|
April 18, 2012 (2012-04-18) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Sport
April 17
| Portal:Current events/2012 April 17
|
|
April 17, 2012 (2012-04-17) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
YPF
Article: YPF#Recent_changes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Argentina nationalises YPF amid a dispute with Repsol and the government of Spain. (Post)
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Heating up intl disputes, Agentina also has oil issues with the Falklands that we missed. Also the growing prominence of Latam without external dependencies on the US/Europe (missed summit of the americas) --Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support- This has major ramifications in many countries and throughout the world and is one of the biggest business stories we will have for a while, so otherwise we would never be posting minority topics. I hope this nomination doesn't get degraded just because we already have the World Bank up. —Bzweebl— 22:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
World Bank election
Article: World Bank presidential election, 2012 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Jim Yong Kim is elected President of the World Bank. (Post)
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: First non-european descended president and first election with non-American candidates. Also a Biz/econ topic thats been absent from ITN a while --Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support with the suggested blurb. It's irrelevant for ITN that there were non-American candidates etc. --Tone 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no prob (it is after all my nom and article) but with 1 support? Sudan below is ready tooLihaas (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also the ITN tagis not on the the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Article: World Tomorrow (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: *Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, appears in his first interview with the West in six years, in the first episode of a new interview show The World Tomorrow, hosted by Julian Assange. He also made a major announcement on the show: that he would act as a mediator in the Syrian conflict. (NYDailyNews) (CNN) (BBC) (SMH) (ABC) (AFP), the new TV show was already in the news across the world, but the appearance of this notorious guest has been given even broader coverage. The sources given above are just a selection. (Post) --Gregcaletta (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- ? -- Ashish-g55 06:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Promoting a television show should have no place in ITN. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose: promotion for a TV show. --RJFF (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SOAPBOX, and not being what this part of the site is for. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not disputing here, but I am curious. Why is it that reporting on a new television show is considered "promotion" of that show, but reporting on a new president is not considered "promotion" of that president? When we report on a horse race, are we not "promoting" that horse race, in your sense? And where does the difference lie? Is reporting the existence of something necessarily promoting it? By that definition, we would also be "promoting" an earthquake by reporting it, and everything that we include on ITN would be a "promotion". I'm just curious what you mean by that. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's because a large amount of your proposed blurb is about how big the show is going to be in the future. That kind of speculative material is not suitable for an encyclopedia and is inherently unverifiable. It also reads like (poorly thought-out) promotional material. I also feel that (in general) broadcasters shouldn't be the story themselves; if the programme breaks any big stories in the future, it could be mentioned then. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. My description was highly inadequate. I have updated it further, and here is a fuller explanation:
- Comment. There are three notable events that coincide here. The airing of a new controversial international TV show is perhaps the least notable. A more notable event is that this that the leader of Hezbollah, which is listed as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. the U.K. and other countries, has given his first interview with the West in over six years. And the third notable event is Nasrallah's announcement "he would act as a mediator in the Syrian conflict" (BBC). Several articles will therefore have to be significantly updated in an event that has been covered on ever major news channel across the world: the Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah articles, the Julian Assange article, and the new article for The World Tomorrow, which will not remain as a "stub-class" article for long. Gregcaletta (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find your predictions for the future of the article to be just as speculative as for the future of the show. And while I dare say the show may be reasonably notable (and thus my AfD for it may well fail), the simple debut of a TV show is not notable. Did we run and ITN for the BBC show Hardtalk? Not as far as I know. This isn't really news as we know it; it's people talking about the news. The frequency of the interviewee's interviews with 'the west' (is Russia the west?) isn't exactly compelling evidence of the show's newsworthiness. If Nasrallah's announcement about acting as a mediator is noteworthy, let's have a story about that separately; but I'm not convinced that it is - there's no evidence that anyone except Nasrallah regards his intervention as interesting or at all likely to succeed. And really, don't delude yourself: this has not happened on 'every major news channel across the world' - this is primarily the work of RT, which can hardly be regarded as a reliable or unbiased source. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I stand by "every major news channel across the world". You must be ignoring the links I posted to BBC, CNN, The Guardian, AFP etc. There have also been articles in the New York Times and, need I repeat myself, every major news channel across the world. Look it up. Gregcaletta (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nasrallah's announcement is the lead aspect of a lot of these stories. If you want to write a separate ITN nomination for that, go for it. I'd still oppose it myself, but I think it has a lot more merit than all this absurd puffery for Julian Assange. Once again: "TV show launched" is fundamentally not real news. A lot of the reporting that is not about Nasrallah is in the 'people' sections of these news outlets: they are reporting on the entertaining behaviour of a narcissistic blond suspected rapist, not proclaiming that this TV show is a major breakthrough in our lives. And repeating a claim does not make it true; does anything in the stories actually support your contention that the launch of the show is itself newsworthy? The burden lies on you to demonstrate this with facts, not wild assertions. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
