Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2011

Hugo Chávez health issue

Nominator's comments: Chávez is an important international figure and his health concerns have major politic effects. 

Oppose for now. Cancer is not exactly a death sentence these days. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Egyptian revolution

• At least 66 people are injured in violent clashes between protesters and security forces in Cairo's Tahrir Square. (Al Jazeera) (McClatchy via Sacramento Bee)

Support - as nominator. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - major news.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. More than 1,036 people injured actually. This seems a significant enough development for Egypt as it has not been in the news as much as Libya or Syria recently. --

•wicke 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

So we need a blurb and the article needs a lil updating. Also managed to find 3 photos on injured protesters during the event; 1)File:Treating an injured man in Tahrir during the June 28.jpg 2)File:Injured Protester near Tahrir Square during the June 28.jpg 3)File:Protester Waleed during the June 28.jpg 4)File:Braving Tear Gas near the AUC during the June 28.jpg. We can use anyone you see fit -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose civil unrest is rampant, the article says that authorities confronted "5,000 rock-throwing protesters in central Cairo late Tuesday" yet the article on the revolution itself had 3 categories on how peaceful it all was/is until I removed those (now obviously) inaccurate POV categories. Apart from the mundanity of revolutionaries finding out that the new boss is same as the old boss, these articles are not in good shape for the update proposed until the POV is totally removed (a few category deletions is nothing but a start of chipping away at it). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since, the proponent of this ITN has a POV he wants us to push for him - that this revolution is non-violent, he replaced the categories - so if nothing violent occurs there, there's no news and WP is not a propaganda tool. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- 41.130.237.176 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and dispute the ready designation. A big protest for sure, but nothing that's qualitatively different than what's happened in the past and no indication that anything significant will result. Also, the updated section reads like a news report. Posting this would treat ITN like a headline news service. RxS (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clearly not ready; it is still in categories that extol its non-violence, contrary to the news item that we are debating; it needs updating if this is news at all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitey Bulger

[Posted] (re-nomination) Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock

• The Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock will take place at the Prince's Palace in Monaco on July 1 and July 2.

And corrected the dates this time;P--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nominator.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support obviously, The Monarchy there is head of state. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. This wedding appears to be on time. --

• I might be jumping to conclusions here but my gut instinct is Strong oppose. This is the mere wedding of the Prince of Monaco, not a new head of state. Monaco is a micro-state mainly significant has a gambling and tax haven--it barely qualifies as a sovereign state. I see this as equal in significance to the marriage of a powerful CEO, which wouldn't be considered. Also I don't see any mention of this on teh BBC and it would appear that this is a more significant story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the most glamorous and the richest country in the world, and the Grimaldi dynasty runs the principality since 1297. Crnorizec (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Love a good royal wedding. - JuneGloom Talk 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A wedding in a high profile monarchy. Also agree with various points from above, mostly with the rich old dynasty point.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A wedding in of a head of state.
  Mtking (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Wedding of a head of state. Yk³ talk ~ contrib 05:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Royal Wedding involving a reigning monarch should be an ITN/R item. Far more notability than someone who isn't even next in line to he throne enjoying a beano abroad at the taxpayer's expense. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First marriage of the reigning monarch of a famed, if tiny, nation. And, to User:Johnsemlak, Yes, you're jumping to conclusions, jumping straight over the last sixty years. Albert's father, Prince Rainier, brought extraordinary economic growth to Monaco; while gambling accounted for more than 95 percent of the country's revenues in the first half of the last century, Rainier expanded the country's economy to where, at his death in 2005, gambling accounted for only three percent of revenues. Vatican City is pretty small too, but if the Pope got married, we'd post it. ;) Abrazame (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  @Abrazame--thanks for the response; most other people didn't bother and just posted 'support--big wedding' or something. My concerns are somewhat allayed but I'll note that the significance attached to Rainier doesn't extend to Albert. I take your point about the expansion of Monaco's economy (though I still believe it's primarily known as a tax haven and gambling resort). But Monaco remains a semi-independent country with no military to speak of and no currency (ok, lots of countries use the Euro but the Monaco simply use it as an attachment of France, not as an independent member of the Eurozone). So I'm not entirely in agreement that Albert's status as head of state grants him any automatic ITN status. Another concern I had is that there's an article on this wedding but Rainier's wedding with Grace Kelley, surely much more notable, doesn't have an article. That smacks of

  WP:RECENTISM.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

It probably is recentism, but there's nothing stopping you from writing an article on that wedding. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its time to post it now.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(withdrawn) Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock

[Posted] World's longest cross-sea bridge opens

Support, clearly a notable infrastructure project. Thue | talk 11:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Very important and a pure ITN item. We should post more such records as they occur.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• List of longest bridges is a bit of mess, is there a more specific list we can link to? The article on the bridge itself is reasonable, but I'd like to see a bit more substance (and certainly more than one source) before this is posted. Not often we get to post an engineering story... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the tag from the

List of longest bridges in the world. Certainly there are few places that need more of clean-up, but the tag was very old and outdated and the article seems to have been improved significantly over time. Also I've added one more source and few more lines. GreyHood ^Talk 15:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support clearly a notable achievement for the Chinese worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable project. Crnorizec (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been expanded. Marking ready, if I get the procedure right. GreyHood ^Talk 10:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --Tone 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Beijing–Shanghai High-Speed Railway opens

AFP,Wall Street Journal.

According to our article its due to open at 3pm Beijing time, or 07:00 UTC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is in decent shape; however,

Beijing–Shanghai_High-Speed_Railway#Engineering_challenges could use some references. Spencer^T♦C 01:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Which is irrelevant as it isn't the section being targeted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt we just discuss this a couple months ago? When it was completed? The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 01:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake it was the

Kunming–Singapore Railway. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• On the fence Its not record breaking, New technological break throughs, nothing terribly special about it other than running between two major cities. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for probably being the biggest single transport infrastructure project since the Channel Tunnel. The longest high speed line ever opened in a single section etc. etc. In terms of long term usefulness given it links two cities of 20 million apiece (and Nangjing on the way has 8 million) its probably the most useful high-speed line opened since the
    Tōkaidō Shinkansen back in the 1960's. As its only open for services starting over a 13 hour period (given the 5 hour run) the Chinese are running nearly 7 trains an hour on the line, which is a huge number. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support - A major step toward curbing pollution in the world worst polluter. Will some forward thinking people please construct something similar in the world's
  Qwertyus 04:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - This is the most import HSR corridor in China. And I am currently waiting for the first train in Beijing South Station. I will update with photos on my Twitter. All my photos of this trip will be released in CC-BY. Feel free to use them here on Wikipedia as I am on my phone, not easy to upload them on the go. Python eggs (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given its about to open and its a minority topic marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. --Tone 07:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Brighest Object in the Galaxy found yet.

 Crispmuncher (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good News: According to an article in Nature a quasar has been declare the bightest object in the Galaxy. bad news: After reading Quasar I still have no idea what one is... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by following comments, this is the farthest and brightest observed astronomic body in the Universe, as opposed to our Galaxy. --hydrox (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There's no update that I can detect yet, but this is an interesting story and the main quasar article is in decent shape. RxS (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very interesting, notable, and a minority topic.--WaltCip (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sounds well worthy of posting. The brightest object in the galaxy seems well worth posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Where is the update? --BorgQueen (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astrophysics are way out of my league, Does this thing deserves its own article? I really dont know... The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put in a request at
      WP:RDS for some of our resident astrophysics experts to maybe pitch in and lend a hand in developing this. Any ideas on a Wikiproject we could notify as well? --Jayron32 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I dropped a note for User:Modest Genius to visit, he has PhD in relatively the same topic area. MG edits have been sporadic recently so if any one else knows something please jump in. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An important implication for the early universe. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Aghh! My eyes.
  Qwertyus 02:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(edit conflict) Thanks to Resident Anthropologist for drawing my attention to this. Some points:

1) That's not in the galaxy. Not by a very long way. In fact the interesting bit is how far away it is (see below).

