was posted, but more on the basis of the foundation of the Peace Corps: indeed, his candidature was not mentioned in ITN/C. Lloyd Bentsen and Thomas Eagleton have also died during the lifespan of the ITN feature, and these deaths were not even proposed. ITN has no policy of positive discrimination: Ferraro should not be posted simply because she had more X chromosomes than other unsuccessful candidates. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure that Thomas Eagleton's death was mentioned on the first page of March 5's New York Times. If Ferraro isn't on A1 of either The Times or the WaPo, I'll eat my figurative hat. NW(Talk)23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support major figure in U.S. politics, important for trailblazing status in the face of the wide expanse of history of gender discrimination. It isn't merely the number of X-chromosomes she has, its that the presense of the extra X-chromosome was considered highly significant by the thousands of years when women were considered inferior to men. Men made the extra X-chromosome significant by using it as a means to discriminate against women for all that time. --Jayron3223:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Rambling Man. The deaths of U.S. political figures are not lacking in their presence in the ITN section. Are candidates for vice positions now to be included as well? I would understand if it was Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama or any of the other presidents of that country if they're still alive (or even Hillary Rodham Clinton if there must be a woman) but this person doesn't seem to be as significant despite the sadness that has no doubt been caused by her death. --candle•wicke01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ferraro's candidacy was a major event in terms of women in public life in America. To this day, she remains the only woman on a major-party presidential ticket. And it's a quality article, which is the whole point of ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. She may have been important in the context of U.S. political history, but she made not much impression on the global public. __meco (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protests over UK governmental cuts are taking place today in London - up to 400 thousand people are attending Telegraph, MSNBC. Reuters/MSNBC are saying up to 250 000 people are attending so I've gone for that in the blurb. There doesn't yet appear to be an article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has appeared but categorised as a "riot" and "anarchism", which I'm not sure about at all. Yes, it's a significant number of people, including a "speech" from the leader of the opposition Ed Milliband, but neutral at the moment until the article is improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pure domestic politics. Trade unions protest against job losses? Protestors break windows? In other news.....polar bear bites man. And let's be accurate - [3]The Telegraph states that there are 'reports' of over 400,000, whereas when it has to put it's own reliability on the line, it's " tens of thousands". MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of any views my assistant has after participating, I'm going to oppose based on the WP:ITN rules. It's a bit too local to the UK and it is hardly out of the ordinary for the public sector unions to seek to protest against public sector cuts. It was a well-planned demonstration; it happened; it got a good attendance; but it's not a major world event. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given its been covered by international sources including Al Jazeera, Sydney Morning Herald, Xinhua, CNN who all covered it on their front page I don't think the "too local" argument is legitimate. Now sure if you want to make it about the boat race or the death of Geraldine Ferraro, fair play. Neither of those stories have made the front page internationally. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff multiple decent sources are stating that there were definitely 250,000 people on the march. A quarter of a million people taking to the streets is significant enough for ITN wherever it occurs, but only the organisers seem to be citing six-figure numbers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I suggest that an item beginning with an abbreviation unlikely to be known by anyone outside the country is poorly titled? How about a more universally understandable name for use in this global encyclopaedia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's just been changed to TUC Anti-cuts protests in London. How is that better? What's a TUC? What cuts? By whom? Boy, we really need better, more globally oriented headline writers here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As backed up in the article the Metropolitan Police, BBC and New York Times have both publicly stated the 250k figure, and the Guardian and Telegraph have both stated the higher 400k figure in their reports. Therefore marking [Ready] due to supports above and the fact that "too local" is a very weak argument given the worldwide high-profile coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, despite it having two opposes and just three supports (including the nominator), it's now "ready" for main page? Wow. And I worried about Featured lists on the mainpage without a week of updates... And I'm also not comfortable with a nominator proposing that his own nomination is "ready" for main page, that should be down to someone else.