Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

September 30

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and Culture

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen

[edit]

Can somebody add in the headline that he is american citizen as this is the first time american citizen has been targeted without a trial.Carachi (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both yourself and Jusdafax have explicitly stated that his nationality is significant because his killing is a violation of the U.S. constitution. That's the only reason his nationality could be considered significant, and that's the viewpoint that we would be implicitly endorsing by specifying his nationality in the blurb (something we never do). The U.S. government has expressly rejected this claim; it's certainly disputable and debatable and hence it would not be neutral to specify his American citizenship. Swarm 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a shocker - the U.S. government has expressly rejected the claim that the U.S. government has violated the U.S. constitution. Regardless of the clear violation of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the fact that the U.S. government is now engaged in using its military to assassinate its own citizens is a notable development, in its own right. How is this not obvious? Deterence Talk 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is or isn't obvious to me is irrelevant. My opinions should play no part here and neither should anyone else's. I'm just looking at the press coverage, and based on that, his killing is significant because he was a senior al-Qaeda member linked to numerous attempted terror attacks, and additionally because his status as an American citizen raises legal questions (and we absolutely can not take a position on that, per WP:NPOV). There's also the matter of retaliatory attacks. The "dangerous precedent" point that you're trying to make is being raised by some news blogs and individual commentators, but in this article, a Duke law professor says that precedent was set back in 1942. So, while you're entitled to your opinion, it's clearly not a universally-shared one and that's why we shouldn't base any of our actions on it. Swarm 00:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN is in big trouble if "press coverage" is the predominant criterion for inclusion. Let's put our expertise and analytical skills on hold to make way for articles on Britney Spears, Brangelina and the latest fight in Jersey Shore.
  • I am not the least bit impressed by a law professor providing a legal opinion in favour of this assassination, (you forgot to mention the strong opposition of the ACLU). Even here in New Zealand there is no shortage of law & order conservatives endorsing anything and everything done by our government in the name of fighting "terrorism". As for precedents from 1942, (which is woefully lacking in detail, I might add), the U.S. government began rounding-up Japanese Americans and herding them into concentration camps that same year, and that was also endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court. And we can point to all manner of historical injustices endorsed by the Supreme Court, including discrimination against women and blacks. Luckily, legal scholars are capable of learning a thing or two from history. Deterence Talk 01:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm not interested in debating, dismissing or discussing the various opinions on this matter, and, frankly, I think doing so is grossly inappropriate. I'm only pointing out that your particular viewpoint is not universally accepted, and that is the simple truth. You can argue with, dismiss, or attack those who disagree to your heart's content, talk about injustices, write a treatise on why you're correct and the other side is incorrect, but frankly, it doesn't make much of a difference. Your opinion is more or less irrelevant, because, yes, we absolutely do use press coverage (and other reliable sources) to make determinations. When this killing is widely considered to be illegal, I will wholeheartedly agree with you, but that is absolutely not the case right now. Swarm 01:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, what? The Supreme Court makes rulings that establish legal precedent. He says that in this case, the Court found that "U.S. citizenship of ‘an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of belligerency.’ In this instance, that ‘consequence’ is being targeted like any other enemy." That's the argument from a law professor from a prominent university, and I'd say that's notable. Swarm 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the case he was referring to, where an American was executed (in the electric chair) following his capture, his confession and a trial (military tribunal). Those circumstances are clearly distinguishable from the use of the U.S. military to assassinate named U.S. citizens in a foreign country. The quote from your Duke law professor is what we in the legal profession call a "half truth", (when we're being polite). Deterence Talk 02:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - That he was an American citizen is undisputed. That this is the first time America has performed an extra-judicial killing without court indictment of one of it's own people (two such were killed, actually, in the drone strike) is also widely reported. Just add 'American citizen' to the blurb and you have a factual, informative update. Without it, the average blurb reader has no clue as to what makes this notable, which defeats the purpose, as I see it. Jusdafax 20:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is obviously extremely notable that he is an American citizen. Indeed, the fact that the American government is now assassinating American citizens is significantly more notable than the death of yet another Al-Qaeda operative. Deterence Talk 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This sets a chilling precedence for the American legal system.--WaltCip (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The supports, and the proposed update, just reek of POV, and I could easily see most of them being discounted for that very reason. If people care to know he's an American citizen (and don't know already), they can read the article. The suggestion above is forced ("American citizen" -- yeah, what an amazing title) and selective. He's a dual citizen, but no one seems to push mentioning his Yemeni citizenship. If his nationality were to be mentioned, it should be accurate and complete and with a title other than "citizen" (e.g. "Yemeni-American imam"). But, in my opinion, that's far too unwieldy, repeating Yemen for a third time and providing little additional noteworthy information. Indeed, even if the aim here is to cast aspersions on the U.S. government, simply adding "American citizen" won't accomplish that, as the blurb currently says nothing about who actually killed him. Basically, there are a lot of changes that would need to be made to the blurb to present the conclusion the supporters above want. We should not be presenting a point of view on the Main Page, let alone bending over backwards to present one. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
is there even any proof that this is the first time ever, an american citizen was targeted by government without trial? Thats very hard to believe and even if it were to be true i would consider it an exceptional claim... and i agree with tariq above, he was a dual citizen. There is no way ITN can mention just part of his citizenship to make the blurb more spicy -- Ashish-g55 01:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen

[edit]

This guy was a major al-qaeda player. Not sure about details yet though -- Ashish-g55 11:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. military reports that Al-Qaeda officer Anwar Awlaki is killed in an airstrike in Marib, Yemen.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy
  • Maple Group, a consortium of Canadian concerns, says it is extending its bid to take over Canada's largest stock market operating company, TMX Group. (Reuters)

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

Ig Nobel Prizes

[edit]
Article: List of Ig Nobel Prize winners#2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The winners of the 2011 Ig Nobel Prizes are announced (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Light-hearted science story, a bit of a warm-up for the actual Nobel prizes next week. The bolded article is just a list, but it's well referenced and has a couple of sentences on each winner. Not sure whether editors will be interested in this one or not, but thought it was at least worth considering. Modest Genius talk 14:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Peace Prize: Arturas Zuokas, the mayor of Vilnius, Lithuania, for demonstrating that the problem of illegally parked luxury cars can be solved by running them over with an armoured tank." LOL Deterence Talk 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually be lovely on April 1. However, with the real Nobel prizes coming next week, I think we better skip these. --Tone 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Tiangong 1

[edit]
Article: Tiangong 1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: China launches the Tiangong 1 space laboratory as part of its ongoing space station program. (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

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: Launch expected around 13:15-13:30 GMT Crispmuncher (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --Tone 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the blurb needs to be changed. Last time I checked there was no country known as China. Please change it to the People's Republic of China so the blurb retains a NPOV. --PlasmaTwa2
There was recently a discussion in which, by quite a strong majority, it was decided that "China" is legitimately the English common name for the PRC. Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive_26#Requested_move_August_2011. --FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Nesat

[edit]
Articles: Typhoon Nesat (2011) (talk · history · tag) and 2011 Pacific typhoon season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Typhoon Nesat kills at least 35 people after heavy rains collapsed[clarification needed] in Luzon and Manila areas of the Philipines. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Breaking news for Asia becuase, it was the worst after a month of Hurricaine Irene. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing :) --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - at least one typhoon like this hits the Philippines every year. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 35 for the phillipines is nothing compared to recent typhoons such as Fengshen.Jason Rees (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A big impact on a whole country. Thue | talk 08:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Does anyone ever bother to read these weather-related ITN articles? These events occur dozens of times each year and they all look exactly the same. I'll to supporting these nominations only when there are exceptional circumstances. Deterence Talk 09:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article does say "the most powerful tropical cyclone to directly impact the Philippines during the 2011 Pacific typhoon season", it it is a bit more than "exactly the same". Also, I assume that millions of people were directly affected; if millions are affected, then I am ok with posting it ITN, even if it happens relatively frequently. Thue | talk 14:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The typhoon is not done yet, as it has just hit China with 100,000 evacuations. No reports of casualities so far, but those opposing or not !voting may want to watch this story in the news in case human impacts increase. Jusdafax 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A State of calamity was declared in the Philippines following the typhoon. Several thouzands of people were affected and yet another typhoon just made landfall worsening the situation. This blurb when merged/modified noting the twin-typhoons that ravaged the Philippines this year, could be some big news. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Sport
Article: IRAS 17163-3907 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Astronomers announce the discovery of the Fried Egg Nebula, the closest known yellow hypergiant. (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: See here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, even to an astronomer this just isn't that interesting. Modest Genius talk 22:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the paper itself says this 'possibly belonging to the rare class of Yellow Hypergiants', and that the distance they derive is actually four times larger than was previously assumed. Modest Genius talk 12:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I definitely respect and give weight to Modest Genius's opinion on these matters, but I also think that what may seem routine or unimportant to an astronomer can still prove interesting to us non-astronomers out there. Support per Greyhood. Swarm 17:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listeriosis outbreak

[edit]
Article: 2011 American listeriosis outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A listeriosis outbreak caused by contaminated cantaloupes sickens 72 and kills 13 in the United States. (Post)
News source(s): MSNBC]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There hasn't been much solid stuff nominated lately and this seems pretty significant, so I'll present it here for consideration. --Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Normally I wouldn't support it but in view of both the clock and the number of proposals we do need to be posting something. However, that article is not up to the minimum standard yet. Probably around a quarter of the actual prose is simply an enumeration of affected states. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It's a lot better now and up to standard in my view. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Did we post the E. Coli outbreak in Europe a couple of months ago? If so, I support this one too, it's a similar scale outbreak. Else, not. --Tone 22:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally think post only if another item was posted is a bad rationale -- each item should be looked at on its own merits -- but, to answer your question, yes, I do believe we posted that outbreak. -- tariqabjotu 01:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, yes - however, the idea is that there has probably been a discussion about a very similar story a couple of months ago and most likely the consensus has not changed significantly. --Tone 07:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
however, there was a same outbreak in canada in 2008 that killed even more people. i'll support if this outbreak continues to cause more deaths but as it stands i dont think its that major yet -- Ashish-g55 01:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be 2011 E. coli O104:H4 outbreak, and yeah that was posted. I have no idea how bad the outbreak was at the time when it was posted, but countries were banning each other's produce in an effort to stop the outbreak, and that seems pretty big for me. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, added to Portal:Current events/Sidebar. --Kslotte (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina meteorite fall?

[edit]

I don't know if notability exist here, but this is what I found. One woman killed and six injured as meteorite smashes into Buenos Aires. Sources: [5] [6] Video 1 Video 2. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 27

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and Crime

37 deaths many of them children. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Tragic, but not notable. Bus accidents are simply too common to feature in the news. Here are two separate bus accidents with comparable numbers of deaths from the last two days: [7] [8]. Thue | talk 19:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. And, forgive me if I'm rude, but I would suggest fewer nominations of events of this kind. I can't remember the last time something like this didn't get widespread opposition. IMO they don't even meet the notability criteria for AfD - never mind a main page post. JimSukwutput 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Thue. Sadly, bus crashes with high numbers of fatalities are so common in developing countries that they're routine. Deterence Talk 20:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[UPDATED] Bolivian protests

[edit]
Article: 2011 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Bolivian President Evo Morales suspends a highway project in the Amazon basin after protests (Post)
News source(s): on page
Credits:

Article updated

 Lihaas (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt blurb?
And ready?Lihaas (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source 12 on the page and more if you tpye in "bolivian protests" in goog.le.Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROSAT to re-enter next month

[edit]

[9]

ROSAT is Germany's Space Telescope. The satellite scope has mirrors that were designed and built for extreme heat. These mirrors will break, but most of it will be intact when it hits the Earth. The mirrors will act like a giant blade raining many pieces of glass onto a stretch of over 500 km. UARS was dangerous due to the heavier pieces, but ROSAT will be dangerous because it will be like throwing knives out of an airplane and not knowing where thousands of these knives will land.

[10]

On its ROSAT website, DLR estimates that "up to 30 individual debris items with a total mass of up to 1.6 tonnes might reach the surface of the Earth. The X-ray optical system, with its mirrors and a mechanical support structure made of carbon-fibre reinforced composite – or at least a part of it – could be the heaviest single component to reach the ground." At the European Space Agency in Darmstadt, Germany, the head of the space debris office, Heiner Klinkrad, agrees that ROSAT's design means more of it will hit the surface. "This is indeed because ROSAT has a large mirror structure that survives high re-entry temperatures," he says.

Count Iblis (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite some advanced notice. You can't expect us to post this just yet. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed,this belongs in WP:ITN/FE. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

[Posted] Death of Wangari Maathai

[edit]

- First African woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's notable. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Not listed in WP:LILP. The deaths of Nobel Laureates are not, by mere virtue of being Nobel Laureates, sufficiently notable for inclusion into WP:LILP. The deaths of Nobel Laureates are not ITN/R. I would very much like to know how notable her death is in the eyes of those living in Africa - if she is a household name among the (educated) people of Africa (or a sizeable supranational part of Africa) then her death warrants inclusion in ITN. If she's just another forgotten Nobel Laureate, even in her corner of the world, then inclusion in ITN is not warranted. Note, she was also the first environmentalist to receive the Nobel Prize. Deterence Talk 08:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a Nobel Laureate she should be on the LILP. It's specifically mentioned as a criterion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of people who receive a Nobel Prize each year, ergo there are dozens who die each year. "Merely" being a laureate has never been a ITN shoe in. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnsemlak, merely having a Nobel prize (one of the criterion) is not enough. It specifically says, "Criteria for inclusion include several of the following:...". Deterence Talk 22:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Nobel Prize is significantly more notable than many other prizes mentioned. I would say it should be enough, particularly given some of the other names on that list (Dennis Rodman???)--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was, until this ridiculous farce. Now I wouldn't wipe my a*** with one. Deterence Talk 02:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're citing Obama's Nobel as a what made it a farce? I would have cited Henry Kissinger. But I don't think her prize is nearly so political.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I had forgotten about Henry Kissinger. It was more than a little ironic (it was absolutely outrageous) that such a war-monger could be awarded the Peace prize. But, at least he did something to earn his prize (overtures of peace towards North Vietnam) whereas Obama did sweet-f-all to deserve his and the announcement of his name was immediately greeted with boos. Deterence Talk 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Obama deserved his prize or not is not the issue. Obama is notable enough for the LILP, and surely a non-notable person wouldn't win the Nobel prize in any case.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, between us, we have proven that non-notable person would win the Nobel prize. Deterence Talk 06:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there are only 6 Nobel Prizes each year. Even if shared, a look over the recent winners shows that the number of individuals awarded each year ranges from 6 to 13, not "dozens." It's a pretty exclusive list, especially in Peace and Literature, which are rarely shared. Most Peace laureates are "in the news" during their lifetimes, and those who are not are selected for a lifetime achievement that transcends disciplines. I think Peace laureates, whether or not our editors believe they deserve the Award, are by definition notable.
The other issue is that WP:LILP needs to be updated and edited. The list currently contains 3 Irish broadcasters, 2 porn stars, and 2 dead people (and guess what, when one of them died, no one even nominated it for inclusion in ITN). I have nothing against Irish broadcasters, but I do think they would be outranked by Nobel laureates. And so on. Bruxism (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is almost entirely sourced to her memoirs. That's not encylopaedic. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. The first African woman to win the prize, and the first person to win for environmental activism.--The lorax (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support She meets at least 3 of the WP:LILP guidelines (which, by the way, are incredibly weak on "Revolutionaries/activists"). These are: 1. Enduring notability beyond a generation or popular era 2. Noted for a body of work that singularly altered their field or discipline 3. Winning major awards in their field or discipline (Nobel...) If she is "just another forgotten Nobel Laureate," it's precisely because open media like Wikipedia have not fulfilled our responsibility to inform the public. If her article is not good enough, then we need to work on that. This is the Nobel Prize for Peace, which comes for having had a momentous impact on the world in some way. It also puts her in the same category as Aung San Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama, and others. She was one of the most important people in Africa, if not the most prominent woman in all of Africa, which I might also point out is disproportionately under-represented by internet access and Wikipedia participation. Bruxism (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She is notable, but her death is not. Colchicum (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LLIP is a fairly random list and a bit biased. I dont think its a good indicator for deaths on ITN. Having said that her death was expected due to cancer and there are quite a few Nobel laureates still alive. They all got nobel prize for doing something great but we can not post all their deaths. So oppose for now. -- Ashish-g55 18:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the Nobel Peace prize is the biggest and most famous of the Nobel awards, and there's very few alive. Very notable death. Secret account 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose she's far from the only the African winner. South Africa has three of the top of my head, and Egypt has one. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SA has nine: List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#South_Africa. Modest Genius talk 19:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was referring to the Peace Prize (they have four), but I'm surprised they have that many overall Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Strong support. Article's subject made strong contributions to environmental causes within East Africa and elsewhere in the vicinity, where many English-speaking readers likely live. ~AH1 (discuss!) 22:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a minority topic? ~AH1 (discuss!) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Based on my limited knowledge about Africa, I said to myself: "If this is the tree woman, it is definitely notable". I clicked on the link, and it was indeed the tree woman. So that's my rationale. It's not just that she is a first in terms of the Nobel Peace Prize, it is that she was an extremely well-known public figure across a large part of Africa. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable and well-known activist, the article is rather good (much better than most we post on ITN), and there's a good update to it including reactions to her death. Modest Genius talk 23:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a Nobel Laureate she is not a 'shoe in' as already mentioned but she seems to be a particularly notable per reasons mentioned above. She clearly is a 'leader in her field, and recognized as a such'. The article is 'B-Class' and the update is good. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article violates so many limbs of WP:SPS it is unpostable. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does this violate SPS? Her memoirs are a reliable source, published by an established publisher and there's no evidence that they are questionable as a source. The article has many sources besides her memoirs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rough consensus (!vote 8-4) for this nomination, I believe. The article is 'B-class', and the update is more than sufficient, with reactions from Al Gore, Desmond Tutu, and the current president of Tanzania. I'll mark the item 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Boeing 787 delivery