2) Quasars are a form of active galactic nucleus, caused by a feeding supermassive black hole at the centre of another galaxy.

3) The brightness of this quasar is nothing new. What is a record is its distance (measured by the redshift) - higher than any previously known quasar. Two galaxies and one gamma ray burst are the only objects known at higher redshifts.

4) The quasar should probably have its own article, ULAS J1120+0641, as most record-breaking redshift objects do.

5) This is a confirmed spectroscopic redshift, so it's a real measurement and not a candidate. Certainly meets my requirements for reliability in science stories.

6) I support posting this. I've just finished a night of observing myself, so don't have the time to write an article now. I might be able to at some point in the next 48 hours. Modest Genius ^talk 02:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone at
  WP:RDS came up with another source, this Scientific American article, which is written in a more approachable manner. --Jayron32 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose pending urgent clarification. I admit I haven't gone through the linked articles in detail and at almost 4am local time it's far too late in the day to be doing that now, however, as Modest Genius points out, quasars are extragalactic objects. As such the opening comments are clearly wide of the mark and mis-state its significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • We'll fix that up. The fact that this object is of a superlative nature (highest confirmed redshift for an object of its type, farthest object yet discovered) means that its a topic worthy of posting. That the first person to nominate it here didn't know enough astrophysics to get the details correct in the title of the thread doesn't mean the event is not ITN worthy. When the blurb gets written, we'll be sure to have all the details correct. --Jayron32 03:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the sake of form, still tired, but now inebriated. That means this comment means nothing, except as an ackowledgment that I've templated it to try an get a definite proposed article and blurb out of this debate. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Note I just put together a brief article, ULAS J1120+0641. I'm not an astronomer, but I do know something about this stuff and I'm reasonably confident that the description is not too far off the mark. It would certainly be useful for an expert to check it over, though. I was also unable to fill in some of the information for the infobox, because I don't actually have access to the Nature paper from home -- I worked from the abstract and from the Scientific American news account. Looie496 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Fascinating stuff.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm curious how to describe it, the most distant quasar and the brightest object? [1] RxS (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when article gets a bit more expanded with data. I guess we can assume that it is the oldest and brightest astrnomic object known. Gemini.edu source --hydrox (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per hydrox. The article needs more work and the blurb needs rewriting, but at least we mostly agree the subject is worthy. Jusdafax 04:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support cause it's big. Added blurb and link to article. The quote comes from the end of the article at Nature.
  Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Humm, my first blurb:

The most distant and brightest quasar found yet, ULAS J1120+0641, is discovered by European astronomers who report it origins to be less then 770 million years after the Big Bang and believe it "will remain a vital probe of the early Universe for some time."

is too long. Changed it to:

The most distant and brightest quasar found yet, ULAS J1120+0641, is discovered providing a window to study the universe just 770 million years after the Big Bang.

I hope that is better.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note - I can't see anywhere in the paper any claim that this is the brightest astronomical object detected. Various news sources are claiming 'brightest in the early universe', which just depends how you define 'early universe'. If you mean 'beyond redshift 7', there are only 4 such objects. Other news sources are claiming 'brightest in the universe', but I think this arises from a misunderstanding of the above. The paper even compares the spectrum to other (lower-redshift) quasars of the same luminosity. Modest Genius ^talk 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we're down to the most distant quasar? I don't think I see anything saying it's the brightest quasar. RxS (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably enough... being the most distant quasar means it is also one of the oldest things ever found, and the implications for connecting to the early universe seems important enough to deserve mentioning at ITN. This is very much a unique find, and not just a run-of-the-mill "Oh look, its another star" sort of things. --Jayron32 14:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just wanted to make sure we're not claiming more than is the case. RxS (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Atlantic is wrong. The Nature paper says the quasar has a luminosity of 6.3e13 L_sun. That's above average for a quasar, but unremarkably so. Known quasars have luminosities up to at least 100 times that number (cf. e.g. [2]). Modest Genius ^talk 09:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the correct information. I looked myself, but not having any background in the area couldn't find it. I kept finding lists of magnitudes instead of luminously.

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. Some regular news sources are now talking about this in layman's language, including BBC News, Wired News, and ... the Honolulu Star Advertiser.[3] So improving the article just got a whole lot easier. It's very big, it's very bright, it's very old, and these guys have been hunting for something like it for a decade. Sharktopus ^talk 17:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article updated to at least the current standard of
    2010 Jiangxi train derailment, clear consensus above, marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Strong support. Seems like anything with –est is worthwhile for the main page. I thought the Sun was the brightest Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a once-over of the article. It's not brilliant, but certainly good enough for ITN. Ready to post, but with the following blurb:

• Astronomers announce the discovery of ULAS J1120+0641, which has a redshift of 7.1 making it the most distant quasar yet found.

Modest Genius ^talk 10:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --Tone 12:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRB 110328A gamma-ray burst

• Nom - notable, an unusual eventOlegwiki (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longest blurb ever. Please shorten. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Longest Gamma Ray Burst? Excellent, Science story. The article could use some fleshing out though and the blurb could use trimming. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on timeliness grounds. Most sources linked to date from April. The most recent article I noticed was June 17. Where is the current news element? Crispmuncher (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose. Whilst this does appear to have been an unusual GRB, the explanation is little most than informed speculation at this point. Modest Genius ^talk 09:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Greek austerity vote, protests

• Nom Regardless of how the vote turns out, it is clearly the most notable topic of the day. --bender235 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sky news saying it the vote was in favour. Mjroots (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I'm not sure the link to "austerity measures" is particularly useful to the reader. Pedro :  Chat  14:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. MPs alleging "chemical warfare" against protesters, calling it "outrageous" and that it has "assumed lethal dimensions". Sounds significant. --
  •wicke 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support The impact of these events have been rippling through the Global markets. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We need to be clear about what the lead item is here - the protests or the passing of the austerity measures. Right now it is the former but I would argue that the significant element is the latter. If that is the case we need better coverage of them and a change in empahsis in the blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Concur. If the blue linked "austerity measures" was to Economy_of_Greece#2010-2011_debt_crisis (which would need expansion) that would help - maybe even that should be the bold link? Pedro :  Chat  18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Events are spinning out of control a little, this will interest our readers. Good article, good topic. RxS (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support General strike, continuous protests and chemical warfare. This is starting look like an uprising in a 21st century EU country. --hydrox (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Article looks ready. I agree that "austerity measures" should be bolded and linked to Economy_of_Greece#2010-2011_debt_crisis. Mamyles (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Not a huge fan of the blurb; any suggestions for changing it or bolding another page? NW (Talk) 03:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Taliban attack political targets in hotel in Afghanistan

Nominator's comments: Attack attempted to achieve the killing of many state and federal leaders attending a briefing on the reduced role of the U.S. Military in Afghanistan. 