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three opposes one is clearly very weak saying ITN is not PITN, and the other two claim it is "too local" which given the worldwide media coverage and high turnout mean they are both very weak arguments. I do accept that as nominator it was inappropriate to mark as [Ready] so I apologise for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't and it wasn't nominated, but I wish we had posted it. We are currently posting a lot more stuff than we were when the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was on the front pages. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked this ready for posting. I think there's a consensus to post, especially since we do have global coverage nullifying the "too local" claims and have multiple RS backing up the supposed size of the protests, which was the other concern. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belated support per Eraserhead1's use of multiple international front page sources and the biggest such event in that country since the Iraq War plus HJ Mitchell's point about the six-figure numbers which seem to be used by at least two different sources (The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph). --candle•wicke01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support London is a major world hub, and although these numbers aren't overwhelming, I think we could afford this event a spot as part of the continuing protests against the austerity measures in the UK. The article also is in a decent state and worthy of highlighting. __meco (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This puts the predates those confirmed cases that were almost contemporary to the site. They were older but could have a another contemporary culture and close enough to not really indicate much. Those were found to have dates ranging from 10-15,000 . This places it over 15-17500 yeas ago much more than those. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section under "other sites" that outlines the findings. It's also included in the section above that in a bullet list. RxS (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is inappropriate because evidence for Pre-Clovis peoples in the Americas has been around for decades (some of it was later discredited). The idea that there was a Pre-Clovis culture(s) is not new, the evidence for it is not accepted by everyone in the field, and only the accumulation of a lot of evidence followed by a lot of discussion and debate will lead to general acceptance that the evidence is valid. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be accepted by everyone to be in the news. The article is in good shape and it's getting wide coverage. RxS (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll from the 2011 Burma earthquake near the Thailand border reaches at least 75 with the potential for "many more casualties" as dozens of buildings are destroyed. (BBC)(Xinhua)
Delroy Grant, a 53-year-old London taxi driver who was found guilty on a total of 29 charges including indecent assault, burglary and rape committed against 10 elderly people between 1992 and 2009, is sentenced to life imprisonment at WoolwichCrown Court with a recommendation that he should serve at least 27 years in prison before parole can even be considered. (BBC)
This was the largest demonstration in Syria so far. We might want to omit the number killed, since most articles don't give a number; the 24 killed claim comes from [4]. Thue | talk18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. What's the deal with 'major' elections now? I know we post the results of any election that occurs anywhere, but for major countries (which I can agree, Canada is) what are we doing? Posting the announcements, official result and then permanent outcome? Bearing in mind it's normally months between the first two for any state, and for the many which employ some form of de-facto permanent coalition because no party can ever 'win', it can be a month for the second period too. So, what is it now? First and last, last only, or all three? Anyway, I'm sure it doesn't matter either way, I haven't 'voted' so I'm assuming this comment will be completely ignored. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support this will be the fourth election since 2000 if I recall correctly. I have a suggestion, however: it is likely today that Harper's government will be found in contempt of Parliament. I believe we shoudl mention that in the blurb as it will be the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that this will happen. --PlasmaTwa216:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this federal election is being forced by a historical non-confidence motion. Never before, has a Canadian government been defeated on a contempt for parliament non-confidence vote. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the portugal posting, but without the election as the main link (or mention at all). Again we didnt do that for Portugal. list stephen harper as the main article.Lihaas (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i digress, the fall of the government is more important than the reason/. those internatial politics are better for the page itself. Its also then a damn long blurb ;)Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update the vote of no confidence just passed. All that remains is now Harper must go to GG Johnson and ask for him to call an election. We should wait for that. --PlasmaTwa218:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support without election page Put up the fall of the government for now. Wait to mention the election until it is officially called. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib)20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The government has lost the vote, the prime minister has announced he will see the governor general to have the election called tomorrow. - Pictureprovince (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The contempt motion is the first to defeat a government in the entire Commonwealth of Nations. The election is set for May 2. ~AH1(TCU)14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above by Tariqabjotu, that article has barely been updated beyond what's stated in the blurb. As the election is now officially scheduled, I'm editing the item accordingly. —David Levy14:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Witnesses and rights activists say Syrian government security forces killed at least 15 anti-government protesters in Daraa, bringing the death toll for the week to 21. (The Australian)(BBC)