[edit]

considering the ridiculous amount of news, the delays of this jet has produced (over past 3-4 years) i think its first delivery is fairly notable for ITN. Boeing is expected to make its long-awaited first delivery Monday to Nippon Airways. -- Ashish-g55 02:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aviation is not a small industry and 787 has been the most anticipated jet for a very long time now... when the first customer chooses to use the plane wont be as significant as first customer getting one (IMHO atleast... ) -- Ashish-g55 02:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that, according to the article, the program cost of the Boeing 787 is US$32,000,000,000. Deterence Talk 02:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Sport
Television

French Senate election

[edit]
Articles: French Senate election, 2011 (talk · history · tag) and Senate of France (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ to be specified (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Telegraph AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: French Left wins control over the French Senate, for the first time since the establishment of the French Fifth Republic (in 1958.) Article needs expansion (I'll try to add to it when I have time), but it's the election of the upper house in a major country, with a historic result. This is my first attempt at an ITN nomination, so apologies if I messed up the template format. Seleucus (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good story for ITN. When the article is ready, I will support. --Tone 18:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support pending improvements to the article. Although, given the current state of intense economic and social regulation in France, I'm not sure how much more left they can go. Deterence Talk 22:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before this month, the French right (the UMP, under Sarzosky) controlled the trifecta of the upper house (Senate), lower house (National Assembly), and presidency. France might seem leftist from a U.S. standpoint, but no countries are politically identical, and its very rightist on other areas (ex: the deportations of Romani in 2010). In short, the French Left still has quite a far ways to go in regaining power, but this is a pretty big milestone for them. Seleucus (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the article could do with a results table before posting. Modest Genius talk 21:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] World Road Race Championship

[edit]
Articles: 2011 UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race (talk · history · tag) and Mark Cavendish (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cycling, Mark Cavendish of Great Britain wins the road race (and Germany's Tony Martin wins the time trial) at the UCI World Championships in Denmark. (Post)
News source(s): road race time trial
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Top one day race in genuinely international Olympic Sport, that this was in the offing was used as reason not to post the Vuelta a Espana result two weeks ago. Yes, there were also women's (and age restricted) events, and I would not object to those results being added, but the difference in level of professionalism and coverage throughout the year is vast. --Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the conclusion of the championship emphasizing the results in the men's competition, but nor specifically the road race.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Also support only mentioning the men but say it's the men as omitting it may imply it was the only events. Suggested blurb:
In cycling, Mark Cavendish of Great Britain wins the men's road race and Tony Martin of Germany wins the men's time trial at the UCI World Championships in Denmark.
PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I will support major sports events. like this.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The Mark Cavendish article looks great, but the Tony Martin article only has four sentences of prose total. I would say the Tony Martin article needs some heavy upgrading or else only the Mark Cavendish article get posted (for now, at least...it can always be added later after some upgrades). Also, the road race article has some referencing issues...I saw at least the race report appears to be lacking them. Ks0stm (TCGE) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Race report now referenced Kevin McE (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: 2011 Chile blackout (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ to be specified (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Aljazeera AFP Forbes Washington Post Xinhua
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major blackout hits Chile. Our article may need expansion, but it's a good start IMO.  Diego  talk  16:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The scale of the blackout for developed countryis very impressive and unusual. The duration was short and it was a time of night where the impact was low. Had this been longer blackout and had it been during the work day this would have been a speedy post situation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Women in Saudi Arabia get the right to vote

[edit]

Article: Elections_in_Saudi_Arabia#Women.27s_participation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Women are granted the right to vote in Saudi Arabia by a fiat of King Abdullah. (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Obvious reasons, but relevant coverage of women's political rights in Saudi seems sparse and there is no dedicated article. FWIW, I've updated the relevant content and posted a request at the Feminism Wikiproject.

Support, those it's debatable whether this should be posted now or whenever the first elections with female voters are actually held. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This extraordinary news is one of the most notable developments in Middle Eastern politics in years. I see no journalistic value in waiting until the first election before posting this in ITN. Deterence Talk 13:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's obvious that this is worthy news. Only difficulty is WP's dearth of material about women's suffrage in the country. --FormerIP (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it doesn't offer a lot of coverage, it actually is updated. --FormerIP (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence is not a sufficient update. See WP:ITN#Updated content. Modest Genius talk 15:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the update: [12]. There doesn't seem to be any additional information from today's news sources that could be added. What additional info might be proposed?--FormerIP (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while this item has a strong support, it is better to wait until the editorial conflict settles, then it's ready to post. --Tone 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute wasn't going my way, so I have moved the content to a different article. Maybe it is ready to post now, but editors may wish to review. --FormerIP (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that article makes it clear. Posting. --Tone 07:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New world Marathon record

[edit]

Articles: Marathon world record progression (talk · history · tag) and Patrick Makau Musyoki (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Patrick Makau retains the 2011 Berlin Marathon in a new world record time. (Post)
News source(s): [13]
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: First time in three years that the record has been broken.

BTW, in spite of what it says above, I did not nominate this. --FormerIP (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it should be Patrick Makau wins the 2011 Berlin Marathon, setting a new world record. However, I am not sure which of the three articles should be bolded, as all three are relevant. Makau, presumably... A second opinion on this one and I am posting. --Tone 21:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makau's would be best, but the body update is still only one sentence. Surely there's something else that could be added? A quote from someone maybe? Modest Genius talk 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did it myself. Marking [Ready]. Modest Genius talk 23:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just wish people would stop calling it a world record, and comparing it with the 100 metre world record. The 100 metres is run on very standardised tracks, always flat and with strict limits on wind speed, etc. Marathons are run on very different courses in every different place. It's silly to compare the times on a flat course with a tail wind to those on a hilly course with hot head wind. Some courses are deliberately designed to allow faster times to be achieved. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you have a good point about the differences between courses, the article is at Marathon world record progression. We always defer to supporting articles. Modest Genius talk 22:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The official source IAAF calls it a world record and their marathon record page [14] looks exactly like their 100 m page [15]. Page 234 (pdf page 222) of [16] shows the IAAF rules for road running records. They don't allow all conditions. (b) says: The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance." This makes it unlikely there will be a tail wind nearly the whole way. (c) says: "The overall decrease in elevation between the start and finish shall not exceed 1:1000, i.e. 1m per km." Some marathons are significantly harder than others but so is a 100 m into a 4 m/s head wind compared to the allowed 2.0 m/s tail wind. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. The rules have obviously changed in recent years. I can't argue the facts. (I still think it's a bit dodgy though.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of bullfighting in Catalonia, Spain

[edit]

Articles: Ban on bullfighting in Catalonia (talk · history · tag) and Catalonia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The last bullfight takes place in Catalonia, following a ban. (Post)
News source(s): [17]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant event in the cultural history of Spain. Ban on bullfighting article is appropriately short. Controversy section unsourced at present. I've been through and improved the citing.

  • Weak Support Blurb should be expanded, maybe something like "After x many years of bullfighting, the state/region/whatever of Catalonia imposes a ban on the sport/practice/whatever." The "last" bullfight isn't the issue, the ban is. WikifanBe nice 03:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could tag something like "...ending a centuries-old tradition in the region" to the end. --FormerIP (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable development in the politics of animal rights. Spain's first regional ban of bullfighting of will be of great popular interest, particularly around the Western world. Just don't tell Hemingway. Deterence Talk 04:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Deterence. Bullfighting is a signature animal rights issue. Thue | talk 09:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have no problems in supporting this normally, however, the voting took place almost a month ago, i.e. it is old news. Secondly, the BBC article was news because it states that: "The ban takes effect on 1 January, but Sunday's fights in Catalonia will be the last events of the 2011 season." This being the case, both the article and the blurb need to mention that the last fight has taken place. I presume, by the time this is published (if it gets there), then this would be the case. If not, then this item will be without proper context. --SMasters (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The news shouldn't be posted until this evening, Spanish time - I should have mentioned this in my comments above. --FormerIP (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I'm moving to an oppose for this time. We can't claim that, "The last bullfight takes place in Catalonia..." because we do not know that for sure. The ban only comes into force on 1 January. They could still have practice sessions or other show events legally. --SMasters (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have a bullfighting season which ends today. If we get caught out that way, though, we'll only be in the company of all the worlds' media. --FormerIP (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of that. I am saying that the blurb is misleading and wrong. Since it has been posted before, waiting for 1 January would be a lot better. It's only in a few months' time. – SMasters (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's misleading about the blurb? --FormerIP (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement, "The last bullfight takes place in Catalonia...". I have given my views on why this is not correct above. --SMasters (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Did not know that. Is twice in 14 months really too often, though? --FormerIP (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care much about this one way or the other to be honest. I was generally supportive but then I though about: it's only Catalonia which has generally not been a big bull-fighting region anway. I also don't like any rationale based on it being the first region to do so: that implies to me the rest will inevitably follow. I agree its notable but it is also easily overplayed. ITN material? I'm not sure myself. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Agree with this, while it has seen international coverage - its more along the lines of an "Also in the news" item. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A significant milestone. This has been part of the culture for hundreds of years. So what if we've posted something about it before, we're obviously not going to be posting it again! Nightw 17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not that we posted something about it and it's not a new development. It is the exactly the same thing that we posted before. There are a lot of stories on ITN that are more important than others (the end of DADT, for example), but we don't post them more than once just because of notability. JimSukwutput 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per above. It is the same story that we have already posted. Nothing new here. And the story is not of such importance that it would justify the double posting. --Tone 07:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Disasters

Law and crime

Business

Politics

Science

[Withdrawn] Direct experimental demonstration of the Principle of Invariant Light Speed

[edit]
Articles: Special relativity (talk · history · tag) and ? (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian physicists achieve direct experimental demonstration of independence of speed of light from the light source velocity (the 2nd Principle of Special Relativity). (Post)
News source(s): [18]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I thought I'd nominate this after all that fuss about neutrinos breaking the speed of light. As for the experiment, so far I could find only some Russian-language interviews of scientists about it and an article accepted for publication in Physics-Uspekhi. Yevgeny Alexandrov (Russian article) and a group of other researchers managed to realise the idea of a device (here is a scheme) intended to demonstrate the 2nd Principle of Einstein's Special relativity, proposed 60 years ago by President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences Sergey Vavilov and his disciple Alexey Bonch-Bruyevich (Russian article). The difference from the previous experiments in the same area is that the light source in this case itself moves with a near-light speed (an electron beam in a special synchrotron), and the effect is very obvious and direct - instead of having double speed of light, we have the constant. GreyHood Talk 11:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This almost reads like a rallying call from the cult of Einstein that has emerged for unspecified reasons in recent days. There's no way I'm supporting this counter-attack while the exceptionally notable announcement by CERN/OPERA is withering in the drawing room. Deterence Talk 11:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Seems the article had been ready in March already, and there were some more news on the topic since then, though for some reason it became widely publicized only this week. Better to submit it for DYK I think. Anyway too much Russian news. GreyHood Talk 11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Vladimir Putin accepts Dmitry Medvedev's proposal to run for the Russian Presidency

[edit]
Articles: Dmitry Medvedev (talk · history · tag) and Vladimir Putin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the United Russia Congress, Vladimir Putin accepts Dmitry Medvedev's proposal for the former to run for President of Russia. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15045816
Credits:
  • Nominated by Russavia (talk · give credit)
  • Updated by Nanobear (talk · give credit) and [[User:>|>]] ([[User talk:>|talk]] · [{{fullurl:User talk:>|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BDmitry+Medvedev%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Dmitry+Medvedev&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: The news will dominate headlines in Russia for months to come. Additionally, we have photo of the Congress at commons:Category:United Russia Congress, September 2011 --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Skepticism of Russian politics, particularly Putin, is hardly uncommon and frankly is warranted in this case. Of course we should be objective in our coverage of Russia, but this isn't a Wikipedia article, it's a forum and some POV should be tolerated for debate. (A point I was reminded of myself earlier). Personally, I don't know if it's humiliating though it certainly is strong evidence that Medvedev was subservient to Putin all along, which was widely-believed all along anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Palestinian president seeks formal recognition of Palestine by UN