April 16
| Portal:Current events/2012 April 16
|
|
April 16, 2012 (2012-04-16) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economics
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
Boston Marathon
East Timor election
Article: East Timorese presidential election, 2012 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Taur Matan Ruak (pictured) is elected President of East Timor. (Post)
Credits:
Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. --Lihaas (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is an election of a very small country with negligible effect outside itself and perhaps neighboring Indonesia. I oppose it for the same reason I oppose all other 'small country elections' on principle. Colipon+(Talk) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- You won't get an "oppose" past Lihaas. We've all tried. We've all got the scars doktorb words 04:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's bullshit. We can air this grievance with an 'uninvolved admin' in that case. Colipon+(Talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please comment on content Doktorb not contributiors. The reason this tired arguement of oppose is overules is because it is ITNR...and the arguement used by the first oppose was created by him despite consensus against it. (it is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what he claims (see the last selection at the link which states its per IDONTLIKE it))Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is not true. As I said before, there was never a community consensus for posting small country elections, posting every election, or even posting elections in general. Someone decided that should be the rule and slapped it onto ITN/R prior to having a formal discussion about it. The burden should be on them to show that this consensus exists, not the other way around. Colipon+(Talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- East Timor isn't a "very small country". It has more than a million inhabitants. Once adequately updated, it should be posted. --RJFF (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- The point here is that I think country's elections should be judged on their individual merits, just like every other article that goes through ITN/C. Only if we reasonably anticipate that such an election will pass ITN/C every time do we establish that it should be on ITN/R. Here, a case can actually be made for the East Timor elections on ITN/C (that it is a young democracy with significant military influence and that the election is 'pivotal' in the stability of its gov't etc) - but editors should make that case instead of borrowing legitimacy from ITN/R. Colipon+(Talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is it that you oppose posting this just to prove a point, even though you actually think it is relevant? How about WP:DWIP? You complain about posting elections generally without judging their individual merits and then you say that you "oppose all (...) 'small country elections' on principle", obviously without judging their individual merits. Not very consequent, is it? --RJFF (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is not that. Had the nominator focused on the merits of the election itself in this nom, I (and other editors) may be convinced that it is worthy of posting, provided that the article is well-written and "of wide interest". Upon reviewing the article itself I would say that I am on the fence about whether this should be posted, leaning towards a "no" since the article is not exactly 'quality', and I don't see this generating much "Wide interest". But otherwise relying on invoking ITNR to post articles without any critical standard of scrutiny is nonsense. Colipon+(Talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support once ready. I'm not interested in Misplaced Pages personality politics; this is a sovereign nation, recently independent, and its own politics are newsworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colipon. Unless there are more ramifications to this. Around The Globe 14:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Not only is this ITN/R (which is obviously not good enough), but it is also an election that has attracted considerable international media attention. East Timor has only gained independence ten years ago and is still struggling with the painful aftermath of the war. Against this backdrop, this presidential election can be considered an important crossroad decision, probably having a determining impact on the future of the country. --RJFF (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support- This election is ten times more notable than any other minor election we post, as RJFF pointed out, and Colipon seems merely to be moving the discussion about ITNR here, even citing a discussion where it was determined that there was no consensus to change current policy. We need to respect ITNR and not deem it worthless without community discussion. —Bzweebl— 22:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Norway terror trial
Article: Trial of Anders Behring Breivik (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The criminal trial of Anders Behring Breivik, the accused perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks, begins. (Post)
Credits:
Article updated --meco (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you link to this precedent you speak of? Lugnuts (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
April 15
| Portal:Current events/2012 April 15
|
|
April 15, 2012 (2012-04-15) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
International relations
Politics
Taliban spring offensive
Article: April 2012 Afghanistan attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Taliban insurgents launch coordinated attacks on the British, Russian and German embassies, NATO's headquarters, military bases and the Afghan parliament in central Kabul, Afghanistan, and other cities, including Jalalabad and Gardēz. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (The Daily Telegraph)
Credits:
Article updated --meco (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support I think this is significant enough to post, once an article is ready for it. The attacks were spread throughout Afghanistan, and were focused on embassies of several countries, and the Afghanistan Parliament building. Despite not being very successful attacks, the intent of the attacks is significant, and it does show that the Afghan security forces can handle attacks without aid from NATO forces. However, the blurb is too long, and should be shortened to "Taliban insurgents launch coordinated attacks on central Kabul, Afghanistan." The blurb may also need to be changed as more details get released. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 18:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support-This definitely seems significant enough, particularly as it is multiple attacks we are reporting. I have been waiting for an article, and the newly created one seems to be sufficient. —Bzweebl— 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Major series of attacks. Article could do with some meat though. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Conditional support pending a suitable article and a non-sensationalist blurb. (Something roughly along the lines of A series of attacks across Afghanistan leave X dead and Y injured is all that's necessary.) Swarm 06:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing is I'd like to see the blurb somehow reflecting the multitude, scope and top-level nature of many of these targets. As I gather the casualties were not substantial, but the targets were highly significant. __meco (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- That's the article's job, not the blurb's—our purpose here is to showcase articles, not to report news or to convey how significant a news item is. There is no need to say "attacks on A, B, C, X, Y and Z" when you can say "attacks across Afghanistan". I say this with no offense intended, but the proposed blurb is absurdly long. Swarm 10:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
NW Pakistan Prison Raid
Article: War in North-West Pakistan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A prison raid by the Pakistani Taliban in North-West Pakistan free upto 400 inmates. (Post)
News source(s): Al-Jazeera The AustralianBBC CNN The Hindu
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I've plugged in a reasonably sized update in the War in NW Pak article. If more is needed, we can have a new article for its own or add on to the existing update. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've just removed it from the article: much of the text was only slightly changed from the news stories it had been taken from, and other material either wasn't directly supported by the sources or had been edited to put a slant on the claim (eg, the article stated that "Pakistani officials claimed that the heavily armed Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan forces entered the prison complex in cars and pickup trucks" which implies some doubt about their account which wasn't in the BBC story used to reference this which says that "Officials described" this as having occurred). Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The factual nature of the news articles didnt leave much room for creativity. And the changes I did make are perceived by you to be unsourced/biased (although I fail to see it). In any case, the update could have been improved or tagged for improvement rather than being deleted. I cant be bothered to rewrite it now, lets hope someone better equipped is. Cheers. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
2012 Laurence Olivier Awards
Article: 2012 Laurence Olivier Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Collaborators wins Best New Play and Matilda wins Best New Musical at the 2012 Laurence Olivier Awards. (Post)
News source(s): (Oliviers) (BBC) (Playbill) (The New York Times)
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Now the other major arm of English theatre has long been underrepresented here at ITN. I've update the article insofar as the nominees and winners, but I'm afraid that I don't live in the United Kingdom. So it's really a list right now but I honestly don't know what else to put into an awards ceremony's page. Also possibly worth mentioning is that Matilda has one more Olivier awards than any other (7) and the most since The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby, which won six. Can anyone help make it ITN worthy? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support once fully updated. As noted in the nom a little more prose would be welcome. I suggest leading with the best actoress(es) winners rather than the normal best play/best musical awards here, since that is the one the media coverage is focusing on. Apparently the youngest (joint) best actoress is the youngest ever Oliver winner. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC).
- Oppose until article is fully updated. I know nothing about these awards so I can't really do it myself without being too reliant on a few references, but the update definitely needs prose. I would hate to miss an ITN/R piece of news to go by because of a poor article update. —Bzweebl— 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
April 14
| Portal:Current events/2012 April 14
|
|
April 14, 2012 (2012-04-14) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters
International relations
Sport
Grand National
Article: 2012 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Neptune Collonges wins the Grand National horse race, in the event's closest ever finish. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Telegraph
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: Two horses suffered fatal injuries in the race (this also happened last year, see List of equine fatalities in the Grand National). I wasn't sure whether to mention it in the blurb, but am pointing it out for disclosure. —WFC— 23:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow- I had no clue what the Grand National was, but that sounds pretty intense. With so much crazy action happening in the race, I think your blurb is sufficient. The detail you added about the closest ever finish seems fine, and I think if you mentioned the two fatalities in the race it would be favoring that over other notable occurrences. The article update is significant, so I labeled it ready. —Bzweebl— 01:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
100 years since Titanic disaster
WP:SNOW close this Mtking 08:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article: Sinking of the Titanic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: April 15, 2012 marks the 100 year Anniversary of the 1912 Titanic disaster. (Post)
News source(s): CBS News,MSN NewsNominator's comments: Big event and historically important. Its not a very good blurb so change it if you come up with something better. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 15, 2012. The same event is only shown in one main page section so it was removed from On This Day. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Summit of the Americas