The Syrian government pledges a series of reforms in response to the unrest, including lifting the state of emergency law and allowing other political parties. (Al Jazeera)(BBC)
Thousands of people are stranded by flash flooding in Tasmania, amid record falls of rain. Roads are closed, blackouts occur and people are flown away in helicopters. (The Sydney Morning Herald)
Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear incidents
British Police find the body of 22-year-old Sian O'Callaghan in Oxfordshire, five days after she went missing in Swindon, Wiltshire. A 47-year-old man is arrested on suspicion of murder and police are also searching for the body of an unnamed missing woman who is feared to have been murdered. (BBC)
Libertas founder and chairman Declan Ganley urges Michael Lowry to resign, calling it "embarrassing for Ireland to have someone like that in Dáil Éireann". (The Irish Times)
Journalist Sarah Carey uses her column in The Irish Times to call her lies to the tribunal a "black spot on my record" amid calls for her to be immediately dismissed by the newspaper. (The Irish Times)(Irish Central)
Mr Justice Moriarty judges that Michael Lowry and his associates "went to great lengths" to cover up payments of thousands and then to mislead the tribunal. (The Irish Times)
nah thought about it and all they have blocked is google's 125 million offer. google will offer something else if this doesnt work out. there is no way they will just let their 15 million scanned books go to waste. -- Ashish-g5500:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is the impact of this? Does this mean Google cannot add any new books to Google Books, or does it have to close down? SpencerT♦C04:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Major news"? NATO (dominated by the US) takes over the command and control of the no-fly zone, previously commanded by....the US. I think I missed what the major news is? This is just one bit of news in this crisis, no more significant than the other things coming out daily. The beginning of the arms embargo and designation of the state oil company are ones I can think of that I heard about just today. If people want it on the Main Page again and this is the level of 'major news' to do that, then just do a sticky. These interminable repost discussions really are a waste of time. MickMacNee (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I kinda agree with MMN, where is the news here? The no-fly zone goes from being three NATO nations to NATO, so what? Maybe, post a sticky on the invasion of Libya? Passionless-Talk01:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Well that sure was one useful 'discussion'. May I please nominate both the beginning of the arms embargo, and the designation of the Libyan state oil company. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I first attempted to remove this item as yet another incomplete nomination from this user - offering yet again a 1 line stub article with absolutely no indication either in the article or here why it would have a hope in hell of going on the Main Page, and infact not even an explanation at all why the nomination was even made - this this is totally contrary to the very clear instructions for this page. My removal has been reverted by Eraserhead for no other reason that someone had already given it a 1 word vote in support - which is also against the rules, and was completely irrelevant as it has absolutely no chance of being posted on the Main Page in the state it was when voted on, and still doesn't now. Either people are serious about these instructions, or they aren't. Carrying on like this is simply a complete and utter waste of time for everyone concerned, and is only going to lead to me proposing more formal action against this user and anyone else who encourages this behaviour, to stop it happening (or on the other hand, to amend the ITN/C instructions to reflect reality). As plenty of people have said time and again, this is the ITN suggestions page, not the editor assistance page, and nominating entries for ITN is supposed to be a complementary activity, it is not supposed to be your sole reason for being here, certainly not if half the time you are messing other people around getting them to do your work for them, such as finding the sources to back up (or rather discredit) your nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? "Most shared"? That usually includes nonsense like "Ferret gets bus from Edinburgh to London". Where's the actual evidence that this is significant? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly, but like many countries the British aren't exactly known for their great interest in foreign affairs[citation needed] - that a story like this is top does show its significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting (and entirely speculative, unsourced and unfounded) observation. But you haven't proved anything with your original research and personal point of view. And, in case you hadn't noticed, earthquakes are "all the rage" right now, see NZ and Japan. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the citation needed you've inserted into my comment, look at the newspaper circulation figures for starters. The most popular newspapers are things like the Sun and the Daily Mail, which do an extremely poor job of covering foreign affairs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? How on earth does circulation figures of redtop newspapers equate to British not being "known for their great interest in foreign affairs"? More original research and personal point of view I think. In any case, show me how this is more significant than the ferret on the bus train with your "most shared" argument. And then show me how it's ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Wait, what? A Ferret took a bus! OMG, why isn't there an article about this!?! But seriously, I'm neutral about this so far, it seems to be on the edge of ITN worthy, once it becomes more clear how much damage was done and how many died than we can see if it is ITN worthy. Passionless-Talk19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per MickMackNee's perfect rationale, and Rambling Man. I just dislike to see this person creates 1-lines stubs and he comes here and says "Another drama." This is utterly unacceptable. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong comment. Err, did anyone even bother to read the blurb? Reports suggest 11 people killed, though many sources are still reporting one person killed. That report comes from Thailand, in Chiang Rai where the Mercalli scale shaking intensity was only IV, and more than four million people were exposed to shaking at least one level stronger. USGS PAGER data suggests an inferrable approximate death toll around 200, and a 25% chance of it being higher than 1,000. This is a significant earthquake, and in fact far more people were exposed to heavy shaking than what occurred during the 2011 Yunnan earthquake, which killed 25 and earned its rightly-deserved ITN spot. Please do not overlook an event just because it is an earthquake in a particular area of a poor country known for heroin/opium grow-ops (Golden Triangle). In fact, ITN is severely under-posted in Myanmar topics, and only covers major protests and flag changes. For example, we failed to post Cyclone Giri, the strongest storm of the 2010 N. Indian Ocean season, and which affected Myanmar (Burma) as its main target country, in addition to Bangladesh, killing 167 people. Now, Cyclone Jal which came later in the season was posted on ITN, and it claimed 116 lives in India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. Back to today's strong earthquake: this tremor affected six countries. Pay no attention to how the nominator does the nomination or words it, but instead focus on what the story actually entails. I strongly believe this is worthy of posting. ~AH1(TCU)22:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose relatively small amount of deaths for a natural disaster, in a region not of particular interest to the English wiki readers. Nergaal (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think your second reason is valid. makes no difference if english wiki readers take interest in burma or not. there is just not enough damage done by this earthquake thats all -- Ashish-g5523:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, PAGER suggests a damage figure around $100 million USD. It is also incredibly short-sighted to suggest that ITN should not post stories on any areas where the English-speaking population is low—how about Libya? By the way, the article is no longer a stub. ~AH1(TCU)23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to refute the previous rationale, that Myanmar (Burma) is of low interest to the English Wikipedia. This is also probably the deadliest earthquake event in Myanmar since the 2004 tsunami. ~AH1(TCU)00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What further updates are you looking for? More news expected to trickle in within the next few hours. ~AH1(TCU)23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but at this point the article is no where near where it needs to be included here. If events warrant it and the article gets expanded I could change my tune. RxS (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 6.8 is not all that strong; and only 10 deaths reported. Yes, it's notable, but not so overwhelmingly so that it should be highlighted "in the news". I'd guess you'd be hard pressed to find anything above the fold on this in a major world newspaper and many won't be on page one at all. Hardly "news". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The strength isn't that important, as not all strong earthquakes are devastating. What is important is the amonut of damage done and people killed(10). By this measurement this earthquake is no where near the 2010 Haitian quake(100,000+ died) or the Yushu earthquake(2,700 died). An example of a natural disaster of a similar magnitude of death and destruction in the developed world are tornados in the U.S.-which I don't believe we post. Passionless-Talk01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Devastation apparent and it is front-page on MSNBC.com as well. I am also curious how this will play out with the fighting on the Burmese side of the border in that area earlier this year.