[edit]
Article: Palestine 194 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Palestinian president will seek to effectively gain legal recognition for a Palestinian state based on the borders prior to the Six Day War, with East Jerusalem as its capital today at the UN council meeting in New York. (Post)
News source(s): FOX News
Credits:
  • Oppose. All they've done is submitted an application. No voting is going to be taking place until at least October. And since something will definitely come out of this, I'd say we just put off posting something until it happens. Nightw 15:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes I agree that the appropriate time is when the vote happens. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah I guess. But I imagined that we were talking about the next day or so. My "support but" meant inevitably yes but get the exact hour right. It now seems that's not how it will be. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering that (unless the United States has been setting up a big practical joke on Israel or Dr Rice arrives to the UN Headquarters on meth) the United States is going to veto the Palestinian bid on Monday, do we put this failed bid up then? Or should we wait to see if they ask the UNGA to consider becoming an observer state? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely well informed about the UN, but I see no reason why the US would get a veto here. Isn't this just a General Assembly matter, not a Security Council one? NW (Talk) 01:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Obama has already indicated that there will be a veto. I'm not sure if the timetabling of Monday is correct or not, but that's what I meant above when I said "will undoubtedly need a different blurb" - one that will include the words "US veto". --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea that the Security Council was involved in admission of new members. But apparently you are right: [19]. Here's a suggested blurb, assuming it happens: "The United States vetoes the admission of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations General Assembly." NW (Talk) 01:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21:11 (16:11) But the Security Council seems to be in no mood for delay: It's announced it will meet on Monday afternoon to discuss the bid. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This story has been big throughout much of September, and the drama surrounding it has been simmering for months. How you have managed to stay away from this news story, and the fact that the UNSC and the U.S. veto are relevant to Palestine's admission as a full member, is beyond me. But I suppose -- in some way -- you can consider yourself lucky. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • His, and yep. I read the New York Times daily, but sort-of-kind-of-not-really on purpose, have basically ignored Israel for the last while; the whole thing just annoys me too much. I haven't read anything substantial on Israel–Palestine since at least summer 2010, when I picked up a copy of John Stoessinger's Why Nations Go To War. NW (Talk) 07:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, no veto nor vote is going to happen until October, so can we close this one? Nightw 06:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure of that? Is there a source? Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could flick through and get something if I had the energy but I'm a bit pre-occupied. Continue to discuss if you wish. Nightw 07:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, SC meeting will take place to consider it on the 26th at 19:00 GMT. I don't know whether they'll be a vote though. [20] Nightw 08:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Support once outcome is revealed, irrespective of what the outcome is. Even if the US vetoes it (which it almost certainly will), it would still be important. This has been widely reported internationally and has significant international ramifications. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will we post an update (if/)when the General Assembly gives it the Vatican Option? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Some debris may survive to reach the surface. Probably will hit Italy. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support when it falls. This is the first time in my remembrance such thing to occur, and its importance raised through the media to point the right place of the blow receives already a widespread attention and worries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't get what the big deal is - space-junk falls to Earth all the time - but this seems to have captured to attention of the world's media. Deterence Talk 14:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but only if and when it falls.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once it falls. This is significant because it's not just "space junk", it's a bus-sized satellite that will not fully burn up, and its debris might land in the United States, injuring people or causing damage (very low possibility, but still there). It's been in the news a lot because until recently they really had no idea where the debris will land.
Oh, well if it might land in the USA, that is significant. We'll just have to hope that it lands in one of the other places in the most recent forecast, like Canada, Africa, or Australia, where any damage or injury will be less significant. Kevin McE (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an astoundingly inappropriate thing to say. I'm equally concerned about human life everywhere in the world, and for you to suggest that I only care about this because it might've landed in the US is totally insulting. I would ask you to strike that comment. Thanks. Swarm u / t 11:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made two comments in this thread that only referred to the possibility of it causing damage in the US: you made the area of your concern quite explicit. If you want people to believe that your concern is universal, you will have to consider your comments more carefully. Kevin McE (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't just "say that" due to a personal bias as you're suggesting, I was basing it directly from NASA's live updates. NASA initially didn't know where it would land. They then narrowed it down to it potentially landing in the United States, which is the only reason I mentioned that country at all! If NASA predicted a possibility of it landing in Bangladesh or Argentina, of course I would have supported and mentioned those countries instead, but they didn't. Perhaps you should look in the September archives to see the earlier nomination for my position on the matter. Perhaps you should have followed the link I provided to see where I was coming from. Or, best of all, perhaps you should read the "please do not" section of the header before you jump to conclusions and make such wild and completely unfounded accusations of ethnocentrism, something I utterly loathe, and am nothing short of shocked to be accused of. Swarm u / t 14:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the link that you put up: that's where I got "the other places in the most recent forecast, like Canada, Africa, or Australia" from. Like I say, if you are concerned about the conclusions that people might draw, be careful of what you say. Kevin McE (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you had considered Jim's comment below before continuing to push this. Again, I was following live updates. At the time I looked at it, "Update #10" was the most recent update (I left my comment hours before "Update #11", the first to mention other countries, was posted). You could've pointed out that there was a newly-reported possibility of it landing in other countries, and I would've happily amended my comment. That would've been much more constructive than accusing me of ethnocentrism. If I made a mistake due to carelessness, I'd happily admit it. However, as my comment was simply based on outdated information, I would respectfully ask you to at least acknowledge that this is a misunderstanding. Swarm 22:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also initially read it the way Kevin did, but, Kevin, Swarm's explanation from 14:02 (UTC) should have definitively cleared up why he only mentioned the U.S. Your curt repetition of the discounted claim even after that comment is rather insulting. -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say I felt the same way as Kevin McE when I initially read your comments. Note that the only reason NASA mentioned that some debris might hit the U.S. is because they previously said that they won't - NASA had predicted that all the pieces will likely land elsewhere, such as Eurasia (they thought the pieces will re-enter during Friday afternoon, when it won't be flying above North America). Your comment about it being significant because it might hits the U.S. then gives the impression that you're discounting the even higher possibility that it'll land elsewhere. But given this series of exchange I think it's probably because you haven't been following the news on this item so closely (a good thing) and had misunderstood the situation. So let's simply regard it as a trivial misunderstanding. JimSukwutput 16:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Re-entries happen on average once every day. This one just happens to catch more attention because it's bigger and the possibility of causing damage is slightly higher. But that is still an extremely small possibility. Ultimately this will likely amount to nothing, except another demonstration of the fearmongering abilities of the mass media and the incredibly poor grasp of statistics among the public. JimSukwutput 16:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "There is a low probability any debris that survives re-entry will land in the United States, but the possibility cannot be discounted..."[21] ← That is not normal. Swarm u / t 17:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The chances of a particular person getting hit by debris is a few thousand times lower than the chance of the same person getting killed by a falling coconut today. So why aren't we posting the imminent ripening of thousands of coconuts on Earth?
    Ultimately this attracted attention because it's a curiosity. You know, debris "falling from the sky". But we don't post items based on how curious they are. That's for sections like DYK. JimSukwutput 18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless it hits someone or does some damage. It isn't at all unusual for objects such as this to re-enter Earth's atmosphere (one falls per year according to [22]) and the only interesting thing about this one is that the probability of humans being injured is 1 in 3,200 rather than the 1 in 10,000 NASA aims for. If someone does get hit by the satellite then that would be newsworthy (only one person has ever been hit by space debris, and she wasn't injured) but that's extremely unlikely. Hut 8.5 17:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case consensus comes to support posting, can y'all have a blurb ready? Ks0stm (TCGE) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "You can run, but you can't hide. ... Coming to your home on September 23: U.A.R.S." -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once re-entry is confirmed and the article reflects this information. Although I do not consider the event to be particularly significant (for reasons noted by others above), it is "in the news" and the article and update are decent. In general, I think that it is worth posting marginally significant news if it helps to highlight relatively good-quality articles that are of interest to our readers. The article received almost 15,000 views yesterday, up from <50 one month ago. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blurb suggestion: The Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, deployed in 1991 by Space Shuttle Discovery, falls from Earth orbit with 26 pieces expected to survive reentry. The blurb can be shortened by excising certain parts, such as: "in 1991", "by Space Shuttle Discovery" and "with 26 pieces expected to survive reentry". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Zambian election

[edit]
Article: Zambian general election, 2011 ‎ (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Michael Sata wins a presidential election in Zambia (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
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.
election commission is collating final results for publication, though officially annunced with 95% counted. Is that the only thing thats not ready?Lihaas (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. I mean the article does not currently meat LEAD requirements, there are maintenance tags, and it's just generally too small in my opinion. Nightw 05:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
meaning who and which? its not effective of the result and ITN is not as stringent here as DYK. (answered 1 tag, and 1/4 of the other tag)
more crappier election articles have been posted. It ddeals with more issues and content (violence, criticism, etc) than other articles we posted. (Hungary comes tio mind)
Death of Burhanuddin Rabbani was posted despite a tag and a crap update with nothing of his funeral, etc.Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we here to discuss other nominations or this one? Perhaps you should spend your time on the article you nominated instead of whining about others... Oppose for now. Nightw 10:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should focus on discussing CONTENT instead of an editor!Lihaas (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My only issue with the article is that it is entirely about the Presidential election and has no content about the general election for representatives of the General Assembly. I'm not even sure there was a general election, (in addition to the Presidential election), which would make the title and the lede of the article quite misleading. Deterence Talk 20:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In presidential systems, the term "general election" stands for the election of all positions in government, probably including the local positions (in some places). At least that's how I understand it in my neck of the woods... –HTD 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh's return to Yemen

[edit]
Articles: 2011 Yemeni uprising (talk · history · tag) and Ali Abdullah Saleh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Yemeni state-television announces that President Ali Abdullah Saleh has return to the country after three months amid turmoil (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Both articles updated
the update there was rubbish yet posted.Lihaas (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Posted] Neutrinos break the speed of light

[edit]

Article: OPERA experiment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: CERN announces that neutrinos were recorded exceeding the speed of light The OPERA experiment at CERN reports neutrinos appearing to travel faster than the speed of light, and requests independent replication and investigation from the physics community to confirm. (Post)
News source(s): telegraph.co.uk, reuters.com,Google via AP, Wired,

Preprint of OPERA experiment paper
Credits:

Article needs updating

 --Marcus Qwertyus 21:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose unless confirmed. If it's true, it's obviously one of the most important experiments for decades. But it's far more likely to be a systematic effect on the data. Even the team themselves aren't claiming a detection. Nor has it been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Also, the neutrinos are made at CERN but detected at Gran Sasso, who made the announcement. Modest Genius talk 21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm less than impressed by argumentum ad hominem. Especially given the number of ignorant morons I know who have been awarded degrees. As far as the my degrees are bigger/more numerous than your degrees argument goes, I haven't been beaten in years, but how is that in any way relevant? Deterence Talk 06:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold it, certainly with the blurb proposed I know a lot a decent amount about physics as it goes, and I also know a lot about what journalists want to put on the front page. CERN have announced nothing like "neutrinos are breaking the speed of light". For a start it's a member of the OPERA collaboration [25]. Let's not descend to front page GOTCHA journalism here. Pedro :  Chat  21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. CERN has made no press release. They were detecting particles generated at CERN, but the Italian OPERA project is the head talking, not CERN. This is fodder for the science fiction mind, but instruments/data have given erroneous results so many, many times before, that this should not even be news. --hydrox (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No one really believes that the neutrinos in this experiment really travelled faster than light. The problem is that the experiment seems to indicates this, and that's mostly an experimental problem (these experiments are very complicated).
    Einstein's theory of relativity won't be overthrown by this, because special relativity is nothing more than saying that Lorentz invariance symmetry holds (i.e. if you perform an experiment inside an isolated box and someone peforms the same experimennt in another isolated box that moves w.r.t. to you, the results should be the same, so you there is no such thing as absolute motion). Now Lorentz invariance has been tested to enormous accuracy at very high energies, so we can be confident that this holds also in the regime at which this particular experiment was performed.
    Then the issue with something going faster than light while Lorentz invariance still holds is this paradox. So, if we assume that neutrinos really do go faster than light in this experiment, then you could build a device that allows you to send messages to yourself into your own past. So, yo could today receive a phone call coming from yourself from tomorrow. But then you coud decide to not call yourself up tomorrow if you receive a phonecall today and vice versa, leading to a paradox.
    This causal paradox is the reason why no one believes that you can send information faster than light (at least as long as we assume that there are no violations of Lorentz invariance, but no such violations have been found). So, repeating the statements from the news articles that "Einstein's relativity could be overturned" would let us look rather dumb as unlike the news articles, Wikipedia is thought to be edited by experts. Count Iblis (talk)
    Iblis, your striking advocacy of the theory-dependence of observation is noted, with raised eye-brows. Deterence Talk 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. Count Iblis may be right, but if he is wrong and the results seen are confirmed then this will be very big news indeed. At the moment it is an interesting finding which needs explaining. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for it to published in a peer-reviewed journal, per all those above. Jenks24 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While I can appreciate (and even support) why responsible editors would want to wait for CERN to make a formal announcement before publishing this (alleged) discovery in ITN, requiring peer-review of the discovery is unnecessarily restrictive and such an approach is not supported by precedent when other scientific and medical discoveries have been announced. WP:RSs together with appropriate caveats is sufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia's ITN. Deterence Talk 22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't help but feel most of these opposes are themselves based on interpretative OR. CERN know what they're doing and while they've been guarded in how they've announced this (it is more a request for explanations rather than a concrete announcement) a lot of the negative comments here strike me as the "I understand this stuff, me" variety ("explaining" this when the best scientists can't) rather than a genuine evaluation of what is proposed. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Please see the many comments above explaining that CERN has said nothing here. The results come from an experiment at a different lab. Modest Genius talk 22:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Crispmuncher, I can only echo Modest Genius and add that you clearly couldn't be bothered to read this debate properly. If you want to throw a few more off hand ad-hominem attacks in, then please head over to WT:RFA where they are the norm. Better yet stop accusing people of "I understand this stuff, me" variety and actually follow the conversation before commenting in the future. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I probably was bordering on incivility there so I will apologise for that. However I stand by my substantive point: I have no time at all for many of the oppose arguments presented here. To re-iterate, two teams of professional scientists at prestigious institutions have spent years working on this and they can't explain it. Therefore I do not feel it wise or supportable by the project's policies on OR to be casually dismissing their findings when we are for the most part a collection of well-intentioned amateurs reading a press release and a couple of news reports.
    For example, take Count Iblis' comments regarding the tachyonic antitelephone. I know Iblis from Speed of light and I have the utmost respect for him. However, we only need to ask ourselves one question in response: Don't you think they have thought of that? They understand the significance of what they propose and the problems it creates in existing theories if confirmed. The fact this finding would mean those theories need to be re-assessed does not make it wrong. Is relativity wrong because it contradicted Newton's Laws of Motion and the SUVAT equations? Of course not. The fact that it caused a set of the most trusted rules of physics to be re-appraised is indicative of the utter significance of the theory, not that it must automatically be wrong.
    We have to ask ourselves who is in a position to be able to independently verify these findings. The obvious contender is Fermilab. They have already announced they will pursue this as a priority and indeed note that they have got similar results in the past, albeit with higher error bounds that made it impossible to assert anything of note.[26] If this can be brushed aside so easily why are they bothering? The answer is that they are approaching this with proper scientific rigour instead of a simple response that this must be in error as is being made here. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Now how would the blurb look like? "Particle physicists are puzzled by new data that seems to contradict over 100 years of scientific rigor." ? --hydrox (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse Crispmuncher's clear and concise analysis of this issue and reiterate my earlier criticism: not only is Iblis guilty of the theory-dependence of observation, he is trying to force that dubious approach upon CERN and the rest of us simply because he doesn't like the scientific implications of the data. Deterence Talk 00:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Support We're not here to referee scientific claims, we're here to provide information and content on subjects our readers are interested in. This certainly qualifies. If the actual details are still at issue our readers can work it out. They don't need us to babysit them. RxS (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious support for a blurb that's factually wrong? Fascinating. Pedro :  Chat  22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We use reliable sources for our content. Tweak the blurb if needed but there are loads of reliable sources to support this. As opposed to your adorable if vacant rhetorical mutterings. RxS (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This attack is ridiculous. The blurb is factually wrong. CERN made no such announcement, and if you bothered to read any of the sources cited they will tell you the exact same thing. JimSukwutput 18:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's right there on CERN's front page. They were a bit tardy getting a press release out, but CERN representatives were talking about this almost straight away the news broke. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they reported it! The point is that they didn't announce it. Saying that would be just as inaccurate as saying NYT announced it because it's on their front page. Huge difference. JimSukwutput 19:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Be very very careful with this. This isnt saying that speed of light is different than what we know its saying something can break the speed of light. ITN is still part of this encyclopedia and saying Einstein was wrong should not be taken lightly. Let this be verified by 10 sources then it may stand a chance... -- Ashish-g55 22:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But by that point it won't be news. Besides, there is no sudden tipping point when a theory or finding becomes generally accepted: it is a much more gradual process than that. It is in the news now and as evidenced by the speed this debate has grown there is clearly a lot of interest in it. Sure, there are issues and we need to be careful to present what has been found in a balanced manner lest false impressions are created. If we don't seek to address those concerns and present this finding in the proper context then who will: the mainstream media certainly won't. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    A news should still contain facts. The fact here is that a group of researchers cant explain what they have discovered. what they have discovered can re-write half the physics out there so unless they can explain their discovery, i would stay far away from this. -- Ashish-g55 00:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the data, and the possible implications of that data, that is notable in the present case. Deterence Talk 00:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what you are saying but i dont think a small blurb on ITN can explain those implications. At best we can make it sound like a rumor and that'll just look awful. -- Ashish-g55 00:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a point that this is now news, and it won't be news should this be confirmed later. I couldn't disagree more. If this is actually confirmed, it is the biggest single thing in physics in decades, if not centuries, something I would maybe compare to observing alien life forms in outer space. It will be BIG news. As an encyclopedia, I think we have a duty not to publish this before it can be verified. --hydrox (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. No evidence has been presented that CERN supports this claim. As hydrox pointed out, CERN has made no press release. It appears that neither has OPERA itself. Their actual work is supposed to be presented Friday and hasn't been seen by anybody yet as far as I can tell. Mainstream media often mess up in eager to report breaking science news without scientists writing or reviewing their story. The scientific Nature (journal) has a sceptical story on the claim.[27] Antonio Ereditato is a redlink and I'm not sure of his status in science. We should be careful per WP:REDFLAG, especially on the main page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, Antonio Ereditato is their spokesperson (Telegreph says "Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the international group of researchers"), I wouldn't expect him to have Wikipedia article and I don't think it's fair to judge the nomination on the basis of the notability of an individual associated with it. C628 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a qualified statement (using terms such as "appears", "seems", and/or "claims") once the conference takes place tomorrow. After all, whether it's true or not (I'm trying not to hope), it is news.-Link (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - wait until confirmed, per the above. I'm not generally against posting unconfirmed findings or preliminary test results, but this is simply too big of a claim to get behind unless it is indeed confirmed. Swarm u / t 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait (support new blurb, see comment below) - No reason to hurry. This is not going to go away any time soon. Let me just make three observations:
    1. The blurb is factually incorrect as of now.
    2. There is a disappointing amount of personal attacks in this discussion and not enough substantive debate.
    3. With technical topics like this, it's very important to know what we're talking about and getting it right. I am ignorant about this specific topic, hence I will defer to Wikipedians with more expertise. There are some people here who should probably do the same. JimSukwutput 04:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. CERN has now made a cautious press release called "OPERA experiment reports anomaly in flight time of neutrinos from CERN to Gran Sasso".[28] Quotes: "appears to indicate that the neutrinos travel at a velocity 20 parts per million above the speed of light", "The strong constraints arising from these observations makes an interpretation of the OPERA measurement in terms of modification of Einstein’s theory unlikely, and give further strong reason to seek new independent measurements." Their list of Press Releases [29] doesn't mention the speed of light when the press release is mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With that press release in mind, I think we would be highly negligent not to post an ITN item about this development after OPERA's Seminar at CERN later today (tomorrow? time-zone?), albeit with all the appropriate caveats and qualifiers. This development is what all non-knuckle-draggers are talking about, and for very good reasons (such as its potential for relegating E=mc2 to the history books of science). Waiting through years of replicated experiments before even acknowledging that this possibility has raised its head would be akin to delaying media reports about the first flight by the Wright Brothers until other engineers had replicated their approach to powered flight. There's a difference between journalist prudence and simply burying one's head in the sand because we don't like the implications of what we see. Deterence Talk 12:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe I have a way of making everybody happy. Say that CERN is "requesting verification of its reports of superluminal neutrinos" or something to that effect. It's true; CERN and OPERA are asking Fermilab to investigate and duplicate this result. This gets it into ITN without nailing it down as true.-Link (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what has annoyed me throughout this discussion (I am not referring to you, Link) - NO ONE here is arguing that these findings prove that these neutrinos (or anything else) were travelling faster than the speed of light. Instead, it is merely been argued that these (3 years of) prima facie findings by an internationally reputable institution be reported in ITN because of their extraordinary notability, with all due caveats and qualifications. Yet, such suggestions have been met with a vicious intolerance akin to the ITN equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition - all that remains is a little trial by ordeal until we swear allegiance to Einstein. Deterence Talk 12:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a major discovery - but as per some comments above it may be best to wait until there's confirmation. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wait for confirmation. If true its the biggest discovery in physics and possibly all of science in maybe a century, but considering how ground breaking it would be, Occam's Razor would lean towards it being a mistake/misunderstanding. - CWY2190(talkcontributions) 14:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A day and one press conference later, we now know lots more. CERN has come out with a press release. I watched the press conference, and the researcher community seemed very receptive of the findings, and no one was able to at least immediately point anything fatally wrong with the experiment. Also, the experiment is expceptionally well designed, and verified by multiple redundant systems (like two independent GPS-based timing systems). Given a different blurb, I could consider supporting an ITN entry based on the spirit of the CERN press release. --hydrox (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. I can support a post as long as people here can bother to read about what actually happened, propose a blurb that is not completely factually inaccurate, rather than wasting time accusing others of being the modern equivalent of mass murderers of Jews and Muslims. JimSukwutput 19:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. A modified blurb, perhaps similar to the one suggested by Link, would work well. Perhaps something along the lines of: The OPERA experiment reports measuring superluminal neutrinos and invites independent replication/scrutiny/verification of its experiment/measurement/observation. It is premature to claim that superluminal neutrinos exist and inaccurate to say that CERN claims that they exist, but it is a fact that the OPERA experiment has reported the observation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the blurb doesn't mention "faster than the speed of light" then there's no point.
JimSukwutput, there was no need to react to my use of hyperbole with a deliberate misinterpretation of the point that I was clearly making - intolerance and booking-burning by zealots. Deterence Talk 20:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until confirmed. If this is true it would be a huge development in physics and certainly ITN-worthy. However it isn't confirmed and CERN hasn't actually claimed that these neutrinos were travelling faster than the speed of light (per the press release linked to above). The only reason that this has been published is so that independent scientists can examine the experiment and try so see if there's anything wrong with it or try to replicate the result. If we post this and the experiment does turn out to be flawed, as probably will be the case, then we would look like idiots and we would have severely misinformed our readers. Hut 8.5 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will change my strong oppose to a support given a suitable blurb. The news is too big to ignore and the experiment (not the results) seem to be backed up by CERN (atleast cautiously). The blurb however must not state that neutrino broke the speed of light. Only that the results of the experiment imply it did. -- Ashish-g55 19:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about: The OPERA experiment at CERN reports neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light, and requests independent replication and investigation to confirm. Link (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link, that is almost precisely the blurb I was going to suggest. It gives the who, where, what and caveats in clear and precise language. Deterence Talk 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i would not use faster than light article... rather say faster than speed of light. people who do not know the constant c would be better served if they go to speed of light article. As an added bonus its a FA -- Ashish-g55 22:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about this: The OPERA experiment at CERN reports neutrinos appearing to travel faster than the speed of light, and requests independent replication and investigation to confirm. Link (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I want to make one slight adjustment: The OPERA experiment at CERN reports neutrinos appearing to travel faster than the speed of light, and requests independent replication and investigation from the physics community to confirm. Link (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support suitable statement. I agree that due to the huge media circus about this, one cannot ignore this story. But let's do our best to report this in a better way than the media are doing now. While the media are jumping on "Einstein may be wrong", the involved scientists are scratching their heads to find an explanation for a 60 ns systematic error in the measurements. Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change oppose to support for Link's blurb. - CWY2190(talkcontributions) 01:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Link's new blurb. The researchers can be wrong but not until somebody shows them how. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new blurb. Not perfectly satisfied with the wording, but I won't propose changes so as to keep the discussion focused. I put this new blurb in the nomination and stroke the old one (for reference). JimSukwutput 06:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are two articles that sum up the issue excellently: 1 2. Here is a revealing quote from the first article: 'Chang Kee Jung, a neutrino physicist at Stony Brook University in New York, says he’d wager that the result is the product of a systematic error. “I wouldn’t bet my wife and kids because they’d get mad,” he says. “But I’d bet my house.”' JimSukwutput 06:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current blurb, but also suggesting to replace it with semantically similar but more concise "The OPERA experiment measure neutrinos traveling at 1.00002c, and request verification from the international research community". --hydrox (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that that's less wordy, it isn't as general-audience friendly. Link (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not a blurb: Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam. 174 scientists in fact publicly calls for help about an inexplicable measurement that they prefer to think of as an error. The problem is that they have failed to find one themselves during a period of 3 years and thousands of measurements, and that the problem identification has a scary sigma 6 significance. In press, it is called "faster-than-light" something because the neutrinos travel faster than light. Not exactly a blurb IMHO. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Presenting as supposedly scientific discovery that which is bogus is tabloidism at its worst: a bunch of scientists muck up an experiment yielding seemingly impossible results that they cannot explain. That's news. This will be much like the "life on mars meteorite" and Hitler's diaries - nothing momentous. If the scientific community explains that what they have shown is correct and that the speed of light isn't a universal speed limit, that would be news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlossuarez46, CERN and OPERA are more than just "a bunch of scientists" - they're leaders in their field using top of the line equipment. They have not presented their claims as a "scientific discovery" - they have published some data, using extremely cautious language, that they cannot explain as mere statistical/equipment error, that appears inconsistent with the contemporary laws of physics and have therefore asked for independent replication of their experiment and verification of their results. Your rhetoric, (Hitler's Diaries? seriously?!), your abuse and your insistence that they must have "muck[ed] up" their experiments (for 3 years!) and that current cosmological theories cannot POSSIBLY be wrong (even though we know they're not coherent, or we would have a GUT), shows just how appallingly unqualified you are to comment on this issue. God knows how venomously you would have reacted to the first publication of Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica or Galileo's The Assayer. Scientific integrity requires us to approach our data with an open mind. Deterence Talk 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense is this a minority topic? It doesn't fall under any of the categories shown on WP:ITN#Minority topics. 12-9 is hardly consensus, and this isn't a vote anyway. Modest Genius talk 15:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is achieved when the criticisms underlying the "oppose" votes are addressed, which they have been. A good portion of the oppose votes have been recanted.--WaltCip (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Posting this is akin to posting that "Hitler's diaries" have been found. News is supposed to be factual not fantastic. I guess those who have been waiting to find the replacement for the News of the World need look no further. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already read your oppose rationale further up the page. You don't need to restate it.--WaltCip (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that was a good blurb, well done. After all, that news triggered quite some interest in the scientific community and this is what made it a good ITN item. An independent verification (or rejection) will be another story, then. --Tone 18:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi dies

[edit]
Article: Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former captain of the Indian cricket team and the last Nawab of Pataudi, Mansoor Ali Khan, dies of lung infection in New Delhi. (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:

Article needs updating

 --Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - might be that im from a country were cricket is a non-sport basically. but I dont personally see how this qualifies for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose As the captain of one of the world's leading cricket teams for 8 years his death will be notable in the eyes of the cricket-playing world, (aka. virtually all of the Commonwealth - with a third of the world's population). If you don't know what an over is then your commentary on this nomination will carry a reduced significance. Edit: it seems that his death has passed virtually unnoticed, even in the media of cricket-playing countries. Deterence Talk 14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't see this as big news anywhere outside of India. British and Australian/New Zealand papers could also probably report on the news, but not really frontpage large font material. Lynch7 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now - So what? I'm not familiar with cricket, but I can't imagine a comparable situation in any other sport that would be worth posting. Am I wrong to say that?
  • Oppose Fifth cricket story on BBC Sport. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a cricketer better known for his beautiful wife and flamboyant son than his own talents--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Know little about cricket but this seems like a non-story from my perspective. Of course one could argue systematic bias, but if the captain of Chelsea F.C died of lung cancer, would it be ITN worthy? Or perhaps cricket is more analogous to American baseball than football. WikifanBe nice 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He was fairly successful at his chosen sport, but is not exactly a household name even in cricketing circles. If we ever post 'ex-sportsman dies' then they had better have been one of the very best to ever play that sport Pataudi was not. Modest Genius talk 22:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: for athletes news is when they stop their careers, not when they die.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We generally do not post deaths on ITN, and I do not believe an exception is warranted in this case. Also, the current three-sentence update is insufficient, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I suppose this is going against the flow here, but he is important enough to have the India-England trophy named after him. This is the second headline on the BBC South Asia page [30] and the top headline on the cricinfo page [31]. He is a major legend in Indian cricket who captained and transformed Indian cricket despite having only one functional eye. While I understand that criteria for ITN deaths are high and this is likely to be shot down, it is very unfortunate to hear that he is "better known for his beautiful wife and flamboyant son than his own talents". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thats silly ignoratn comment. its the complete opposite. is son is known as his son, less so with his wife but its somewhat true. he was also bigge than hi s father, playing for TWO international teams.Lihaas (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Troy Davis executed