The Taliban kill 10 people during an attack on a Hotel InterContinental in Kabul. [4] Truthsort (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - was a developing story with repeat attacks throughout the day.
  Qwertyus 22:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong support - itn next.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Last time I checked, Afghanistan was a country
  in a state of war. It evades me how is ten people dying in a warzone notable, let alone strongly so. --hydrox (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I just heard them say on CNN that this is where SkyNews keeps their corespondents in Afghanistan... I expect thats why its getting so much coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated -
  Qwertyus 02:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - The update sways me; it is still brief but decent enough. Widely reported in global media. Attack is notable as an ITN blurb in light of Barack Obama's recent decision to begin a limited withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Jusdafax 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you meant 'Kabul' and not 'Kabal'? Blurb changed accordingly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume you mean Truthsort, the nominator, not me. But while we are cleaning up matters, the blurb appears to be in error. I'm seeing 'only' seven dead in the

LA Times has it six. Those numbers don't include the now-killed attackers, who appear to have been about six. Jusdafax 03:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Posted. NW (Talk) 03:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran prime minister to retire

• Oppose for now pending official notification from either Somare himself, his legal representation, or the PNG government directly. The language in the reference is very ambiguous, and only speaks of his "family's collective desire that Sir Michael be allowed to recover at his own pace and therefore retire". This, if officially confirmed, would be ITN worthy, but so far this isn't a positive enough confirmation of the event, and is merely speculative in nature. The article cited ITSELF says "Theresia Kumo, the director of the Sir Michael's media unit, told ABC News Online that reports the prime minister had resigned were incorrect. She said Sir Michael's family was simply stating their position on his future to the public, and added that Sir Michael is still PNG's leader." This is not a ringing endorsement. --Jayron32 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks like the 3-time PM is so close to death that he is incapable of resigning for himself. That fact alone makes it worthy of ITN exposure, if only for a few hours until more exciting/worthy news replaces it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but we don't have any confirmation that he actually retired/resigned/officially forced from office yet. We just have some family members essentially saying "He's really sick, so we're retiring him for himself" and the contradictions from his own colleagues which state he hasn't actually retired. This will be a story soon (when he either dies or does actually retire) and if he's so close to his death bed that his official retirement or death is iminent, there's no need to "jump the gun" just to get this blurb out there early. Take our time, get it right, and when something real happens, THEN it would be a good idea to post it. NOW is not the time, LATER will be the time. --Jayron32 03:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose until we have a successor, who would be the news... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Lagarde named IMF Chief

• Nom. --bender235 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate date: 5 July, when she will take office. --bender235 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support major international organization. --hydrox (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support major story with worldwide interest.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if there is much more to say than this at the moment. I think the update is starting to be sufficient; there's a considerable backstory in the article (about the nomination, at least) --hydrox (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no question this is the biggest news story today. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Big story and comes in the wake of the scandal-ridden resignation of the previous managing director. Jusdafax 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google antitrust lawsuit

Nominator's comments: Google, among many antitrust complaints/allegations, has been sued by 1plusV (hmm...no article) for €295,000,000 ($423 million USD in some sources) in damages it suffered from alleged anti-competitive practices by Google. This seems to be getting international coverage so I thought I would at least nominate it. Two things: I don't have time to do the update myself right now (figuring out this nomination template took up most of my time) so if someone else could please update the article that would be a great help, and also I'm pretty sure my suggested blurb is kinda terrible so if someone could please suggest a better one that would also help. Thanks. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, companies get sued all the time, and it seems like we always only go after the tech cases. Bank of America is settling a $8,500,000,000 suit from its investors (NYT front page) and I don't see people scrambling to nominate that. NW (Talk) 03:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Guess it's too much of a long-shot to tie today's interface changes and
  Qwertyus 04:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Support this - companies don't get anti-trust suits every 5 minutes. I'd like to post the new Google skin as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Blagojevich convicted

Oppose The original story certainly made huge headlines, but it's still a corruption case involving a governor of a single state of a single country. If all high-level politicians found guilty of corruption had their stories put on ITN, then we'd have a fair few from various countries around the world posted pretty frequently. Franklinville (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These were political convictions of corruption against the govenor of the one of the biggest states in the world's most powerful superpower. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the US being a superpower have anything to do with this? At the end of the day, this story's practical effects relate only to Illinois. Franklinville (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For two reasons, firstly Rod Blagojevich is not notable for anything outside US/Illinois politics, only of interest to the US. Secondly, it looks like this is only Round 2 of the fight, the fist ending in a draw, this round has been won by the prosecution, I suspect that there are more rounds to come before the final result will be known.

Legal appeals can indeed continue ad infinitum, but this is a conviction. To continue the boxing analogy I'd say that the winner has been declared by decision but the loser may contest the decision, rather than this being the 'end of round 2'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask the defence legal team, they would probably disagree.

Mtking (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, but privately they'd admit the conviction was a severe blow. I haven't followed the trial closely and IANAL, if I understand correctly he will go to prison now. The only thing to wait for is his sentencing. (currently he's forbidden from travelling outside the Chicago area until the sentencing). So further appeals will happen with him behind bars.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect anything until you read about it. An ordinary person might get taken into custody at sentencing. George Ryan, Blago's predecessor in both governing and federal crime, stayed out on an appeal bond for 18 months between conviction and the end of his appeals.--Chaser (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One corrupt politician, unheard of outside his own country. And can we please drop the "world's most powerful superpower" hype, or rename this page to ITN in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |}[reply]

• Interest outside the US is not an ITN requirement (though I agree being or not being a superpower is irrelevant).--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is getting international coverage, but it's more of a coda to the scandal. He was long convicted in the court of public opinion.--Chaser (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The corruption was over Obama's former Senate seat, which 'Blago' felt was his to sell. This is a big deal, any way you slice it. Jusdafax 04:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this of any significance outside the US and or Illinois ?

Mtking (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

First international news website I visited was the

Barak Obama's former Senate seat, a fact which is being pointed out all around the world as you read this. Jusdafax 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not confuse coverage by the 24hr news services with significance.

Mtking (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You asked, I answered. The 'Blago' conviction is being covered in media wordwide and is of global interest, yet again, due to the hard-to-ignore fact that the

U.S. Senate seat in question in the trial was last held at the time of the criminal activity by the current President of the United States. Jusdafax 06:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support It is receiving international coverage on the BBC and Guardian main pages, as well as coverage on the main pages of the American news networks.
  N419BH 05:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I've collapsed the opposes on the grounds of US bias. That's not acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. I briefly mistook this for a mediation case where you were the mediator... Since it's not, see
    WP:TALKNO. Every editor has the right to express their opinion. Nightw 07:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Within reason sure. But the continual complaints about US items that wouldn't occur for non-US items is painful and basically racist. If this was a cash for honours scandal in the UK there would be no oppose votes, even though the US senate has far more power than the house of Lords. It is perfectly possible to argue the case without claiming its US centric - e.g. by the lack of international coverage or something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The "newsy" part of this story had passed -- when he was impeached. Apparently, there were 31.2k] views yesterday, as compared at time he was impeached when it had 150k views in 2 days, which further proves my point. I'd like to point out that "international significance," whatever that is, is no longer a part of the ITN criteria. So this boils down if it does meet the ITN criteria of "entries of timely interest—that is, encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event." –HTD 07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Can anyone explain why it makes any difference at all that it was Obama's old seat being sold? HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess no one would care if it was one of North Dakota's Senate seats. –HTD 11:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It mattered in the beginning because no one knew whether Blagojevich had negotiated with Obama's team to exchange the appointment for something of value from them, which seemed like a real possibility then. See Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges#Obama.27s_involvement. I think that importance is attenuated by the subsequent investigation and mostly by the passage of time since the scandal came to light.--Chaser (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think Obama's place is important enough, and this scandal has international coverage. GreyHood ^Talk 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This was the top world news story in
  WP:FOUR) 23:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. How often does a governor get convicted for selling a U.S. Senate seat? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Shouldn't we link to Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have no idea how often a governor gets convicted for selling a U.S. Senate seat, and that's the point. I'm from another country, and this level of news from any country doesn't generally have an impact across national borders. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US is a developed country. I'd expect it to be extremely rare... How often to Australian senate seats get sold? I highly doubt it happens frequently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you care if it did happen? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, because it would show that the Australian government is highly corrupt. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hilo, whether or not we would care is irrelevant. Interest outside Australia would not be a requirement for such a story. WP:ITN strives to post stories of interest to its readers, including Australians. Surely you would think that such a theoretical event would be more significant than the AFL Grand Final, which is posted every year as per ITNR and is also not very significant outside Australia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I for one would most certainly care, mainly because I never would expect it in Australia of all places.--WaltCip (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose tabloidism; he's no longer in any position of power - this is a retrial, and still not convicted on 3 charges - a third trial to come?? Are we going to post every conviction of a member of a national legislature for corruption (methinks that Tunisia, Egypt, and some others will have an ITN every week for quite some time). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court rules on violent video game law