--NortyNort(Holla)09:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support when the article is ready. This is definitely a notable event - it is stronger than the Christchurch quake last month (which was 6.3), and the death toll has now increased to more than 60. That said, the article is in need of some work. 122.255.9.123 (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all the opposes were made when there was only one casualty, and given that there haven't been any opposes since, and given that the article looks pretty good now, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Although 6.8 isn't necessarily the strongest, we've put up earthquakes that caused fewer than 75 deaths before. Another concern mentioned in the discussion is article size and quality: both are now more than sufficient. SpencerT♦C04:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is how much update there can be in the article. Provided that the article is relatively short, two-sentence probably makes sense. Ready to post when there is one more sentence ;-) --Tone09:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A U.S. federal court judge dismisses part of a lawsuit brought by Lions Gate Entertainment against its shareholder, Carl Icahn, holding that Icahn had met certain statutory disclosure requirements. (Reuters)
Former Denis O'Brien employee and journalist Sarah Carey's "significant leaking" of tribunal information is judged by the tribunal to have been "irresponsible" and "not remotely justified". (The Irish Times)
Neutral for now. If this goes up, this will likely be the first of two elections called over a proposed budget. If this goes up ITN needs to be prepared to put up a blurb for the Canadian government on Friday. --PlasmaTwa200:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Jose is still the PM until the election right? And there is a president too, so I wonder how important what happened is. The upcoming election is of course ITN material though. Passionless-Talk05:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly a headline with impact in the current world economic crisis context. Ramifications (economic support, etc.) will follow today during the EU meeting Zdtrlik (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not Iraq or Pakistan, but it's certainly no New York or London. No casualties make this rather insignificant. Grsz1115:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the dozens of people killed in bombings in other contentious areas are less significant? I'm not following your logic. Grsz1115:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not what I said at all, but I don't feel like getting in to your circular argument. Besides, it's not the first since 2004. Sources says first major bombing in Jerusalem (not Israel) in four years, which is an entirely different thing. Grsz1115:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually other sources claim first bombing attack on Israeli grounds since 2004. Rocket fire from Gaza into israel is an almost every day thing. But a bombing that are placed strategicly to injure and kill people have not occured since 2004.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose these attacks happen EVERY DAY, there is a violent incident in the I-P conflict literally everyday, to highlight one is ridiculous. A month ago today 1 Palestinian was killed and 11 other civilians were injured when Israeli artillary bombarded their homes...daily events. Passionless-Talk17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OR we could look at yesterday where an Israeli attack on Gazans killed 8civilians including 3 children.UN condemns the attack
Oppose - Agree that if we start posting every attack with even a modest death toll, it will take over ITN. My question: would this go in as part of a Middle East sticky? Jusdafax17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself should be deleted for failing WP:EVENT-"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.". Passionless-Talk18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1 I searched your entire history, you have never before edited this page, your first edit is one to go against me, while you call me a liar, this breaks both WP:HOUND and WP:NPA. Passionless-Talk19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need from any of you to make this more personal than it has to be. It is obvious that there are different opinions on the matter of this article. But it cant be denied that there are people that thinks that the article places on ITN Passionless.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1 and Passionless, you have both previously been subject to a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you cannot either play nice here or ignore each other, then I am inclined to block you both and then get consensus that you be banned from discussions on those topics on this page. Whoever started this conflict (and I do not care), you are both exacerbating it. The choice is yours.--Chaser (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 8-9times as many Palestinians died in Israeli attacks yesterday with a similar number injured. To highlight an attack on Israelis while ignoring the huge number of attacks on Palestinians would of course be ridiculous. Passionless-Talk19:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound hard and cold. But the death of palestinians by Israeli rockets etc etc.. happens almost weekly. While a bombing of this kind is rare (not since 2004) in Israel. That is why this stroy trumps the Palestinian story mentioned. Sad but very true.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose As a one-off incident, it follows from TRM's logic that this isn't a strong candidate. The ramifications of it could make it very significant, so I think I and any other opposer should be prepared to review if things escalate from here, as they sadly have a habit of doing in that part of the world. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose. Even in Israel this is not an earth-shattering event. The leading commentators on Israeli television are rejecting the idea that Israel will be drawn into a new large-scale Cast-Lead-type offensive against Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. Also, shortly after the 8-o'clock news ended on Channel 2, they continued with regular programming and broadcast the penultimate episode of Big Brother. This is not generating the kind of media outrage that the Itamar attack did a week and a half ago. Reports now are that the 60-year-old woman whose body was recovered from the blast wasn't Israeli. The headlines in tomorrow's newspapers will showcase the attack; but unless the IDF mobilizes troops along the Gazan perimeter or takes out some top Hamas/Islamic Jihad commanders, the impact of the attack is minor. This is my first time participating in a discussion here.—Biosketch (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it might have been. Reports are that the explosives weighed two kilograms, much less than the 10 to 15 kilos Hamas is known to pack in its bombs. This is of course a tragedy for the woman that died and for the people recovering in the emergency rooms; still, in relative terms, it isn't that newsworthy. In fact, the rockets on Beer Sheva, despite their not having killed anyone, are a far more disturbing development. If Israel does launch a new offensive, it'll be because of the rockets from Gaza, not because of the bomb attack in the capital.—Biosketch (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I think its extremely important to act neutrally in these kind of conflicts, we didn't post an incident last week where a Palestinian was killed, I didn't feel that incident was notable enough to support, thus in this case, with fewer deaths, I don't think its fair to say this is worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1 death is a tragedy but unless the person (or bear, apparently) is notable otherwise, doesn't rise to the level of ITN; all those yakking opposing on neutrality grounds are misplaced; Palestinian bombs purposely targeting Israeli civilians occurs sufficiently frequently to be the "Dog bites man" where news is "Man bites dog". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Rare for this particular area, strong international reaction, but comparatively insignificant in terms of ongoing world events. ~AH1(TCU)18:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ok, the article is updated. Although there is just one sentence technically about her passing, the section is dedicated to her health problems in the last months so I consider this sufficient. Posting. --Tone13:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At a previous discussion on the ITN talk page I had argued for the Japanese earthquake and tsunami sticker. Now that the events there appear to have receded in the news cycle and the events in the Middle East are picking up again, I would like to renominate the Middle East and North Africa protests as a sticky. This is particularly relevant, in my view, in light of the developments in Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, and made out of the rationale that all four stories deserve separate ITN posts and this would prove otherwise quite cumbersome. Colipon+(Talk) 02:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WE obviously have three events that could arguably vie for the sticky spot
Support changing the sticky per Colipon's nom - The North Africa/Middle East issues have jumped over Japan's, in my view, and unless there is dramatic change we should switch back. As a strong second choice I'd go with two stickies, which also makes sense. Jusdafax03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On a separate note, due to the recent prevalence of stickies, I will put forth a proposal in the next few days for ITN to adopt a 'permanent sticky banner' of the five or six most relevant news events of public interest. Essentially this banner would just include a bold link to the article which has been of recent public interest. This will allow much more space for the important news stories that we miss due to large 'controversial' discussions on this page - the Charlie Sheens and US Senator deaths that generate a lot of hits to articles but never get proper ITN coverage, and even the Tuvalu election might occupy a place as a unitary link rather than a 'blurb'. It will also allow for easier posting of 'deaths' and solve the debate of whether or not we should be posting the deaths of "important but not especially important" people on ITN. The purpose of this new addition would primarily be to showcase a wider range of Wikipedia articles and secondarily to solve the many 'undue weight' issues that we experience on ITN. I wanted to get a feel from other editors first on whether this would be a good idea, or whether it's been discussed before. Colipon+(Talk) 04:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Highly interesting, and I'm inclined to support this also, at first glance. Care would have to be taken not to clutter the ITN box too much, but I think it could be managed. Thanks, good suggestion... since it is a broader policy call, should it be moved to the talk page? Jusdafax09:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support nominated it some days ago, but it was rejected at the time. we now have: libya, syria, yemen, bahrain (quiet now).Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