[edit]
Article: Troy Davis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Despite worldwide opposition, Troy Davis is executed in Georgia, USA. (Post)
News source(s): [32]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Big news in numeous venues. Opposers to the execution include the Pope and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Article will need an update but otherwise seems in good order. Additional Note: Regarding several comments about the blurb, Here is a quote from the New York Times article I cite above - "...Mr. Davis became an international symbol of the battle over the death penalty and racial imbalance in the justice system." Jusdafax 03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope and Jimmy Carter are both opposed to the death penalty in all cases, so their opposition says nothing about this case. Dragons flight (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but they both spoke specifically about this case, which shows how high-profile it is. JimSukwutput 05:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Generally I don't support posting legal cases that have been sensationalized and blown way out of proportion. But this is a high-profile case, has been going on for more than twenty years, and has (possible) widespread effects on issues surrounding legal reform and/or death penalty abolition in the United States. So a vote for support. I would, however, replace "worldwide opposition" with something like "after a series of high-profile appeals and delays" or something of that sort. JimSukwutput 03:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We humans are barbarians, aren't we? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Television news in New Zealand reported today that the execution was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court minutes before it was due to take place. Evidently, the stay of execution was for only a few hours. Deterence Talk 03:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was just about to nominate this myself anyway, but it seems that "despite worldwide opposition" may be a violation of NPOV. I think something like this would be better: "Troy Davis is executed in Georgia, USA, after more than 11 years on death row."
    An execution is nothing special and not a good use of ITN. The blurb for this case needs to stand out to show why it is remarkable, so at the very least one would have to name drop some of the prominent supporters of Davis. Resolute 04:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Executing a man despite the absence of any physical evidence, after 7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and after serious questions have been raised about the lack of competence and integrity of the police officers and prosecutors involved in this case, (due largely to the fact that the victim was a police officer). For a country that lectures the world about "justice", ad nauseum, this appalling case provides some notable focus on the true nature of the USA's justice system. Deterence Talk 04:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a less hyperbolic blurb. — Joseph Fox 04:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is in fact the second execution of the night, following the execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer in Texas. If we are going to highlight Davis and not Brewer, the blurb should make clear why Davis' case is particularly notable. Dragons flight (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 7 out of 9 witnesses recanted testimony, no physical evidence, and they executed him anyway. However, I feel I cannot support as this is not the first nor last time such questions have surrounded an execution. This may be a more extreme case and the media has certainly drummed it up but I don't think it's actually that unusual, which speaks to many things but somewhat diminishes the notability of this exact execution. I do not expect this to have any lasting effect. States are not going to abolish the death penalty over this. As macabre as it sounds, I think this is only notable if he is indeed found innocent at a later date. N419BH 04:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This was, according to many, a horrendous miscarriage of justice. But let's be clear: that is not why this is significant. This particular execution was significant because of the international, very high profile opposition to this execution. Former president Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, the NAACP, Amnesty International, numerous celebrities, and at least hundreds of thousands of people around the world protested this execution. Without a doubt, significant and of wide interest. Swarm u / t 05:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding worldwide interest, this was one of the leading news stories in every English-based international media outlet I checked. However, the NAACP would object to the execution of a black man even if they knew he was guilty, and the Pope opposes all executions on philosophical grounds, so I'm not sure their positions carry much weight. Deterence Talk 06:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but we're not talking about being against this execution generally, we're talking about specific protests. The Pope doesn't specifically protest every execution that gets carried out around the world. And the NAACP doesn't specifically protest every execution of a black person. And perhaps it wouldn't be a big deal if it were just the NAACP, for example, but since the NAACP is joined by a former president, a former FBI director, the Pope, numerous civil rights organizations, numerous celebrities, petitions signed by hundreds of thousands around the world, it's significant. This isn't remotely the first alleged or proven execution of an innocent person, it's the high profile, extreme controversy that accompanies this execution. Swarm u / t 07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to POV concerns. The most fundamental description of the case is 'man found guilty; executed', which in not ITN worthy. I doubt there is any way to present a sub-issue succinctly enough for ITN without endorsing one side, and, while I respect that some of us may feel very strongly about this case and I am not going take a stand that he is guilty, after reading up on this outside of ACLU press releases I am not comfortable with supporting a blurb that must inevitably highlight a certain single point of view. We shouldn't be pushing a page onto ITN because we want to illustrate how "humans are barbarians". JORGENEV 06:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that the blurb should be modified (see my suggestion above), let me just point out that "worldwide opposition" isn't just an interpretation but a very factual claim. Wall Street Journal (a reliable source that in its editorials have pro-death penalty leanings) reported this: "The U.S. state of Georgia executed Troy Davis on Wednesday despite high-profile opposition and an international outcry due to considerable doubts about his 1991 murder conviction.". JimSukwutput 07:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose exactly per Jorgenev. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Man found guilty of offence receives the sanction determined by law" The crass inhumanity of that law does not change the fact that it has been in place for many years, and many verdicts of courts are contestable. Kevin McE (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since time immemorial, injustice has been dispensed in accordance with the law. However, in the present case, the evidence and the law are at odds and the highest court in the land has allowed the execution of a man with this in mind. Deterence Talk 09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the alleged inhumanity of the death penalty that makes this case notorious in the eyes of the world, (personally, I would love to flick the switch on a few of those animals). Its notoriety stems from the uncivilised determination with which the police, the prosecutors and the Judiciary pushed (and allowed) for his execution in the face of evidence of Davis' incompetent and under-resourced legal representation, overwhelming evidence of massive witness tampering by the police (threats, intimidation and out-right violence) and the near-total collapse of the prosecution's case (7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and there was no physical evidence against Davis) - they killed the man despite the near-absence of anything to show that he was guilty! Deterence Talk 14:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While the case (what little I know of it) is remarkable for the level of support Davis received, Jorgenev makes a very good point. We can't really provide an NPOV hook. Resolute 14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also worth noting that the planned executions of people (especially women) in repressed countries also often receive "worldwide opposition". Why is Davis more special than any of those cases? Resolute 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppprt Major story - appears in international news headlines. Of course we can make an NPOV hook that notes the facts that he was convicted and later executed amidst wordlwide protests. Notability is not dependent on whether the execution was just or unjust, but on sheer news coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice is completely irrelevant; executions in the US will always be contentious – the anti-execution lobby will make sure that executions are seen as 'barbaric', irrespective of the actual facts of the case. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite a few people misunderstand the nomination here. It's not about whether it was fair or not, it's about the media attention it garnered, the publicity around the whole thing and the high-profile people that spoke out. Sheesh. Reanimated X (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I misunderstood this nom: this story is totally US-centric – few outside the US know or care about it. The "hikers" in Iran is actually a bigger news story. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not a US citizen, have never been to the US and I knew about it before it was posted here. Second, I fail to see how the EU members could be regarded as "few" - CNN, World shocked by U.S. execution of Troy Davis. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has even called for a "for a universal moratorium" after this case. Reanimated X (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Few outside the US know or care about it"????? Please tell me you're joking! That's just an irresponsible thing to say, because it reveals that not only are you uninformed by actual news sources, but that you didn't even read the above comments (though I grant you that some are very inappropriate). The POPE protested this execution! UN human rights officials protested this execution! Swarm u / t 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Swarm here - this news story has been picked-up all over the world. Even here in New Zealand, (where the people pride themselves in keeping their distance from the USA), this story has been one of the leading news stories in all the media outlets that cover international news. Deterence Talk 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all the above. I simply do not see a way that this item can be posted with a neutral point of view. --PlasmaTwa2 16:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: I've racked my brains trying to come up with a blurb that would be completely NPOV and still summarize well why this is notable, but I've got nothing. I really think this is worthy of ITN due to the statements from high profile people, seeming complete lack of evidence, and sheer amount of media coverage it received...what makes me not care about the NPOV enough to be neutral is that really what's notable here is the POV/widespread opposition. Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This case was quite notable outside of the US. The French government even called on the State of Georgia to commute the sentence. The Western World is very shocked about this, and it will complicate matters to criticize Iran for executing people. E.g. Britain criticized Iran for executing a 17 year old who stabbed someone to death a few days ago, but world leader now cannot mention that in their UN speeches with a straight face without saying something about the Troy Davis case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very high profile case, among other aspects it has been one of Amnesty International's principal campaigns for the last few years. Whatever one's views on the death penalty it is clear that this case in particular case has attracted widespread controversy and serious allegations of a possible miscarriage of justice. Finally, while stats.grok.se is not showing yesterday's stats for some reason there is a clear spike on Tuesday, up to 10,000 hits, even before the actual execution: this is clearly of interest to our readership. Again, regardless of one's views of the death penalty, depriving someone of their life is the most extreme act a state may take against that individual. That process must be subject to widespread public scrutiny to ensure that people are happy with the act being carried out in their name. As for neutrality concerns, I frankly do not see an issue. We report on matters of controversy all the time and we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't. It is not POV to cover the execution, nor is it POV to cover the controversy of this specific case. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. I am very surprised that this high-profile and important news has not already been put on the main page. The blurb should reflect wide-spread opposition to the execution, domestically and abroad. -- Evertype· 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - High interest execution. Marcus Qwertyus 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted by Gamaliel at 17:20, 22 September (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame That this was posted is pure POV. Why not the execution by Texas of white supremacist Lawrence Russell Brewer whose crime, the death by dragging of James Byrd Jr., was a much more notable? What, exactly, is the difference between these two executions? μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the execution went ahead despite prosecution's case against Davis having been almost entirely discredited (there is substantially more than "reasonable doubt" as to Davis' guilt) makes this significantly more notable than your average run of the mill death penalty case. Deterence Talk 23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you're licensed to practice law in the relevant US State (Georgia, wasn't it?), and you have access to all the evidence (not just the bits that sell newspapers), I don't think you're in a position to determine what is and isn't reasonable doubt. No comment on the substance of the nomination for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just surprised you didn't further narrow the group of people allowed to determine reasonable doubt in this case to those who were actually in the court room for the duration of the trial and all the appeals... There was no forensic evidence, 7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony, there was a glaringly obvious alternative suspect and there is overwhelming evidence of witness tampering by police officers who were upset (to put it ridiculously politely) by the murder of a fellow cop. Even a former Director of the FBI sees reasonable doubt in this case (despite is lack of a license to practice law in the State of Georgia, lol). Deterence Talk 00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment on the merit of this nomination here, but let me just point out that in the white supremacist case all three of those accused have admitted guilt and even said they "would do it again". In this case, the accused has for 20 years repeatedly denied guilt and there seems to be a fair amount of people who doubt it. Hence the distinction. JimSukwutput 04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran releases Americans

[edit]
Article: 2009–2011 detention of Americans by Iran (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American hikers Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal are released from prison in Iran. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Seems pretty significant so I at least thought I would nominate it. --Ks0stm (TCGE) 01:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I have mixed feelings about this one. Would we be considering this for an ITN spot if it was about a couple of Iranian hikers being released from the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp? Deterence Talk 01:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, if these theoretical "Iranian hikers" in Guantanamo were widely considered to be nothing more than political prisoners and their release entailed international mediation attempts, then absolutely. Of course, Guantanamo's a different issue entirely. Swarm u / t 06:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chorus of international criticism of the abuses at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp has been deafening. There has been infinitely more international pressure regarding the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp than has been exercised regarding the two hikers. Deterence Talk 07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons essentially given in the last nomination. Too much sensationalism involved and too little actual significance. Some hikers (or border guards) made a mistake, some section within the Iranian government decided to express their dislike of Americans by jailing them on frivolous charges, and then the entire American media and government took the opportunity to tell us how evil some foreign countries are. Ultimately, nothing important happened. JimSukwutput 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an international event. They were accused of spying (thus analogies to Gitmo irrelevant) and multiple countries made attempts to broker their release, Iraq, Oman. The timing of their release is not coincidental. Support from Obama and US government. WikifanBe nice 04:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Please explain how allegations that they were spying (against Iran) distinguishes this case from hundreds of similar cases (where detainees are accused of spying/fighting/plotting against the U.S.A.) at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp. Deterence Talk 04:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically speaking they were not just accused, but actually tried and convicted of spying. (Though I wouldn't exactly say that a closed trial in an Iranian court is all that impressive.) Dragons flight (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wikifan. This isn't just frivolous charges as a result of a mistake. The hikers claim that they were kidnapped, they were charged, convicted, and sentenced for espionage, despite the fact that, according to Amnesty International, "All available evidence strongly suggests that the Iranian authorities have known all along that these men were not spies and should have been released." Their release became an international issue with other countries trying to mediate. Ridiculous to suggest that this is a non-issue. Swarm u / t 06:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hikers claim that they were kidnapped, they were charged, convicted, and sentenced for espionage...", as compared to the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp who were kidnapped, not charged, not convicted of any crime and face indefinite incarceration. As for being an "international issue", the breaches of the Rule of Law, the U.S. Constitution and basic Human Rights at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp have been the focus of intense scrutiny (and criticism) from every corner of the world. Indeed, they were arguably Obama's primary election pledge for the 2008 Presidential election. Deterence Talk 07:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is totally different, none of the sources available paint the picture you describe above. Still support. WikifanBe nice 07:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any articles that draw analogies to the American hikers charged with spying to people held in gitmo? This is major news, feel free to submit ITN about events relating to gitmo situations. WikifanBe nice 10:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? When did this become a discussion about Guantanamo Bay? And why?--WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary on Gitmo is unproductive and off topic. It's entirely an unrelated topic. Deterence, as was suggested above, if you want to nominate Guantanamo-related news, nothing is stopping you. However, trying to bring the topic into this thread isn't helping whatsoever. Swarm u / t 16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that's the problem, the two situations aren't comparable. The "injustice" of Guantanamo and the "injustice" of this incident are, literally, two different issues. The issue with Guantanamo is the lack of normal rights the prisoners have (i.e. being held without charge, not receiving expedient trials). An injustice on its own, sure, but not the same situation. These people were arrested, tried, and convicted solely for political reasons. It's not an obvious comparison in the least and you're mistaken to assume it is. Swarm u / t 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you know what I meant by "woosh-factor", which is rather poetic. My original point stands: if this news item was about the release of Iranian hikers who had been detained after they strayed across the U.S. border while hiking in Canada then there is no way it would be seriously considered for ITN. Deterence Talk 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the US arrested Iranian hikers who strayed across the border, convicted and sentenced them for espionage with no evidence, the hikers were universally viewed as political prisoners, and their release involved international attempts at mediation, then we absolutely would be discussing this at ITN. Swarm u / t 02:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have a large segment of American readers that will be interested in this. Not the biggest deal in the world but of interest to our readers. @Jim Sukwutput you can boil anything down to insignificance by attributing events to human error and agenda. That's hardly a reason not to post a topic. The articles in good shape and there is world-wide coverage. RxS (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I have to oppose. I think had this been lets say "norwegian hikers" I dont think this would have made international headlines in the way it did. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it did make international headlines, so it would seem perfectly reasonable to post, no? Does it really make sense to oppose because you don't feel something should be 'in the news'? Swarm u / t 16:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because otherwise we'd be continually posting ITN items based on which celebrity is sleeping with which other celebrity, the latest routine sports results, and the winner of the X factor. All of those make international headlines, but aren't suitable here. We have to assess the encyclopaedic importance of the story, not just how many media outlets have covered it. Modest Genius talk 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same. This is an international event covered by international sources involving the international community. I don't see any similarities to X factor, Guantanamo bay, or routine sports results. WikifanBe nice 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree that a comparison to Gitmo is not required here and this ITN nomination has to be evaluated on its own (and Deterence, you should realize by now that the lives and liberty of citizens of one country/region are, unfortunately, not considered by all to be equal to that of another). However, from what I've read on this so far, I feel that this on its own does not have enough international notability - its just three persons who held no particular office or title and whose detention did not have much ramification (for example, the US did not attempt any "hot extraction", or threaten to go to war with Iran any more than it usually does). If enough material is there to show that this did, in fact, have serious international consequences, I am willing to change my opinion. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

[Posted] Valentina Matviyenko

[edit]
Article: Valentina Matviyenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Valentina Matviyenko is elected the Chairwoman of the Federation Council, the highest political position attained by a woman in Russia since the time of Empress Catherine the Great. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The highest Russian political office for a woman for more than 200 years. Also many view this as an important factor in the upcoming legislative and presidential elections in the country. GreyHood Talk 12:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article needs many more references. As for the relevance to the upcoming legislative and presidential elections of Valentina Matviyenko's "election" to this position, (amid allegations of electoral fraud), her Wikipedia article reads like she's nothing more than a puppet of Vladimir Putin. In which case, this development - yet more corruption to further entrench Putin's despotic authority over Russia by appointing another stooge - is not the least bit novel or surprising to any of us. That said, it is quite notable that a woman is appointed to such a prestigious position in a country like Russia. Deterence Talk 13:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda clichés and drama language aside, you are technically right, she is Putin's man woman. That doesn't make her unimportant political actor of course, right the opposite. GreyHood Talk 13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of politics in Russia is one of those rare beasts where anything we write is inevitably open to criticism: if our analysis is critical then we are accused of bias; if our analysis is not critical then it is probably a lie. Deterence Talk 14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to approach Russian politics as if they were too much different from politics in other major countries. If we can use the normal term "political ally", there is no need to talk about puppets. GreyHood Talk 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good for her and everything, but 'first female X' is only really worth posting if X is itself a major notable office. I can't imagine that we would post the first female Lord Speaker, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, President of the Senate of Brazil or their equivalents in other legislative systems. First female President or Prime Minister of Russia would be a story, but Chairman of the Federation Council just isn't significant enough. Modest Genius talk 17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We did post Pelosi's election to the U.S. House of Representatives.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly comparable position (in fact the Upper House of Russian parliament would be nominally even more significant). Also we did post the sack of the Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov as a rare and major change in Russian politics. Matviyenko's appointment follows her resignation as a governor of Saint Petersburg, and she has replaced the former head of the Federation Council and the head of A Just Russia party, Sergey Mironov, thus giving Putin's United Russia control of all top political positions in the country (government and both houses of the parliament) except nominally independent president's office. GreyHood Talk 19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did we? Well, fair enough. Doesn't change my opinion, though it's a bit moot now. Modest Genius talk 23:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius. JimSukwutput 20:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. per GreyHood and Walt. Reanimated X (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GreyHood. If we should wait to post only a woman becoming President or PM, we'll post it either way by a simple rationale. The office is clear, and I doubt there is a misunderstanding what it really means with just saying that in Russia it's not so important as in the English-speaking countries. But the focus of the English-language media is apparently so much than it seems here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the intro and plan to add more refs and work on the body of the article soon. GreyHood Talk 22:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Undoubtedly interesting, and we do severely neglect Russian news as it is. Swarm u / t 06:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of the opposes above I must say we've reached a consensus to post this, and the article is suitably updated.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, but I'd still suggest featuring the article Catherine the Great. It's rather good an article and I've just expanded and improved the lead there. GreyHood Talk 20:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this would be more precise than the 18th century. GreyHood Talk 20:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the third highest elected office in Russia, per sources [33]. Only President and Prime Minister are higher. GreyHood Talk 23:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] R.E.M. splits up