Article: Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a Californian law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. (Post)
News source(s): BusinessWeek, AP
Article updated

Significant case for the VG industry, as if the law were upheld, it would have set a standard higher than other published works and would likely have deep impact in future game development. The court decision is here [9], I expect within an hour to have some good articles to add and added to the main case page above. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to oppose. Perhaps DYK would be a better venue once the reactions are all in? There have been, in my mind at least, far more important decisions issued by the Supreme Court this past month: Davis v. United States, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (which will likely end up affecting the entire US' health care market), and the WalMart class action denial, among others. NW (Talk) 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only aspect here that I think is important is that there would have been a world-wide impact on the VG industry since a majority of games are developed and published within the States, and if the case were decided in the opposite direction, the overall industry would have felt that. Other cases, which certainly are if not more important for the average US citizen, have little reach beyond the US (not to trivialize them in any way, just of the recent US-centric complaints about ITN). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Important Free Speech case in Digital Media. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Normally I would hesitate to feature any U.S. Supreme Court decision but this particular case appears to be a rare exception since, for better or worse, many (not all, since Japan is another giant) best-selling video games are made in the U.S., therefore it does have an international impact. The update looks good too. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks solidly updated, and the case looks to be significant to how video games are allowed to be sold and rated. Additionally there is international impact as BorgQueen points out. It'd be interesting to see this same principle applied to sex in video games, but I guess the US is probably too strait-laced for that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lawyer, but my reading on this is that standard Miller Tests apply now to video games thanks to the decision. If it is is Miller-test-"obscene", then it can be regulated as porn. But that's neither here or there... --MASEM (t) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment marked as a minority topic, as video games are technology. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's a big story and will have an impact for years to come. Article update is a good factor.Jusdafax 20:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It's a law in one country. Looks incredibly US-centric. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is a decent percentage of what we consider posting. No-one complained that the Chilean Miners, which was featured on ITN three times last year was Chilean-centric. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, a very US-central story that doesn't have any real implications for any other country. While the gaming industry will globally see this as good news, they're still not going to get away with anything in the less "land of the free" countries. Really, the fact that the US, a country with a glowing free speech record, is, um, allowing more free speech is hardly newsworthy on a global scale.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the US gaming market is massive - its certainly in the top three along with Europe and Japan (who I'm sure between them make up 90% of the market), I'm sure this will have major impact. And while free speech is constitutionally protected the US's record on it hasn't been wildly brilliant in recent years.
  • Reporters without borders gives the US 20th for press freedom, which while decent, is hardly glowing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative values on press freedom are a poor substitute for absolute numbers on freedom generally (the U.S. is always one of the countries that gets top scores from Freedom House [10]) or free speech in particular. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recently been on a

free speech tear. There may be other liberal democracies that afford more absolutist protection to press freedom, but the U.S. has strong free speech protections--you'll never see someone prosecuted here for denying the Holocaust.--Chaser (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite a lot of countries get top marks from Freedom house these days, and that index is also about political rights and democracy rather than straight freedom - neither is perfect frankly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: The current blurb has to be shortened. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment added link to Minor (law) - I've just removed an orange tag from that article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can see the impact this could/does have per Eraserhead. I don't buy that this is too US-centric; the video game industry is international and it affects games sold in the United States whether they are made in the US or outside the US. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per the others above, this is a legal story only affecting the US, other non-US legal stories in the past have been opposed for that reason so a precedent has been set.
  Mtking (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Removing [[Ready]] as has had 3 Oppose's since being marked as such vs one support.

Mtking (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

As a general comment to those opposing on the US centric-aspect of this, it's difficult to affirm how much an impact on the world this would have had if the ruling was the other way (that is, that it would have allows CA to restrict sales to minors based on "violent" content. The analysis goes that if this passed and affected video games, every other entertainment industry in the US would bound to be affected by it as well - not only the content makers but also the content distributors from other countries with less restrictions on free speech. Given that the US is one of the largest entertainment producers and consumers in the world, this would have had significant impacted (after a few steps in logic, granted) worldwide entertainment, in the same manner previously outlined just for video games. I realize this case can't happen now, but this was what many in the industry were worried about. If you do a google news search on "violent video game" you can find there are a lot of international papers covering this as well eg: [11] [12] [13], etc. --MASEM (t) 02:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Is it feasible for VG manufacturers to produce 2 versions of a game? Like one version has less violence than the other? I suppose removing suggestive cut scenes or mini-games don't count. Anyway, this would've been easier if the court judged the other way, as that would've meant that either the VG manufacturers create two different versions of a single game, or create less violent games that will be distributed to everybody. –HTD 05:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they have. One immediate example to mind is Left 4 Dead 2, due to Australia's lack of a mature rating for video games (therefore, banning its sale), forced Valve to create a version that didn't have blood and gore like the US and other release versions. Still had you shooting up dead people, just not as "red". Some games include filters that can be set to block blood, gore, and swearing, as well. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Well in that case this case doesn't seem all that notable as VG manufacturers can just create different versions for each market. –HTD 11:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, actually, that's not as simple a result (alternate versions of media have existed for decades with so called "TV edits" of movies). The cost of developing and marketing and supporting separate versions of software is far too costly to be a regular thing that if developers were under this stigma of government enforced age gates, they would like drop anything violent for sake of having something marketable. It is also the case that the law never gives any strong definition of violence, so what's simple cartoon humor to one may be aggressive and damning to another, and that would lead to a crazed rush of people demanding any game be blocked if it contains the tiniest amount of violence. And if that passed for the VG industry, you bet that family groups would have rushed to get the same said for television, movies, and any other published media (there's a reason that MPAA and other such groups backed the VG industry in briefs to the SCourt). The ruling of the Court maintains the status quo, which I recognize is not always a big news item, but importantly prevents a massive shift of balance between freedom of speech and states' rights involving protecting children. --MASEM (t) 12:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remarking [Ready] complaining about US bias is definitely not a good argument and I don't think precedent is a good argument without a backup link. And the supporting arguments are pretty strong and its a minority topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removing ready - how about
        Mtking (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Firstly that item looks to be a "no-consensus" item so taking precident from it seems not really reasonable. Secondly the cases aren't comparable - the former case isn't a supreme court case and it also directly is likely to only affect tabloid tittle tattle which we usually have a dim view of. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • the appropriate precedent would probably be the Indian supreme court ruling on euthanasia as that was a case at the right level. I doubt if that got a single oppose. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah, a kid being able to buy Death Storm 2 on his own in California is just as important as a country of 1 billion being allowed to make decisions to end someone's life... Nightw 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought we were moving on from topic bias. By that measure only deaths are ever worthy of posting. Both of these are cases heard by a similar level court with international interest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are aware that this law is a culmination of a long road that involves things like Columbine and the like (eg the claims that violence games lead to violent and lethal behavior in youth?) --MASEM (t) 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Eh? I doubt even Mexicans cares whether teens can buy video games in California. I'd support if it was a federal thing of notability, but it's not. It's one state and it's video games. And it's a law that was in effect for a grand total of five or six years. Nightw 12:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Technically the law never went into effect - its been blocked by courts since its inception, never enforced. But that just fuels the side, "who cares". I am pointing out the negative space here, the fears that major worldwide industries had if this law was found constitution in the US. It's a situation that won't happen, but there were a lot of fears that it would have been a very drastic shift in entertainment (several states were ready with their own bills to block sales of VGs, so it would have effectively become a national-upheld law, and with interstate commerce laws, ones that even more liberal states would have had to recognize; the industry would have had to mold itself to meet that law, either creating adult-only titles that they could sell or promote or stick to all-age appropriate simplistic titles; the movie and other entertainment industries would have likely expected to see similar laws on sales of DVDs and other media, creating a similar effect there, and that all affects what comes in and goes out in terms of the US entertainment import and export). Or to get to the heart of the matter, Mexicans won't care that a kid in California couldn't buy their game, until suddenly entertainment they like from the US suddenly is no longer being produced because of such laws. Yes, I'm fully aware of the long, hyperbole-filled chain that this follows, but this is exactly the types of analyses that were being done on this bill. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Far less significant than that gay marriage decision in New York, which I also opposed. Nightw 11:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support US is the biggest game market and this could be precedent for the whole world. GreyHood ^Talk 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] ICC arrest warrant for Gaddafi