Article: 6th Summit of the Americas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The 6th Summit of the Americas takes place in Cartagena, Colombia. (Post)
Credits:
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.Nominator's comments: We mention BRICS, G20, etc (also overdue EU credit), should get some representation for the Americas (as well as Africa, btw). --Lihaas (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Important hemispheric meeting facing significant issues. Article in decent shape. All in all, ITN-worthy. 08:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Jusdafax
- We post BRICS and G20 and APEC evenLihaas (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- This from someone who bitches about waht WP:IDONTLIKEIT
- What I don't like is the way this was sneakily added to the ITNR list after a two-week, two-person discussion. I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this nomination until the summit has been consummated.. –HTD 14:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose False nomination. As HtD as informed the room, Lihaas has added this to ITN/R by virtue of a two-week old stale discussion, in which only one other person responded. Not good enough. Not consensus. So as this is NOT ITN/R, and CANNOT be treated as such on this page, the judgement has to be the usual view on notability and importance. On which this fails both doktorb words 12:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support How is this any different than the other summits we post? Hot Stop 13:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment- Honestly, what is diminishing about this compared to the recent BRICS conference we posted? All of the above arguments are against summits in general, and are invalid as we have an indubitable precedence to post notable summits regardless of their results. I would like to see an argument as to why this summit particularly is of lesser importance as opposed to ranting about the sneaky way this was added to ITN/R. I request that this discussion be reopened. —Bzweebl— 01:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- The difference was that the other summits were probably at ITN/R (for better or for worse, I have a sneaking suspicion on how they got on the list), so it was senseless to oppose them; this one was sneakily added so there's a reason to oppose this. When this is posted at the start/while the summit is ongoing, it's akin to posting a sports topic at the start of the preseason. Sure, anyone can argue that it's like rocket launches, but launching per se is a significant achievement, unlike holding a regularly-scheduled summit (indeed, when a summit like this is cancelled/postponed, then that becomes news). –HTD 02:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't care about how this was added to ITNR. That is irrelevant to the discussion. Your logic seems to be based on the fact that if a summit is not on ITNR, it doesn't belong on ITN, and that since in your opinion summits should not be on ITN because of their occurrence. That is true, but this is an exception because we never confirmed that it shouldn't be on ITNR. We need to discuss this on its merits, not how it was added to ITNR. I want an argument which states why this summit does not belong on ITN when others do that is not based on ITNR, as there hasn't been a consensus that this definitely shouldn't be on ITNR. Until then, no substantive arguments have been brought why this should not be posted or not be put on ITNR; merely about the fact that its initial posting on ITNR was unreasonable. —Bzweebl— 03:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- As what I've said earlier, the summit has to release something (an agreement, accord or whatever) before we can even discuss the merits of the summit per se. What I didn't say is that if this is not at the ITNR list, then it shouldn't be posted, nor if this is not ITNR-worthy. If it does release something, then we should begin discussion on this. –HTD 03:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- If a summit has to release something to be notable, why did we post so many other summits only on the basis of their occurence? For example, our blurb for the BRICS summit was "The fourth BRICS summit takes place in New Delhi." That is nearly identical to the nomination we have today, yet no one had an issue with it then. And seeing as this most certainly won't get posted, would you be willing to discuss it again when a report is released? I feel that the actual event is more notable than the release and the news may be stale by the time information comes out. Let me know what you think, although if you feel that you have expressed your opinion and are standing by it I don't mind. —Bzweebl— 03:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think the reason why nobody bothered to comment on the BRICS summit was because I think it's on the ITNR list (not sure on this), plus, still not checking, the ITNR list says the opening should be enough. That's why nobody opposed.
- I do not oppose this, heck I'm indifferent, but they should release something once the summit is over, right? We shouldn't post things when they had not done anything. If they don't release something, that means that they haven't accomplished anything. It that's news, that for the others to decide. –HTD 04:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are you trying to say that if it is on ITNR it just has to happen but if it is not then something has to come out of it? If that is the case, that would be unreasonable because it was never determined that the Summit of the Americas should not be on ITNR in the future, only that the way it was initially put on the list was unfair. A discussion could show that it should belong on ITNR, so for now we need to discuss on its merits. I would like to reinforce that at this point it should not matter whether the summit is on ITNR. —Bzweebl— 14:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not on ITNR, we'd discuss it on its merits. It currently has no merits since nothing has come out of it. Now as for the other summits, they were listed on ITNR and ITNR allows for opening of summits, whether or not they've even discussed anything. That means we have no precedence to look up to, since (I figure) most summits nominated were at the ITNR list, so they'd be listed no matter what (unless of course on the hopefully (currently) mandatory update (such as the summit has begun, for the previous ones). –HTD 14:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds fair. I'll wait for a more thorough ITNR discussion before trying to push this one through without any results. Thanks for discussing. —Bzweebl— 14:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|
In the news toolbox
Manmohan Singh