[edit]
Article: R.E.M. (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US rock band R.E.M. announces its end after 31 years. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: R.E.M. is a featured article. Long time band of interest to many older visitors. :-) --SusanLesch (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with possible blurb change - adds value to ITN, article seems reasonably updated (but a whole "disbandment" section would be better IMHO), wide ranging interest and that it's an FA. Suggest;

Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess their sheer longevity makes it fairly remarkable / noteworthy. I've no dog in this race however, and I take your point. Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for longevity, and because they were pioneers of alternative rock, in which their contribution was substantial. Rolling Stone's cover in 1987 said "R.E.M.: America's Best Rock & Roll Band". In 1996 Warner Bros. re-signed them for USD80 million (which at the time was the biggest recording contract). -SusanLesch (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less than 10 hours between nom and posting, while Europe, Western Asia and Africa sleep, for a story that is by no means obvious, is unseemly and stands in marked contrast to the way that stories that received major news coverage have had to wait: Sikkim earthquake 25 hrs, Latvian election 72 hrs (although there were update issues) Pakistan floods 30hrs, Burhanuddin Rabbani 40 hrs and counting. I would also query as to how mainstream adult rock is considered a minority topic. For what it's worth, oppose, as for most non-fans, the only news in this announcement is that they have still been in existence since the mid 90s. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
R.E.M. is not "mainstream adult rock" - that's like calling Radiohead a boy band. I don't know how "non-mainstream" you have to be in order to qualify for the culture criterion of minority topics, but given that R.E.M. were arguably the single most influential band in the indie rock scene for two decades, I can't think of a band more suitable than them. JimSukwutput 07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the minority topic status, we rarely post music-related topics of any kind, mainstream or not. The point of minority topics is to get more such stories posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream era actually started from the Out of Time (album); they were very underground in the prior years...--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 11:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Oil tanker spill kills 4 in kenya

[edit]
Article: B1_road_(Kenya) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Second kenyan oil disaster in 10 days kills 4 injures 35 (Post)
News source(s): [34]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: more people dead due to poverty in kenya - tanker overturning seems pretty remarkable in itself to me. EdwardLane (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you ever stop to think that these people might be trying to collect spilled gasoline not because they're idiots, but because they're impoverished and desperate? People are dead. Rather than cracking jokes about it, try to have a little professionalism. Swarm u / t 16:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you should know that the Darwin Awards are humorously awarded to people who have died by their own idiotic actions. One cannot reference the Darwin Awards in a "serious" manner because, by nature, they are tongue-in-cheek. If you misunderstood this, I'm sure you can at least see how a wrong impression was cast. Swarm u / t 03:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Traffic accidents which result in 4 deaths are unfortunately almost an hourly occurrence world-wide. Modest Genius talk 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Doesn't meet our criteria for posting. Swarm u / t 03:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - fair enough that traffic accidents occur frequently - but if a truck with crashed on the highway near me - and we had just seen 100+ deaths in an oil explosion a few days ago, then my first though would not be 'oh I must get some of that free gasoline' it would be 'oh I hope it doesn't explode + run'. It really highlights the truly desperate state of poverty they must be living in. Yes, 4 dead in a traffic accident is mundane, 4 dead + 35 injured in an oil explosion doesn't seem very mundane to me, certainly wouldn't be under-reported even if it was in the poorest areas of the UK. I don't strongly object if it doesnt rate as notable, 4 miners in Wales were not rated notable enough either but they were not (I think) quite so summarily dismissed EdwardLane (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Court of Human Rights rules on the Yukos affair

[edit]
Article: Yukos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The European Court of Human Rights dismisses claims that Russia misused law to destroy the Yukos oil company (Post)
News source(s): [35][36]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Important judgement by one of the most important courts in the world. The claim that Russia misused the legal proceedings against Yukos has been widely circulated in Western russophobic circles and media - this decision will finally put these claims to rest: the court held "unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 18... concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings to destroy Yukos and seize its assets"[37] --Nanobear (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it looks like things are more complicated than that, and both sides have claimed victory. The BBC article you provided begins "The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a case between the oil company Yukos and the Russian government - but not come down clearly on either side. It dismissed claims that Russia had abused the law to destroy the firm, but found its legal rights were violated." and later "seven ECHR judges said Russia had violated property laws and the right to a fair trial in its handling of the company. But the court held "unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 18... concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings to destroy Yukos and seize its assets".". Also, the blurb is currently contradicted by the text in the article itself. Modest Genius talk 17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the time-honoured fashion played out by all public officials trying to hold onto their positions and status, the ECHR sat on the fence to avoid unpalatable consequences. The ECHR would have lost credibility if they'd sided with Russia regarding some of the obviously legitimate legal concerns raised by Yukos; and the ECHR would have lost international prestige if they had awarded a $98bn judgement to Yukos because the Russian government would have simply ignored such a judgement. So, the ECHR gave a vaguely-worded final judgement - "no violation of Article 18... concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings" - that doesn't actually follow from the numerous points of law won by Yukos.
While the blurb is technically correct, it is not representative of the big picture. Deterence Talk 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I understand, the court's decision was that Yukos property rights suffered in 2001, years before the destruction of the company in 2003. This is why the blurb is correct, and the earlier story was not that deeply related to later events. Leaning Support. GreyHood Talk 23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Government of Slovenia

[edit]

The government in Slovenia has been ousted following a vote of confidence.[38] The article with the best update is probably Borut Pahor but needs some more attention. I'll see what I can do later but I'd appreciate some help. --Tone 16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the update is sufficient in my opinion. I'll try to add some more international sources. --Tone 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mere receipt of a motion of no confidence is not notable. Such motions are routine (and even periodic) in most Democracies. The passage of a motion of no confidence is significantly more notable. Deterence Talk 22:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, bad formulation from my side, probably. Corrected above. The government fell, to say it plainly. --Tone 22:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borut Pahor, the prime minister's article has been updated. Technically, a fall of a government is not listed in the ITNR, a change of head of the state is, but that will most likely happen only after early election and it's months from now. I suggest posting now for that reason. --Tone 13:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get some more feedback on this one, please? Obviously, I am not posting as I nominated the item. --Tone 07:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Slovenia, led by Borut Pahor, loses the vote of confidence. Or a variation of that. And there's a photo of Pahor available. --Tone 07:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
with 2-1 support? were not even short of ITN candidates.Lihaas (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Death of Burhanuddin Rabbani

[edit]
Article: Burhanuddin Rabbani (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Burhanuddin Rabbani, the former President of Afghanistan, is assassinated in Kabul. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This template added by NW.

-Former President of Afghanistan killed. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, I think the blurb should use the word "assassinated" rather than "killed" as it was a suicide attack deliberately aimed to cause his death. Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support pending article improvements. Modest Genius talk 17:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err...could we sort of hurry up? The news is already becoming stale. Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[edit]
Article: Don't ask, don't tell (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States military officially ends its policy of Don't ask, don't tell allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual personnel to publicly declare their sexual orientation. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is a major milestone in civil rights history and military history for the United States. The article has a lot of information from the start to the repeal of DADT, which is good because the news articles don't have much information for younger folks on how DADT got started. --fmmarianicolon

FWIW it's already appeared on the ITN twice. Once when a judge blocked it last October, then in December when congress repealed it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 06:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support @Hot Stop, thus demonstrating its significance. It’s a major shift, not only for the military but for our country. WikifanBe nice 06:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Coverage twice is plenty, any more than that is proof of no more than the activity level of its interest group. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This would have been an obvious ITN item if it hadn't already appeared in ITN when the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 was passed. Clearly, the passing of the DADT Bill was infinitely more notable than procedural technicalities such as the date of its implementation. However, the implementation of this Bill - which is in itself a decisive election issue in the USA - was unusually encumbered with hurdles and transition strategies that significantly obfuscated the date when gays would achieve equal rights in the US military, (this development could easily have been delayed until next year, according to the article). Those encumbrances make this date notable. Deterence Talk 07:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't agree more. I can see why some editors might see this as old news, but it really is a new point in civil rights in the US military. IMO the blurb should be amended - gay is redundant if it precedes lesbian and bisexual. Sexual minorities is more formal and less wordy. Here is my proposal:

The ban against sexual minorities serving in the United States military is lifted, effectively ending the prohibition and discrimination towards gay soldiers. Thoughts? source, source 2. WikifanBe nice 07:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We already posted this when it entered into law. The precise date of the implementation isn't really that relevant, notwithstanding Deterence's points. There's no need to post the same story again. Modest Genius talk 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's also a monumental event for the United States military, the most powerful in the world"... pretty sure that in terms of personnel, China is #1. how many tipping points are there for same news? its already been posted twice. -- Ashish-g55 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[39]

Sport

Berlusconi

[edit]
Article: Silvio Berlusconi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14960214, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14940557
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A new updated article about Silvio Berlusconi. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Floods in Pakistan

[edit]
Article: 2011 Sindh floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Monsoon rains cause flooding that has killed at least 248 people, and damaged 665,000 homes in the Sindh province of Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: UN has called for $365m in aid: 6 million people affected. Kevin McE (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final of the European basketball championship between nations bordering each other on the Pyrenees (don't wanna jinx lol). (Note: This is ITNR.) –HTD 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Andorra! Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was counting on somebody to mention that. Seriously. –HTD 18:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support or opposition to the item is in addition to the need for an updated article. All support !votes are of course rendered moot until the article is updated, but there's no harm in voicing support for the item on principle. Except of course this one is on ITNR, so there's no need for support... Modest Genius talk 19:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was legitimately wondering whether they were supporting a one sentence article, but now that an alternate has been raised, that point is moot. Swarm u / t 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template should document the conclusion of EuroBasket 2011, not particularly the final.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. --Tone 17:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in no shape for the front page. There's a total of 2 references in the whole thing and it's short..dominated by info boxes. At best it's written like a short news report, which is not what ITN is supposed to be for. RxS (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (see above), should be temporarily pulled pending re-write. Mtking (edits) 03:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. FYI I marked it as re-evaluate to draw attention. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks fine now, plenty of prose and 23 references. Removing the re-evaluate tag. Modest Genius talk 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: Latvian parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Harmony Centre led by Nils Ušakovs wins a plurality in the Saeima amid the early parliamentary election in Latvia. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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: This is the first time after the independence of the country, a pro-Russian political party to win a parliamentary election. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: ITNR, as far as I can tell, as a general election. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 18:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed on ITNR, and should go up as soon as the article is suitably updated. However, at the moment the article is a stub, consisting of only one paragraph of prose, a few bullet points, a results table, and a single reference. It needs a lot of attention before it can be posted. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Ready per Modest Genius. A bit of work is needed. Especially information on who actually won (coalitions formed, etc) with some detail on implications of outcome (upon Executive branch, etc) for readers who are unfamiliar with Latvia's system of government. Curiously, Nils Ušakovs is 35 and has led his party since he was 29, which is a notably young age for a Head of State/Government. Deterence Talk 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. The article contains only the election table and no commentary on the significance of the results. By the way, should the blurb reflect the outcome of the vote-count (Harmony Centre winning a plurality) or the end result of the election (the formation of a coalition government and confirmation of a Prime Minister)? In light of the significance of this particular election result, I would support posting both updates, especially since we don't know when or if a coalition government will form. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated a bit. C628 (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'd prefer to have a bit more prose than that, but I suppose that just about meets the minimum requirements. Marking [Ready]. Modest Genius talk 13:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been [Ready] for 29 hours without anyone posting it, and the timer is now red at 39 hours. Where are all the admins? Modest Genius talk 17:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Modest Genius talk 23:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] All Ireland Gaelic Football Championship

[edit]
Article: 2011 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Gaelic football, Dublin defeat Kerry to win the All-Ireland Senior Championship Final for the first time since 1995. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/1/1809111710-dublin-end-16-year-wait-for-sam/
Credits:

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: Top level of championship in multi-national sport, listed at ITN/R Kevin McE (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this time, at least 9 deaths. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Update: Atleast 36 death, accompanied by landslides. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support article is good and earthquake is notable enough impacting and causing deaths in multiple countries (quite a bit too 50+). Removing question mark. -- Ashish-g55 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: Buffett Rule (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ U.S. President Barack Obama proposes the Buffett Rule, a new tax on millionaires, as a means of reducing the national debt. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSTcBygrn8gKnG1Q1MaD-_U5stOQ?docId=3080c1d0b0054fc5a95e7f8ede6b2807
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Taxing the wealthy in the U.S. is always a charged issue. This item relates to the ongoing national debt crisis and is therefore newsworthy on a global scale. —Biosketch (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections
Television

Victor Ortiz vs. Floyd Mayweather

[edit]

Impending uncontrolled re-entry of UARS

[edit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14952001

Latest update:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/uars/index.html

Update #3

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:12:40 PM GMT+0200

As of Sept. 16, 2011, the orbit of UARS was 140 mi by 155 mi (225 km by 250 km). Re-entry is expected Sept. 23, plus or minus a day. The re-entry of UARS is advancing because of a sharp increase in solar activity since the beginning of this week.

Count Iblis (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not familiar with the topic, and a satellite's re-entry is not automatically considered significant. I am, however, open minded and willing to be convinced. Why should we post this? Swarm u / t 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an uncontrolled re-entry of a large satelite, that's a rather rare event. Some parts will survive re-entry they can land anywhere between 57°N and 57°S lattitude, potentially landing in inhabited areas (NASA can only tell approximately where the debris will land about two hours in advance). The probability that someone will be hurt by the debris is 1/3000, which is larger than the acceptable limit of 1/10,000 that NASA usually tries to aim for. This is also a spectacular event if the re-entry happens near where you are; you could see bright fireballs and hear supersonic booms. Count Iblis (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, I missed the 'uncontrolled' bit. Anyway, it's definitely interesting. But as the satellite may enter anytime during a 72 hour window, and the debris could land anywhere, I think we'll have to wait until it happens to make a decision. For example, if someone gets hurt or if damage is caused by the debris, that's obviously much different than if it just lands in the ocean. Swarm u / t 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Politkovskaya

[edit]

Russian businessman and Vladimir Putin critic Boris Berezovsky is assused of ordering the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

Source: [40]

80.229.125.231 (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The sources states the "man suspected of organizing the hit on journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 believed he was acting on the orders of Boris Berezovsky." This individual may believe he was working for Berezovsky but that is hardly sufficent for ITN posting. It sounds fishy, one Putin critic murdering another? I have a more likely theory but BLP restricts me from naming them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "A Russian newspaper has reported that a man suspected of organizing the hit on journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 believed he was acting on the orders of Boris Berezovsky." No, no, no. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: these accusations are not new, they were aired when she was killed, and it doesn't seem like they are much better supported now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Very high profile case but there is a bit too much rumour about this. Also as ResidentAnthropologist points out, this doesn't smell right. Finally, I wouldn't put too much trust in RT for a story like this: it is akin to trusting the Jerusalem Post on the Palestine-Israeli conflict or VoA on the war in Iraq. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Greek Prime Minster cancels US visit

[edit]
Article: George Papandreou (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou (pictured) cancelled a visit to the United States after a troubled concern over the country's debt crisis. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14960216
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Explains about a Greek Prime Minsters visits in the UN General Assembly in New York City and the IMF Headquarters in Washington DC explains about the euro zone and the countries debt crisis. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Libyan NTC recognized by UNO

[edit]
Article: Foreign relations of the National Transitional Council (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations General Assembly recognizes the Libyan National Transitional Council as the legitimate holder of the country's UN seat. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Of course we did. Just like we knew Thorning-Schmidt would win the Danish elections given results in the polls. An event doesn't have to be "shocking news" to be notable for ITN. Even if "you saw it coming" it surely has encyclopedic relevance. --bender235 (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if shock-factor was the primary criterion then the Welsh Irish victory over Australia in the Rugby World Cup would be a serious contender for ITN, (the Welsh Irish may still try to put it in ITN, once they sober-up in 3 weeks, lol). Deterence Talk 13:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I believe that's the Irish victory. Anyway, support the Libya thing.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters

Sony says promise not to sue us or you can't play

[edit]
Article: PlayStation Network outage (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Sony says promise not to sue us or you can't play (Post)
News source(s): BBC, washington post
Credits:

Nominator's comments: this is a bit sneaky by Sony - requiring people to write actual physical mail to opt out etc, not sure the article is up to scratch or even the bit I tacked on - perhaps it should be somewhere else but thought this was of interest. EdwardLane (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support as nom Credit card details were leaked and Sony says you want to carry on playing our games you must promise not to sue us - seems like news. But maybe not? EdwardLane (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very important global topic. Colofac (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very blatant anti-consumer-rights move, affecting many consumers. I don't remember any similar case of "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further", or the product you already bought will stop working. The current blurb should be reworded. Thue | talk 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. A major corporation rewrites their terms of use to benefit themselves? Shocker. These things happen all the time, and hardly any of them make much news. Frankly, I'm more surprised they didn't already have language banning class actions. In addition, the article update is trivial, and at the moment unreferenced. The Playstation Network breaches were surprising and newsworthy, while this is neither surprising nor particularly newsworthy. I might support if there were a substantial article update related to this, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. Dragons flight (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment: there's no way we could use the proposed blurb. We're an encyclopaedia, not a polemic pamphlet. Not only are those easter egg links, but Sony has not actually said that (certainly not in those words). Weak oppose the item itself, because whilst this is indeed an attack on consumer rights, it a) only affects PSN users and b) may well be illegal anyway, so wouldn't stand up in court. Modest Genius talk 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose...Unless I'm missing something, this isn't even that unusual. It's the "hold harmless" clause in any standard purchase agreement that no one ever reads, including me. In other words, everyone has a clause in their contract that says "you can't sue us if you use our service". The previous terms of use probably had a very similar clause. N419BH 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is normal contract boilerplate stuff - no worse than a limitation of liability for example. It does not stop you suing them but prevents class actions, which usually only benefit lawyers in any event. 80.229.125.231 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Thue. Deterence Talk 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - As far as legality and standing up in court goes, this contractual modification was ushered in by the controversial AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion ruling earlier this year. Since then, clauses barring class action have been popping up left and right, with surprisingly little publicity until the mainstream media caught wind of this particular implementation—certainly a brazen example in the wake of Sony recently leaking customers' sensitive information. If we do decide to post this story, the blurb would be made more informative by including the relevant case for context.   — C M B J   23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect my original blurb to stand - I was just feeling a bit shocked regarding the absence if comment on this article. Better blurbs surely exist. EdwardLane (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean his comment that it is at least as notable as Blackburn winning over Arsenal and the low demand for blackberry phones? Or you mean the comment that he doesn't remember a similar screwover by a multinational company?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the comment where he pointed out that this affects a large number of people. Swarm u / t 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should probably have checked the history there, rather than just slapping a tag on it. Mea culpa on that one. Modest Genius talk 22:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles: Reno Air Races (talk · history · tag) and 2011 Reno Air Races crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An Unlimited-Class race plane crashes into the crowd at the Reno Air Races, killing 9 people and injuring 69. (Post)
News source(s): Reno Gazette-Journal MSNBC, ABC, FOX, BBC, YouTube (Warning hard to watch), YouTube (also hard to watch)
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This is a breaking story, happened only a couple hours ago and details are still emerging. Won't be ready to post until the details emerge, but the reports are getting worse by the minute. N419BH 00:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't care about your personal interest or how "funny" my comment was, (it was not my intention to be funny). The only thing that makes this event more notable than a routine bus crash is the utter stupidity of an 80 year old man piloting a P-51 Mustang in a high-G air-race above thousands of innocent people. Wikipedia's rules prohibit me from expressing what I REALLY think of him. Deterence Talk 01:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's way out of line. Please cross out your post per WP:CIVILITY and seriously, THINK before you type. LOOK at what you wrote. Tell me you would repeat this utter crap in front of N419BH's face, or in front of the face of ANYONE awaiting news from loved ones attending this event. I mean get real! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pilot is now confirmed dead by MSNBC. Video shows him doing everything possible to avoid the crowd. Eyewitnesses say he hit in the front row. N419BH 01:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason? For what? This is a nomination for a completely insignificant section on the front page of a website. How can you justify being completely disrespectful toward another human being over this? I agree with your statement, 100%; objectivity is an important quality to maintain in many situations. But pushing someone down and shoving your foot in his face to satisfy your non-conformity quota of the day is not objectivity, it's just being a dick. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pilot sent out a mayday signal prior to the crash and was pulling out of the race. You may now strike your comment regarding g-forces causing the accident. This is why in accidents you must wait for facts to be reported rather than jumping to conclusions. [41] N419BH 02:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any violation of WP:CIVILTY by User:Deterence here. I don't see him being uncivil to any other Wikipedia user; he expressed an opinion about a current event. Can't say the same with respect to the comments he received "THINK before you type...crap..". No comment on the merit of his argument.JimSukwutput 07:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm pretty sure telling someone "I don't care about your personal interest" right after someone says "I've got friends there, including one who's participating. No idea if they're okay or not." is uncivil. Or maybe I was brought up very wrong as a kid. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how. I was merely stating that your personal attachment to the issue is irrelevant to the proposed ITN item or my opposition to it. Deterence Talk 20:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deterence, just yesterday I very gently informed you about expressing opinions at ITN. The fact that you've apparently ignored that message and have proceeded to make disrespectful comments about someone who has died is flagrantly counterproductive and inappropriate by itself. But the fact that you've been belligerent and uncivil to a fellow editor who has friends there, and doesn't know whether they're alright, is really just beyond the pale. So I'm going to say it straight up: if this behavior is going to continue, you're not fit to contribute to ITN discussions. I advise you to think carefully about whether you can be a productive contributor and keep the snide comments to yourself entirely, or whether you need to reconsider your involvement here. Swarm u / t 20:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, your warning is completely unwarranted. I have NOT been uncivil. Indeed, as has been noted by other editors, the only incivility in this thread was directed at me. Beware the boomarang. As for yesterday's warning (NOT about incivility), your criticism (of a comment I was universally praised for) was so surprising that I assumed you had your tongue firmly in your cheek. It's a sunny day - go for a walk. Deterence Talk 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Swarm fellow likes to talk a lot. Maybe he just likes the sound of his own clacking keyboard. I can see no civility problems here, your "gentle reminders" are not needed, and quite frankly, have no weight. Colofac (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't warned you in the least, Deterence; I only mean to inform you in good faith. And you, of course, are free to ignore that information. However, you should absolutely not get the impression that you're free to flout the civility and soapboxing policies, as that's clearly the general direction your comments are taking. Swarm u / t 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there is no confirmation of the deaths, it's breaking news! Watch the video, it's clear that something huge has happened. And I'd like to echo the request to refrain making jokes about stories like these. Support regardless of the death toll. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not to side with any insensitive or rushed comments, but the reason for the crash was probably the breakage of some of the tail steering cables resulting from a high-g strain. It is not unlikely for such an old plane, and the race track should have been kept safely away from the spectators. Especially with the history of accident in mind... Crnorizec (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far all signs point to this being a mechanical problem with the airplane, not an "incompetent pilot". The air race organizers are saying this was one of the best and most respected pilots at the races. N419BH 10:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, the man is 80, as respected as any pilot can be in their youths, the man is old and no one at that age can function as well mentally and physically when compared to their former selves. There is no doubt that reaction time deteriorates as you age.YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favor and cross out your comment, in accordance with WP:CIVILITY. Your comment was very offensive. DarthBotto talkcont 18:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking to me, nothing is getting crossed out. If you are talking to someone else, I'd like to know what you think was uncivil. Colofac (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he wants you to cross out the "incompetent pilot" bit. That seems a little harsh considering the guy's dead and officials are saying mechanical problems appear to be behind the crash. N419BH 23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those "officials" were declaring that mechanical troubles caused the crash while the wreckage was still smoking on the tarmac. Given that they haven't conducted a forensic examination of the aircraft, such conclusions are a tad premature. Deterence Talk 00:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you that it's too early to speculate as to the actual cause of the crash, but I do ask you to consider this photograph of the aircraft, which might shed some light on why the airplane went out of control. As to what caused that to happen, when it happened, and why the airplane flew in the manner it did is still a matter under investigation. N419BH 00:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been updated now. Nanobear (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it will continue to be as more news comes to light. Another press conference scheduled for 6pm Reno time (believe that's PST but it might be MST). N419BH 23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated again with more firm numbers for dead/injured. N419BH 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burrunan dolphin

[edit]
Article: Burrunan dolphin (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers in southeastern Australia discover the Burrunan dolphin, a previously unknown species. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, ABC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Thought this was interesting. Researchers thought the dolphins were bottlenoses until DNA and analysis of skulls proved otherwise. We even have a free pic for this one. -- JuneGloom Talk 13:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good good. Struck. Modest Genius talk 23:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has now appeared at DYK, and thus is disqualified from consideration for ITN at this time. Kevin McE (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er... being on ITN disqualifies from DYK, but not vice-versa. Once it's off DYK, it's valid for ITN if there's consensus. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 09:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian King Frederick the Great's erotic poem found

[edit]
Articles: Frederick the Great (talk · history · tag) and La Jouissance (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ La Jouissance, an erotic poem written by Prussian King Frederick the Great, is re-discovered and published in Germany. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

 GreyHood Talk 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of fun amidst the usual serious news picture. We could either update Frederick the Great or create a new article on the poem itself, La Jouissance, or both. Are there any lovers of poetry here? ;) GreyHood Talk 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Unfortunately, while being an interesting and unconventional topic, La Jouissance does not have an article and probably would not satisfy notability criteria as a result unless its significance could be established.--WaltCip (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is at least one source on it already, and basically the notability is established (a long-forgotten and rediscovered creation by the most prolific ruler of Germany). And the article could easily be created. GreyHood Talk 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly Interesting and Encyclopedic. I dont think notability due to its own article would be a factor as long as there is some update. -- Ashish-g55 15:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Interesting, minority topic, more on the lighthearted side, update can be factored into Frederick the Great's article easily enough. No, he's not Cicero, but I think Frederick the Great is historically significant enough to post this. If this were, say, Michael Korybut Wiśniowiecki, I certainly wouldn't be inclined to support. Swarm u / t 17:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's significant enough for DYK, sure, but not ITN. NW (Talk) 20:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they found it and that's the event. Why it should be less significant than other news? GreyHood Talk 21:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roman Polanski is going to get an award in Zurich soon[43], and New Zealand demolished Japan in rugby[44]. I don't see anyone scrambling to put those on the main page, but they are on the main page of bbc.co.uk (too?). The fact is, some news is simply more notable than other bits of news, and this is not even remotely close to being as significant as any of the ones currently posted. Even the death of Knut the polar bear, which many people (including myself) decried ITN for posting, was far more notable than this.

        DYK doesn't post articles based on newsworthiness, and also doesn't care when the even happened, which is why I suggested it. NW (Talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • This is historically notable item, and likely much more notable than the items you speak about. I remember this year the rediscovered stolen head of a French King was posted, and it was perfectly interesting and significant. Why the rediscovered poem by the top historical ruler of Germany is less notable? GreyHood Talk 21:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm always up for a laugh, (even when one particular editor berates me every time I fail to resemble a robot when commenting), but, as NW has rightly pointed out, DYK is clearly the more appropriate host for this item. Deterence Talk 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom to keep the discussion warm. GreyHood Talk 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some people here have strange views on notability. It is not an everyday event that you find a poem (and an erotic one!) by a monarch (and one of the most significant monarchs in history!). Of course it would be good for DYK too, but it passess the ITN criteria as well, since it's a recent event and is as good discovery as the other scientific discoveries we post here. GreyHood Talk 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument commits a pro hominem genetic fallacy. Just because a great monarch wrote a poem, it doesn't automatically give the poem any outstanding literary or historical value. If the monarch was well-known for writing fine poetry, however, that would be different. That's what defines notability.--WaltCip (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no logic fallacy but pure following to the usual practices. The very fact that a prominent person (say monarch) writes an erotic poem defines notability. Compare it, say with ITN posting of accusations in rape regarding Dominique Strauss-Kahn. I hope you won't say it was notable because the subject was something like well-known for raping. And there could be many more such examples based on the actual ITN postings. GreyHood Talk 08:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poetry of a former monarch is a curiosity, at best. The crime of rape, committed by a high-ranking public official, directly impacts upon our assessment of his ability to function with competence and integrity. Further more, it is one of the functions of the media to ensure transparency of government by casting a spot-light on the misdeeds of public officials. Deterence Talk 12:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Such an attitude is very close to prohibiting all history-related topics from ITN. All could be called curiosity at best with no impact on present events. But I should remind that ITN is a part of encyclopedia and not an ordinary news cite (but even ordinary news cites publish such stories). GreyHood Talk 13:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's interesting, but I can see hardly any long-term effects. I suggest DYK as well. JimSukwutput 00:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From encyclopedic and even from the general point of view, this has much more consequences than half of the present ITN contents. The disasters will be forgotten, the poetry will survive. GreyHood Talk 08:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe WP:DYK would be a better place? --Jayron32 01:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a large article such as this one 5x is close to impossible so it won't see the Main Page unless it's an FA. –HTD 04:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, silly. Create the article about the poem. That's what would be DYK material. New articles are regularly accepted at DYK. --Jayron32 04:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admin calling someone else silly is not that new anymore LOL –HTD 04:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, extremely minor trivia. As has been suggested above, this is ideal for DYK but not ITN. Modest Genius talk 17:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

[edit]
Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Article: Camp David Accords (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Egypt says Camp David accords are not a sacred thing and can be changed (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: seems pretty major statement - but article needs work (though it's on this day today) EdwardLane (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Nothing has actually happened yet. If changes are made to the deal, that might be suitable. But one party indicating that it might in future consider renegotiating some of the provisions is not by itself significant enough. Modest Genius talk 17:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a very notable development. I am concerned that your nomination will pass unnoticed because it has first appeared halfway down the ITN candidates page. I'm not sure of the rules about these things, but, should this appear at the top of the page? Deterence Talk 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the rules very explicitly state that the nomination should go under the date heading for when the event occurred, not when it was nominated. Modest Genius talk 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? If so, you should point it out. Editors are expected to use the ToC to identify items which they have not yet contributed to the discussion for; this is also part of the reason we started using [Posted] and [Ready] in the ToC. Modest Genius talk 11:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry I'm an infrequent visitor here - so I read the rules and stuck it where they told me to. It seemed significant to me (but what do I know from here in the UK) - and I think the politics in that area are currently pretty fraught at the moment.EdwardLane (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it is a notable development. It will certainly warrant inclusion in the ITN if the new Democratic regime makes a public denunciation of a substantial element of the Camp David accords - Egypt was the primary belligerent (in military strength and attitude) against Israel in the Israeli-Arab wars of 1948-1979. Deterence Talk 09:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Definitely significant but I don't know if it's enough to post just yet. As Deterence says, it's a no-brainer if the new regime rejects the accords, either officially or publicly, but for now they're skirting that territory. Swarm u / t 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: Danish parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The centre-right government of Denmark loses the parliamentary election to a centre-left coalition. Helle Thorning-Schmidt is designated to become the first female Prime Minister of Denmark. (Post)
Article updated