• Nom. --bender235 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support accused of serious crimes. --Kslotte (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did we post al-Bashir? if not it hink wed wait for the arrest (akin to Mladic). Alternatively add this as part of the ongoing libya issue. For which we can also put a sticky.Lihaas (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we posted al-Bashir. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Omar al-Bashir. --

•wicke 13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Arrest warrant by the ICC against a ruling head of government is very significant indeed. The update looks OK; any objection to posting? NW (Talk) 13:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ICC arrest warrants are always notable, especially when issued against ruling heads of states (per previous). --hydrox (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 MD

The asteroid which is bound to pass relatively close to Earth's surface at a distance of about 12,000 kilometers (7,500 mi), roughly 32 times closer than the Moon, at around 17:00 UTC. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest support ever but post it after impact when all humans are annihilated. –HTD 09:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and speedy post to have it on the time of "impact" posted. --Kslotte (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --bender235 (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we dont vote count -- you ahvenot given any reason for support.Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A well-worded blurb please? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• From The Examiner (not the greatest of sources, but it will do for now): "Although it is acknowledged this asteroid will pass very near our planet, it is not the closest; because on February 4 this year, another space object passed just there-thousand-eight-hundred miles from earth's surface. The "2011 MD" has between twenty-five and fifty feet in diameter and will be the largest object to pass close by Earth since running the small celestial bodies control program, "Near Earth Objects" (NEO)."

  If I remember my days of studying astronomy well, ten-meter asteroids actually hit the Earth every year or so? If someone could confirm that such a thing is actually the case, I would oppose this nomination. NW (Talk) 11:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to
    Earth_impacts#Sizes_and_frequencies (relying on a Nature article), one 5-10 meter asteroid enters the Earth's atmosphere about once a year, but usually they burn up before impact. This one is estimated at 5-20 m in diameter, and asteroids of that size flyby every 6 years or so [14] (perhaps that's the frequency estimate for the 20 meter asteroids?). Sources cited in the article conflict as to whether an object this size would make it through the atmosphere if it were actually on a collision course.--Chaser (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support. I think this is important and big enough for ITN. __
  talk) 11:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Blurb suggestion: A near-Earth object 2011 MD passes about 12,000 kilometers (7,500 mi) from Earth's surface. --Kslotte (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. But I think its better if its mentioned that its passing 32 times closer than the moon. Lynch7 12:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article needs more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Earth is an asteroid magnet. The pitted topography of the moon is a pretty good indicator of future events.
  Qwertyus 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose If the object had hit Earth's atmosphere, it would have broken up, being about the size of van or small bus. Had it been a fair amount bigger, it would be ITN-worthy, as I see it. It missed and is no big deal either way: the point is moot. Jusdafax 06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Yani Tseng

Note: She's the youngest golfer to win a major, male or female. –HTD 07:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Young Tom Morris was the youngest to four at 21 years old just go look at List of The Open Championship champions to verify that fact.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Golf Channel source.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh sure. Since the 1870s. –HTD 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support no reason we should be bias towards men - and we'd post this for the male tournament. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in that case take this to ITNR talk. (and we didnt post the omwnes NVCAA ven though mens was posted)Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a significant record on a professional level sport event. --Kslotte (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. More record-breaking Asian women needed on ITN. A

•wicke 13:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Support Big deal for a major professional sports. Glad this was nominated, perfect for ITN. RxS (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: The update is currently too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support After updating--
  Power^{[citation needed]} 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've attempted to update it since no one else has done so. --

•wicke 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyone? --

•wicke 13:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Support for now. Not sure how important it is but "River Plate into football 'abyss'" is "most popular" on the BBC website right now, it is being reported as far away as China and the United States, it's the first time it has happened, the game was "abandoned in the final minute, amid chaotic scenes", fans invaded the pitch, police fired on fans, and South America does not appear enough on ITN. --

The point is not that it was "unexpected", but that it was a rare event. It is not impossible that one of the most successful teams of a league gets demoted to a lower league, but it's very rare, a series of bad results are hardly ever so bad that they get to this. That's why so many newspapers around the world talk about it, when they would hardly say a line about Argentine football otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Chelsea (say) getting kicked out of the Premiership would be a seriously big deal, I think this is worthy of posting. The Serie A scandal is different. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system's not exactly the same, though. In England, one really bad season is all it takes. In Argentina, you'd need three bad seasons as the club performance is averaged in three years, plus they'd go through a two-legged playoff, so it's not entirely a shock if you're a fan. –HTD 07:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the more reason to consider it a rare event, as I detailed before. Cambalachero (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess the point was it was not entirely a shocker. It was a long and drawn out process. Now for rareness that's a different argument, but this being three years in the making should count somewhere. –HTD 14:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong support buig first and mega-event. No 33-time champion has been demoted.Lihaas (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Article updated. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support - major sport event I have realised.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm on fence on this, but don't have a strong feeling either way. But I will say the article appears to be poorly referenced, fwiw. RxS (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The update is referenced however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No significance outside Argentine football, teams get routinely relegated. This team looks like it is been playing poorly for a while.
  Mtking (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Let me change that to Strong Oppose Coverage, but zero significance.

Mtking (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You're right. Manchester United getting kicked out of the Premier League would have zero significance. Get real. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mtking (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• • I will dispute that. According to the FIFA ranking, Argentina is the 5º most important football country. Even above England, which is 6º. So, it is right, the Argentine Primera Division is not the English Premier League, it is more importantan than it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, Cambalachero, Primera Division is listed 7th by the IFFHS, which goes Spain, England, Italy, Brazil, Germany, France, Argentina, Portugal, Netherlands (see here where it is evident that Argentine Primera División is a significative league). (Cambalachero, you were citing statistics on National Teams). Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.173.60 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support

Response to Mtking: Yes, it is very significant news even outside Argentina.

1) It appeared as a relvant (surprising, significative) news at the cover of sports newspapers around the world (in soccer countries, of course). Each of them have many articles about the subject. Most of the linked articles mention the worlwide repercussions of the news: Spain0s Marca,Portugal's A bola Italy's La Gazzetta dello Sport (1) and (2), France's L'Equipe, Brazil's Lance(+10 articles), etc.

2) But, even more important, it also appeared as significative news in generalistic newspapers outside Argentina (in most of the cases, at the cover): in Spain's El País and El Mundo, in Chile's El Mercurio, in Peru's Cronica Viva, Colombia's El Heraldo and El Tiempo, Uruguay's La República, Mexico's El Universal among many (many) others (including all major newspapers in Latin America and Spain -at least-, plus those menitoned at the top of this section: USAToday, ESPN, The Guardian).

Well, it does seem relevant news to me. Otherwise, why all of this newspapers would speak about a "commotion in the world of soccer". Well, because this is one of the most important teams in the world, has the record of Argentine tournaments, has won many international prizes, plays one of the most important derbies in the world, and had never lost category before. Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not equate coverage in 24hrs news services with significance, how is this significant outside Argentine football.

Mtking (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll repeat myself: It is a major soccer news, taking into account it is a world class team and a unique event. All newspapers are stating exactly that. That's why it is relevant news. Thanks, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Formerly good team performs badly for a few years". That is all this boils down to. If the New York Yankees don't make the playoffs for a year or two, I wouldn't expect an ITN blurb. If Tiger Woods misses winning yet another major, it shouldn't make ITN. I'm usually pretty lenient minded on sporting news, but this seems below the baseline. Yes, I heard it on the news today as well, but it doesn't seem up to the standards of ITN in terms of importance, given the number of sporting stories we usually run anyways. --Jayron32 05:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed [Ready] as not clear that support exists for this.

• Jayron, River Plate won the Argentine tournament in 2008. Since then, it has not played well, alright. But a soccer team is not an athlete, it is renewing its squad all the time, so a bad time is not implying the loss of category. Furthermore, what does it means 3 years of bad football to a history of 110 years of existance of the Club and its pertenence to 1st division?? It is a major soccer news, taking into account it is a world class team and a unique event. Resoting [Ready] as both your arguments are weak Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry they are not week, you have failed to demonstrate how it is of significance outside Argentine football which is not that significant a league any way, why should some team being relegated be listed and not the winner of the league.

Mtking (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've written about this twice already, please read above. I'll reapeatmyself once more, anyway: River Plate is a world class team, with many international prizes won, which have the record of Argentine League championships won (33), and which has never been relegated through a 110 years history is a major event in the world of soccer. Every newspaper referenced (all of them non-Argentine, and some of them Sport Newspaper) have stated the "commotion" this event brought to the world of soccer exactly for those reasons. Now, this seems to be an important news. BTW, the Argentine League is significative though not one of the top leagues currently (From where do you think dozens of soccer stars playing in the Euro Leagues come from?). Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.172.229 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@200.127, response to response to my comment: Again, there are always world class teams that sometimes suck. It happens. Sometimes, the New York Yankees finish at the bottom of their division. Sometimes, the Los Angeles Lakers or the Detroit Red Wings do as well. It isn't ITN-level importance for a major story. Sports teams successes ebb and flow, and that one team's "ebb" has waited a particularly long time to arrive isn't all that noteworthy. Yes, it was all over the news, but so isn't celebrity gossip, and we don't necessarily carry stories about every thing that appears in worldwide news just because it appears there. I understand that, for soccer fans from Argentina, this is world-shattering importance. I am a fan of American Football, and I take that shit very seriously, but I don't try to force my own personal fandom onto ITN merely because I like it... --Jayron32 14:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even a soccer fan, Jayron. Don't go personal. I'm only stating the relevance this had inside and outside Argentina, in the world and history of soccer. Big Soccer teams don't usually get demoted, even when playing bad for one, two or three seasons. In the context of soccer, this is a unique event and it is newsworthy. Salut, (IANVS) --200.127.173.60 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree with the reasoning that this is unworthy of an ITN blurb. We have 4-6 stories up at any one time, and in my view the inclusion of this one is uncalled for. This would set a precedent for sports news... not championships, or the death of notable players, but just sports news... being ITN blurbs. I don't see it. Agree with Jayron that this is below baseline. Also feel consensus is not established here at this time. Jusdafax 06:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For christ sake this is like Manchester United or Arsenal getting kicked out of the Premiership. Or Real Madrid getting kicked out of La Liga. You guys opposing are being too fussy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 hours w.o an update and this is ready..Lihaas (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Do not
    WP:ALLORNOTHING. Don't reject a news proposal on the grounds that "if we accept this, we would have to accept these other things". Each one should be accepted or rejected on its own. Cambalachero (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Blurb suggestion:
  the Big Five of Argentine football and the most succesful at the Primera División
  tournament, gets demoted for the first time in its 110 years history.

"Continues to disrupt" doesn't seem like ITN-worthy material, IMO. Has something major happened today? NW (Talk) 22:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tricky one for ITN. It's been significant news for most of the past three weeks for most southern hemisphere countries. It's had a huge impact on air travel, but generally invisible to northern hemisphere folk unless they are travelling to or from one of the affected countries. Naturally, as time goes on, the impact simply increases in its sum effect. It's something that all citizens of the lands affected have become aware of over the past three weeks. I believe it should be here because of its total impact, but it's hard to say exactly how and where. Rather than other editors just dismissing it, like that post above, I'd like some informed and intelligent discussion of how ITN should deal with this kind of spread out event, where the normal rules don't work. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's follow-up this evolvment and try to pick up somethings singificant to post. 'continues' isn't as such signficant. --Kslotte (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That post seems to ignore everything I said above. Of course "continues" isn't significant under our normal policies. But this is like Boiling frogs. Nothing dramatic happens at any single point, but the frog ends up dead. Can ITN handle boiling frogs? HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, I think you make good points. However, we did post this in early June [17] when the volcano erupted. The eruption in Iceland was also just posted once, when that disruption in air travel began [18] (which was sudden and overwhelming, costing the airlines over $1 billion). The tenor of the news stories seems to be that there has been some disruption the last few weeks, some flights have resumed, but some not. I think we missed the peak of the important news on this item.--Chaser (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for all the reasons given above, and to simply see if I can attract any attention at all from the US/UK/soccer fan demographic of this page. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose given the lack of update. If the article is updated with new information within the last few days I Support due to the significant effects on the southern hemisphere. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LulzSec's end

• Support This is a group of hackers where no evident Political, Nationalist, Religious, Military, or entrepreneural affiliation or goals have redefined how we look at cyber warfare The relative ease which they seem to have walked through dozens of topnotch and supposedly "secure" systems also redefines the possibility of what a small loosely knit group can do. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given how many system's they've hacked this seems worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol, lets at least give it six hours for opposes to come in. the Peter Faulk seems ready The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment personally, I don't know if this should go up. I would support technically because these guys were apparently the ones who hacked into the US government sites, but this group has only become notable in the past month or so and has pretty much been in the shadow of Anonymous in the minds of the public. Furthermore, with a group like this, I don't think anyone can take a move like this seriously. Everyone in the group will still be doing what they do. It isn't like this disbandment announcement doubles as a "we are all going to move to Tahiti and become Christian monks" thing. --PlasmaTwa2 20:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two months ago I would have agreed but as I said the concept of cyber warfare and cyber terrorism has been redefined. My personally theory is that they have been hired by a 3rd party after their two month long publicity stunt. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Group of internet nerds get some DDOS attacks in during their lunch breaks, and suddenly they're notable? Nothing in this story is worth front page attention doktorb _words^deeds 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They did some DDOS but they also Hacked into several Corporate, Law enforcement, and Governmental databases and then leaked internal documents from them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Slow news day indeed. But this seems most topical, if NY gay marriage is not applicable. --hydrox (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We're honestly considering posting this over NY gay marriage? Their DDOS attacks had minimal impact compared to the New York legislature's actions, even on a global scale. NW (Talk) 21:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per NW. There are plenty of more notable events that should be posted overtop of this. And just FYI, I think they're disbanding because one of their members had his personal webpage hacked by another group and they were threatened with the reveal of personal and identifying information if they continue mindless DDoS attacks. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 22:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think comparisons to other items that are being rejected are reasonable. If you want to post the gay marriage thing make a solid comment in support there.
  • Taking such a negative line because people are possibly being inconsistent in their standards in another discussion isn't productive to the section as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - No chance in hell.--WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can you avoid
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Alright, I'll elaborate then. This "group" does not have any legitimacy behind it save for an isolated series of DDOS attacks, many of which have been dealt with swiftly and without much fanfare, so as a group they are not notable. Since their impact was hardly felt to begin with, it does not matter at all whether or not they disband. Given the sporadic nature of groups like these, who is to say that their dissolution is permanent?--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose theri announcement doesnt mean anything as a new body with much claim of damage. Furthermore, most hack-attacks were done by Anyonymous, who are more notable

and ditto per eraserhead, consensus is not built by vote count.Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. How is this notable? --bender235 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No deal in Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations

• Negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia in Kazan Russia concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh region has led to no deals. This was expected and is seen as yet another step towards an Azeri invasion of the region in a try to take it back.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• zzzz Wake me up when September ends the Azeris invade. –HTD 17:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The Nagorno-Karabakh article has to be updated more. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not sure how much interest there is among our readers on this particular news, and I'm not sure we want to post something on the basis of what might happen as a result. Let it play out and post when something definite happens. RxS (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose intl talks happen all the time to no avbail, only need to mention when somethign happens

btw- what is "zzz"? productive comment?Lihaas (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that the "zzzzz" comment was as productive as this nomination. –HTD 09:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

au contratire nominations warrant, by defintiion, a productive call for support. if you dont have nominatiin you dont get anythign posted, and certainly cant say that all nominations get posted, so this was a BOLD additionLihaas (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make out what you're trying to say, if anything. In any case, you don't have to lecture me on how things work here, like I said, the "zzzzz" comment was as productive as this nomination. Think of it as another/offbeat way of commentating. –HTD 17:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah's move

• ongoing uprising. (Haaretz) --BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Just a suggestion, since the timer is red... --BorgQueen (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Judging by the Haaretz summary, The Figaro report seems quite sketchy without identifying the intelligence sources by name. Some other ideas: The conclusion of the 2011 Valencia GP, disbanding of the LulzSec and Gaddafi's peace offer. --hydrox (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the LulzSec item but somehow I don't think we could gather enough supports. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about: "Ash cloud from the
      2011 Puyehue-Cordón Caulle eruption continues to disrupt flights between Australia and New Zealand." (Sydney Morning Herald) The article is fairly extensive, which is always a plus. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Article is excellent, but has already been featured. I would think LulzSec disbanding would be topical and current news, though there might be problem with finding consensus over
        the correct term to refer to them with. --hydrox (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Ok, I've nominated LulzSec above. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What did I say? Too many opposes already. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well it was quite anticipatable. Not sure if there is a compelling need to post anything if there is just nothing to post, even if the template goes red. --hydrox (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I support most news from this region. As it is very important.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Warns? I don't think people here would be enthusiastic when the
  NOAA tells Americans a big bad storm is approaching. –HTD 13:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support - one of the biggest conflicts right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is only a warning. Let's post when some type of escalation is actually happening. --Kslotte (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think Hillary's comments are especially significant, but whatever is going on at the Turkey-Syria border might be and I could support a blurb that focuses on that if it's a significant development in the conflict/uprising/whatever we're calling it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to change it however you see fit :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it should probably be changed to something more generally speaking about the Syrian forces gathering at the Syria-Turkey border. --~
    Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Oppose the blurb implies (as does HJ alternate idea) that the troops are massing on the border to invade Turkey. This is not the case, they are massing to prevent Pro-democracy activists from escaping across it. This is consistent with the pattern so far displayed in their crackdown. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Same-sex marriage in New York

Nominator's comments: The sixth US state to pass such a law Sir Brightypup II 05:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The relevant section of the relevant article (Same-sex marriage in New York) is in shambles; it's just an endless ti--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)meline. Lampman (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose its not a firs. we dotn have to give undue coverage to all 25-odd states that will legalise it. (although when it happens down south it may be something)Lihaas (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - wikipedia shouldnt post all "american news". especially as this is not a first.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose given its only a state I think its too local really. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Redacted per Lampman. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment New York is actually larger in population than most of the nations that have allowed same-sex marriage so far. It is the third-largest state, with the largest and – arguably – most important city in the US. The implications of this could be huge for gay rights in the US, and the world. Yet people seem to constantly misinterpret the first part of what makes an ITN item, and completely ignore the second. An item should be notable (no, that doesn't mean equal time for all 192 UN member states), and the article should be properly updated (which is the real problem in this case, though no-one seems to care about that). Lampman (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Similar changes in the law are being rolled out all over the place. The frequency with which they are proposed here is getting daft. Not a first, not a last bastion of previous values, just one more link in a domino effect: NY is only more important to people in NY. Kevin McE (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this the largest jurisdiction that allowed same sex marriage? –HTD 13:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be California. Oppose as this does not set a precedent, nor is it notable outside of the whole New York City angle. --PlasmaTwa2 13:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York State, not just the city. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil is bigger too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't it been overturned in California, and it's termed "civil unions" in Brazil? –HTD 13:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, it was overturned and then that got overturned as well. --PlasmaTwa2 14:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, see

Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at the navigation template it is marked "conditional" so that says something. So currently, is NY the largest jurisdiction that allows same sex marriage unconditionally? –HTD 14:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You're right about Brazil. However Argentina has gay marriage and 40 million people, and Spain has gay marriage and 46 million people. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really affect the 19 million New Yorkers only. For example, a gay couple in Iowa can go to New York and have their marriage "validated". So technically, once a U.S. state legalizes same sex marriage, it's like legalizing it in the entire country of 300 million people, provided they (gay couples) can actually go there. –HTD 17:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, or that gay couple in Iowa could just, y'know... get married? Iowa has gay marriage. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, all this change does is save New Yorkers having to visit one of the five other states that already have such legislaetion, so it is even less notable. Kevin McE (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I really don't think couples would just "go there." To avail of rights associated with marriage you should actually reside; for example, you can't say the authorities in Iowa that since you married in NY, they should recognize that you should adopt and jointly own property, etc. –HTD 02:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going in the fact that someone told me that "technically, once a U.S. state legalizes same sex marriage, it's like legalizing it in the entire country": if that was incorrect, I'll refer you back to the person who misinformed me. Kevin McE (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in that statement is "like," and add in "technically." If you don't understand those, or willfully won't acknowledge those words exist, then something's wrong with your reading comprehension. –HTD 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, who am I trying to convince? Hah hah! –HTD 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Plasma Twa. Diego Grez (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per Plasma Twa. 190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this about a US state, not even a country-wide thing. --Kslotte (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - New York is a highly populated state and in turn this affects more people than some countries that have legalised it. Also what about the slant, it is paving way for more states as NY has been seen as a big hot seat in the Rights movement in the past.Rain the 1 ^BAM 14:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is getting more and more common, which I think makes each one a little less significant. We've posted quite a few of these, and now I think it's time to draw a line and start posting those which are not just significant, but truly exceptional. An amendment to to the US Constitution would be exceptional, as would the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Alabama or possibly Texas or some other state known for being a long way to the right of the political spectrum. But I think it's time to stop posting all of these and that it's a good day for freedom when this becomes relatively routine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Lets see how the the current news items fare on Google News first: about 500 recent news articles and 7000+ results for 'Mario Draghi', about 800 recent news articles and 800+ results for 'Pauline Nyiramasuhuko', 200+ results for 'Nabro Volcano', and about 1200 recent new articles and 2000+ results for 'AirAsia'. And now on this news item: about 7000 recent news articles and 10,000+ results for 'gay marriage new york'. This is clearly a fairly newsworthy item. We should not stop news items from being displayed on the main page just because such news items are becoming increasingly common. Also, in the United States marriage laws are set by the states and not the country, the US federal government can only decide whether or not to recognize a marriage, they cannot legislate on the legality of a certain type of marriage. --~

Knowzilla ^(Talk) 17:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support per Knowzilla, having more news hits than anything else on the ITN front page combined seems like a pretty good reason to post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will also probably pwn the ITN articles in page views too, without benefit of a main page exposure so... –HTD 17:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a major news story. We are still long ways off from this kind of news not being a big deal. Nsk92 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. alos there is a specific article on the topic (Same-sex marriage in New York). Why isn't it linked in the blurb? Renata (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets all of the ITN criteria. Quality article, reader interest, lots of media coverage, certainly not trivial: NY has more people than all of the other gay-marriage jurisdictions in the US combined. It's not like ITN has been deluged with U.S. gay marriage items, and if I am not mistaken, this is the first time a sizable state has enacted gay marriage through a legislative vote rather than a court decision -- a true landmark. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Mwalcoff.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per the obvious exaggeration of the news. We used to post only allowments in the countries, not any other federal subjects, so I don't care what is the influence of the state of New York and what is its population now. The fact that I oppose this is mainly because it's not a sovereign country, and that this news only dashed through the world's media. When in 2009 Sweden and Norway did it, it was much more covered than this one. If the United States allows such marriages, I'll surely vote support.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There lies the problem: in the United States, the national legislature cannot decide whether or not to permit same-sex marriage, only the state legislatures can. The only way to change that is by an amendment to the US Constitution. Alternatively if, for example

Knowzilla ^(Talk) 16:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support but only if the blurb mentions that NY is the most populous state so far to allow these marriages. That is much more significant to mention than it is the 6th. --mav (reviews needed) 12:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: I think we can forget about this nom. There are too many opposes. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should probably ditch the
    U.S./NY-biaz opposes. –HTD 17:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• As important as it is and as much as I am a supporter of the right for anyone to marry whomever they should happen to love, I oppose this being in ITN. HJ Mitchell touched on it already by saying that this is becoming a not-so-uncommon event. I appreciate the step that NY took by passing this, but it doesn't really mean that much to me, given that there are still 44 other states that don't allow it. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 14:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It seems these get nominated every time. In the past we haven't posted when entire countries adopt gay marriage or other forms of civil union, yet alone individual states. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, it is simply a continuation of changing attitudes. As such I can't see how it can be held to be of sufficient notability. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think ITN did post something about a certain country adopting this measure. Heck we did post Malta allowing the parliament to consider making a divorce law (not at the point of legalizing divorce, which will probably be posted again), and that's the 200th country to do that. –HTD 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if it's not an uncommon event (as many opposers state) why is it receiving so much media coverage? Also how "common" of an event can it be if only 10 of the worlds almost 200 countries allow gay marriage?
  Hot Stop (c) 16:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - Too right above. TBH it isn't that common, it isn't like it happens everyday. Celebs die more often and get posted here. Not sure why something that affects millions, which is does, gets opposition. (Considering some didn't want it and will now be annoyed and the rest who wanted it are happy.) I watch out for gay issues quite a bit here, and more often than not it is met with this joke. So for the first time I'm wondering about some peoples motives for opposing. That is just my opinion, it could be clouded too.Rain the 1 ^BAM 19:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being gay... more like this being a US-centric (and not even national in scope) issue that drives people here to oppose. –HTD 20:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Support' big news in just about all corners of the world. NYC is the size of many nations, and a great concentration of Wikipedia readership without a doubt. --hydrox (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a huge story in the media this weekend. Historic change in a major state of the US. Opposers fail to convince me to !vote to keep this off of the Main Page. Jusdafax 22:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment at 13-9 in support and possible issues with US biaz, which should obviously be discounted I was going to add [Ready?] to get an admin to check consensus, however the article still doesn't look updated sufficiently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This is more a state matter than national, much less international. Mamyles (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This to me is far more notable than most of the events on the template currently, and it will have a significant impact on the lives of millions of people. The arguments against seem to boil down to the a) this happens 'all the time' and b) It's not a 'national' issue. Many people have already pointed out that NY state is far more populous than most countries. Furthermore, as pointed out, this is the primary way people in the US political system receive this right in the US. IMO this is not analogous to a US gubernatorial election of a large state, which is less significant than the election of a sovereign head of state because a sovereign head of state has many powers a governor does not have. As to the 'this happens all the time' argument--full legal marriage rights are still extremely rare globally. I think the legalisation of same sex marriage of a jurisdiction the size of NY is ITN worthy even if it is not unprecedented. Surely we would post if it were legalised in the UK, despite that it wouldn't be the first European country to do so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UK effectively has gay marriage already and has had for several years - civil partnerships are to all intents and purposes equivalent to marriage in terms of their rights and responsibilities. The only distinction is that in formal legal parlance (but not popular usage) the term "marriage" is avoided to placate the religious groups. If we accept the two as equivalent your assertion this is the most populous jurisdiction to do so falls apart. If we don't you are essentially arguing this is worth posting on an issue of nomenclature. I don't see either argument as conferring particular significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Uh, 'effectively'? 'For all intents and purposes'? That's not the same as allowing it outright. The nomenclature matters to a lot of people. That's why people are trying to have same sex marriage legalised in the UK.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Mwalcoff plus the lack of either New York or same-sex marriage on ITN. --

• Support - As a liberal state this hardly surprises but this is a matter that will largely be settled one state at a time verses at a federal level.
  Qwertyus 02:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I was just looking at "Today's Front Pages" at www.newseum.org and noticed this was on the front page of the Calcutta Telegraph in India as well as La Stampa in Turin, Italy. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The update is split over two places, but there is an update, and people are whining we haven't posted it in other sections. On votes alone its 60-40 Marking [ready?]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expect a shitstorm when this is posted :P –HTD 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        Perhaps but let's not fan the flames, shall we? :) ITN is combustible enough as it is.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Someone should just post it for the spectacle. :P –HTD 08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The sixth state? Will we post the seventh? The seventeenth? The fortieth? Please, stop. Nightw 07:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about the maybe the two hundredth country to grant divorce? Well they didn't necessarily grant divorce but nobody stopped that one from being posted. –HTD 08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about
      a country that approved the same thing as the above state did, an item that probably had no chance of being posted? Nightw 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support. I found Johnsemlak's and Knowzilla's arguments rather persuasive. But since I am expressing my opinion I am not the best person to post this. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per knowzilla. It has been receiving tons of coverage outside Wikipedia. --Falcorian ^(talk) 10:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update? The article in question is not what I'd consider updated. -- tariqabjotu 12:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a bit of an update at the end of the section Same-sex marriage in New York#legislative history.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Not important whether this was the first or seventh or whatever American State to approve this, but as happening in an enormously large and influential State.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support New York, as the state where the gay rights movement started, granting gays the right to marry, and doing so through the legislative process and not through the judicial process, is certainly notable. Covered internationally in several locations. As for all the states getting a blurb, I'd say the only others notable enough would be California, the first southern state, Texas, and maybe Florida. After that I wouldn't think any other state granting gays the right to marry would be notable. The next blurb would be the country doing so nationwide.
  N419BH 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For a news event that obviously did not have an overwhelming consensus to post, I believe this should be taken down. Truthsort (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An overwhelming consensus isn't required, and we generally avoid removing items that have been posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Belated oppose It's the sixth state to allow it. By my take on this that's 4-5 away from what I would consider making it notable enough for ITN. If it was the first, that's landmark, the second I might go for depending on circumstances, but the sixth to me is a bit far down the road. As for it being the largest, I don't consider that a factor heavy enough to tip the scales to my supporting without it being closer to being the first state. Note that I'm not strong enough in my oppose to want it taken down, just enough that I would have preferred it hadn't been posted. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As others have pointed out, New York is a large state. Due to the federal nature of government in the United States, this news is more important than just a state issue. If we care about what happens in Malta we should care about what happens in New York. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]