The election changes a 10 year conservative government for a socialist one, and in doing so elects the first female prime-minister of Denmark. News worthy.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Prime Minister is NOT the head of state. The Queen is. And there is no new Prime Minister yet. Lars Løkke Rasmussen is the Prime Minister of Denmark. Jensjrn (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, all general elections are on WP:ITNR. Just needs an adequately updated article. Modest Genius talk 00:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is updated - what do you find missing?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a procedural Comment on ITN process marking as [Ready]. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, Denmark is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen is, strictly speaking, the Sovereign/Head of State. Her signature (the royal assent) is necessary for any proposed legislation to become law. However, for practical purposes, under constitutional convention, the Queen's (limited) powers are always exercised on the advice of the government (meaning, she signs what the elected government tells her to sign). Deterence Talk 01:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know enough about the situation to write a good blurb here, but if someone puts forward a decent one where we highlight the most important bits, I'll post it. --Jayron32 03:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested blurb:
PrimeHunter (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's inaccurate. It's not a "socialist" coalition. The main party is social democrat, not socialist. In Scandinavia, social democrats are not considered socialist, socialists are to the left of the social democrats. And the social democrats will need the support of the social liberal party, which is absolutely not socialist. So centre-left is more accurate. Jensjrn (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They will also need support from the Socialist-People's Party and the Red-Green Alliance which are absolutely socialist. I think it is fair to call it a socialist coalition. I also don't think we should start by mentiong who lost - but who won the election. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More accurate:The centre-right government of Denmark loses the parliamentary election to a centre-left coalition. Helle Thorning-Schmidt is designated to become the first female Prime Minister of Denmark. Jensjrn (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Normally we should remain positive, not mentioning the looser, but the winner and the new PM. Crnorizec (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "new majority" here is ambiguous about whether they already had another majority. A suggestion not mentioning the loser but making it clear that the opposition won:
"A centre-left opposition coalition wins the Danish parliamentary election. Helle Thorning-Schmidt is designated to become the first female Prime Minister of Denmark."
PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can support that wording.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this wording as well. Swarm u / t 17:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: Gleision Colliery#Disasters (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Four miners have died after being trapped in the Gleision Colliery. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (Mirror) (USA Today)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Could be the UK's Chilean miners. If nothing interesting happens I will withdraw. --Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sad but, according to our article Mining accidents "Thousands of miners die from mining accidents each year, especially in the processes of coal mining and hard rock mining." Last year, we had articles on 8 fatal mine incidents with a total of at least 425 deaths, each of which had a death toll at least 6 times higher than this. Three of these were ITNed: ones with tolls of 108, 66 and 29 (in the US). One can only wonder how many there are of this scale each year without us even noticing. Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand to be corrected here, (please do, if I am mistaken), but I believe the mining accident where 29 miners died was in New Zealand. Deterence Talk 21:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have sat down again by now, but while you are correct that there was a mining incident in New Zealand with 29 fatalities last year, the one that made ITN was in the US. Double standards? ITN? Surely not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kevin McE. While rarity of an event can play a part in whether we post something, this is only a rare event because of the decline of coal mining in the area (so I've read). Swarm u / t 17:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support coal mining disasters are very rare in the UK (the most recent one we have an article on that I can find is the Markham Colliery disaster from 1973). It's true that large numbers of people are killed in mining accidents every year, however the vast majority of those are in China (80% according to Mining accident) or other developing countries. The fact that lots of people are regularly killed in car bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't mean that a car bomb in, say, Amsterdam isn't a significant event. Hut 8.5 18:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Mining accidents happen much more frequently in China than in UK because China produces much more coal than UK (around 200 times more, in fact). The comparison with car bombs is not accurate. A terrorist attack in a place rarely attacked indicates that perhaps terrorism is spreading or that security measures in the region is falling or numerous other things. The fact that a mining accident is rare in a place that basically has no mining, on the other hand, is to be expected. JimSukwutput 00:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, in China they are frequent, but surely you can see how the rarity of this type of incident in the UK would make it notable. It looks as if the Reno Air Crash will get a mention, but this wont. Air crashes happen all the time too, so why should that one get featured when this extremely rare event wont even get a look. Oh right, it's because it never happened in the US. Silly me! Colofac (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the Welsh mining disaster and the Reno air disaster seem to possess very similar levels of notability. I have no explanation for why one is greeted with so much more support than the other. At least, no explanation that I am permitted to express under Wikipedia's rules. Deterence Talk 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's because an airplane crashing into a crowd of bystanders is decidedly more rare than a mining accident, which are basically a dime a dozen, unfortunately. Swarm u / t 17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler 16-b

[edit]
Article: Kepler-16b (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: NASA's Kepler spacecraft identifies Kepler-16b, an extrasolar planet orbiting two stars. (Post)
News source(s): NASA
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Only a stub, though a very important discovery. --HurricaneFan25 19:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HurricaneFan25 19:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009–2011 detention of Americans by Iran

[edit]
Article: 2009–2011 detention of Americans by Iran (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ tbd (Post)
News source(s): [45]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Earlier this year we posted the Raymond Davis case which seems similar to this. Note the two remaining Americans have yet to be released, but it's expected soon. --Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Blurb could link to a section in the original article. WikifanBe nice 06:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Posted] DuPont/Kolon Kevlar trade secrets case

[edit]
Article: DuPont (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A court case concerning the theft of Kevlar-related trade secrets results in DuPont being awarded damages of $920m. (Post)
News source(s): [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm putting this forward as a business story wholy unrelated to IT, which is a subcategory we don't feature much of. I was surprised to see we currently don't have any coverage at all of this case (much less an update) so on looking at what we do have, I've tentatively suggested the DuPont article is the best place for it. I'll try and get the article updated but that won't be until later today now. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest writing an article about the case if you can; the DuPont article probably would be overburdened by something like this. If it can't make ITN in time, there is always DYK. NW (Talk) 04:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support it seems like a major fine. But an article or update is needed. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support pending some actual information on this decision in the article. Notable due to the shear scale of the Judgement. Note: The Financial Times link (#1) does not work for unregistered users. Deterence Talk 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite there yet, but I'm getting towards a minimum article at DuPont v. Kolon Industries. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It's not in bad shape right now. I wouldn't mind posting it, especially because ITN is so slow right now. NW (Talk) 20:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article probably is in posting shape now; I've redrafted the blurb to point to the correct targets. The wording seems a little clumsy so if anyone wants to take another stab at it feel free. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Civil cases of this type rarely reach the finishing line. Some of these case can literally run on for decades with an endless array of appeals. However a trial judgement is a notable milestone in this process. Regardless, this is not an item about a mere trade dispute, this is an item about corporate espionage regarding a highly recognisable product - Kevlar - that resulted in a billion dollar judgement. Deterence Talk 00:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To amplify that point, the sheer size of the judgment here makes an appeal virtually inevitable: what is an extra couple of million in legal fees compared to the size of the damages? The interest alone on $920m would probably fund the case. If we do not post now, when? When the appeals court refuses to hear the case? When they do and confirm the ruling of the lower court? Both of those would be non-events. If we wait until there are no avenues left then we would never post a story of this type: it would have to end up at the Supreme Court, by which time many years would have passed and the original issues are largely an irrelevance.
One final point of which I was unaware when nominating this item: it is not just a commercial dispute. The case has attracted attention from legal scholars for the points it raised regarding the destruction of evidence. There are references to a couple of such analyses in the article.Crispmuncher (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support. That's a big fine, and business topics are under-represented. Seems interesting. Modest Genius talk 17:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge pay out is notable in itself. Good coverage in the article too: more substantial than a fresh paragraph which is all ITN updates frequently are. Is this not ready for posting? There is a clear majority in favor and needs less support for a post anyway. 80.229.125.231 (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Marking [Ready] (just the solitary oppose, and the new article is good). Modest Genius talk 23:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Economics and business

Disasters

Health

Politics and elections

Death of Richard Hamilton

[edit]
Article: Richard Hamilton (artist) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ One of the pioneers of pop art, Richard Hamilton, dies at the age of 89. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant

[edit]
Article: Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the first nuclear power facility in the Middle East, officially begins operating in Iran. (Post)
News source(s): RT
Credits:

Article updated

 GreyHood Talk 18:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

[edit]
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

Sport

Discovery of more than 50 new exoplanets

[edit]
  • Oppose Announcing the discovery of 50 in one go is actually an indication of non-notability here. Their discovery has become quite routine which is why they are announced in batches. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose per Crispmuncher. The fact that they publish these discoveries in batches of a few dozen demonstrates their lack of notability. Deterence Talk 19:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The notion that this is just some sort of routine, commonly-occurring announcement is simply not true, and for Crispmuncher and Deterence to take that assumption is simply somewhat disappointing, considering the already science-deprived state of ITN. First, this is "the largest number of such planets ever announced at one time".[52] Second, the discovery included "an exceptionally rich population of super-Earths and Neptune-type planets hosted by stars very similar to our Sun".[53] Third, this announcement alone has increased the number of known exoplanets by nearly 10%.[54] To claim "insignificance" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The number of planets discovered is significant, the details of the discovery are significant, the discovery of new planets is simply interesting, this significance is reflected by mainstream news coverage, exoplanet is a featured article, and ITN currently has no science-related postings. Swarm u / t 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French reactor blast

[edit]
Withdrawn. NW (Talk) 15:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Terrorism on my part was speculation. I wrote this up in about 60 seconds on my way out the door. Now that I have had a chance to read everything more carefully, I am withdrawing the nomination. NW (Talk) 15:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nairobi pipeline blast kills 100

[edit]
2011 Kenya pipeline fire <-- found it. -- Ashish-g55 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I experienced a sense of deja vu when I read the details behind this explosion - local peasants stealing fuel from leaky pipeline until the local village idiot turns up with a cigarette in his mouth. We see a news item identical to this every couple of years. Deterence Talk 02:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded it a fair bit - is it Ready ?
  • "An explosion and subsequent fire at a fuel pipeline in Nairobi, Kenya, kill at least 100 and injure more than 100."
suggest adding S in two spots - so changing to say
"An explosion and subsequent fire at a fuel pipeline in Nairobi, Kenya, kills at least 100 and injures more than 100."
EdwardLane (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be ungrammatical. The subject of the verb is "An explosion and subsequent fire", and therefore a plural. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE, I hear what you're saying. But, it sure sounds wrong without those Ss. Especially if, like myself, you consider the subject of those verbs, "explosion and subsequent fire", to be a single subject. It is for this reason that I tend to agree with EdwardLane. Deterence Talk 09:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin - think you would be correct if the explosion and then the subsequent fire were reported as seperate 'subjects'. However all the news reports that I have seen treat them as one event. And so grammatically I would tend to lump them together into one subject, resulting in the request for the plural forms. EdwardLane (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word subsequent is sufficient distinction between the explosion and the fire that they are being treated as separate events in this sentence. Kevin McE (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that simply highlights the fact that the word "consequent" should have been used instead of "subsequent", given that the subsequent fire was entirely a consequence of the explosion. Thus, the blurb should say, "An explosion and consequent fire at a fuel pipeline in Nairobi, Kenya, kills at least 100 and injures more than 100." Deterence Talk 11:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly changed it to "killed" and "injured" while ya'all discuss this. Having "kill" and "injure" out there made us all look illiterate.--v/r - TP 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that ITN is always written in the present tense. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but then let's make a decision here. While we were arguing, thousands of folks are scratching their heads saying 'Who the heck writes this stuff'. I dont fault Jayron32 for doing the effort to get it out there, but ya'all need to make some decisions.--v/r - TP 15:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I totally understand where you're coming from with that. In case you didn't know, David Levy undid your change for the same reason (present tense). For whatever it's worth, I think Deterence's solution is a good one. Jenks24 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this discussion quite surprising. As Kevin noted, the blurb refers to two occurrences that collectively killed/injured people. The fact that one occurrence caused the other doesn't alter the quantity of occurrences mentioned, nor does changing "subsequent" to "consequent" achieve this.
It's argued that this is being "[treated] as one event," but that's immaterial. By that logic, the sentence "A man and woman shoots a group of people." would be grammatically correct if it described a single incident. —David Levy 15:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenks24 - Yes I did see that, thanks. @David Levy - It tripped me to read it and even after several attempts I am still tripping. How many others are? Grammar rules aside, it's a tough read.--v/r - TP 15:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the item to sidestep the issue. —David Levy 15:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that reads nicely. Thanks.--v/r - TP 15:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

[edit]
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

2011 FIBA Americas Championship

[edit]
Article: 2011 FIBA Americas Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In basketball, Argentina defeats Brazil to win their second FIBA Americas Championship. (Post)
News source(s): Globe and Mail
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Argentina is #3 in the FIBA World Rankings, while Brazil is #16 so this is not some small time tourney. –HTD 11:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a day of Brazil ;) Leaning support. GreyHood Talk 11:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a few days. Looks like there is consensus at least amongst those who bothered to comment. Is that enough for updating/posting ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to give it a go later. –HTD 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup

[edit]
Article: 2011 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Russia beats Brazil 12:8 to win the 2011 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

 GreyHood Talk 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Posting this once every two years is not going to kill ITN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A better way to judge this might be to think about what would happen if we were to post every sports competition of equal or greater significance. If I were to make a rough guess I'd say there are at least three hundred of those every year. JimSukwutput 06:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In cycling, Juan José Cobo from Spain, wins the Vuelta a España. Last year was on ITN. [56] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not sure. The third biggest tour behind the Tour and the Giro. Did we post the Giro earlier this year? If not, then I would probably oppose. And I assume we also post the world championships? How many cycling blurbs should we have per year? Also, please note I tweaked the blurb a little. Jenks24 (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but when it officially ends. It's a Grand Tour that means equal to Tour or Giro, and regardless of its lower media coverage and interest we have a basic rationale for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's common practice to post all three Grand Tours, that's fine with me, but there's no way that the Vuelta is the equivalent of the Tour or Giro. As you say, it has "lower media coverage and interest" and the quality of cycling is also lower. Jenks24 (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, according to the UCI and its regulations all Grand Tours are ranked on same level within the UCI Pro Tour calendar year. Thus avoiding further confusion, the main inequalities are based historically with the significance of Tour de France in the past that kept its wider media coverage and interest to the recent times. The same is in tennis with Wimbledon.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Really nowhere near on a par with the other two Grand Tours, as demonstrated by the anonymity of its winner. Lets not forget that in road cycling we'll post the World Championships as well in a few weeks time. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not sure how notable this result can be when I've never even heard of this race before. Deterence Talk 11:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only take it that you do not follow international sport much. Surely an encyclopaedia should inform. I suspect that the vast majority of Main Page readers had not heard of Alexander Sokurov, Jürgen Stark, Sakhalin, or Baha Mousa before coming to this page. Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 US Open

[edit]
Articles: Novak Djokovic (talk · history · tag) and Samantha Stosur (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Samantha Stosur wins the women's singles and /Novak Djokovic wins the men's singles at the US Open. (Post)
Credits:

Both articles need updating
One or both nominated events are 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.

 --Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added as a note. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to debate this every time but I don't think ITNR is clear that the Women's result is not ITNR, so I disagree with Crispmuncher. There's certainly precedent for posting the Women's result and then simply updating when we have the men's. The BBC doens't wait for the men's tournament to finish before it posts the Women's result.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Conclusion of the tournament or series" seems pretty clear to me. You could argue they are distinct but they are combined on ITNR. Given sport is generally over-represented on ITNR anyway I don't see the virtue of effectively double-counting the entries already on there. An update doesn't do that but an update + bump does. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Aren't the women's and men's circuits conducted separately? So the men's and women's tournaments in these Grand Slams are separately two different tournaments? –HTD 04:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you have the ATP and WTA for the tours, but the actual tournaments are combined AFAIK. Each grand slam event also only has a single ITNR listing, and the expected stories per year also indicates the intention is for a single post. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I might concede on that point, but I still see very little value in waiting to post the women's result of tennis majors for a day if the article's updated. One of the biggest problems with ITN is that it's slow to post news. I'm ok with simply updating the blurb sans bumb but in most cases an update+bumb just one day later will have minimal practical effect.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm...THIS is sufficient prose???
btw- i updated at 5-1...expected at least 6-3 or 7-5 at worst. EASTERN POWER!!!!!!!!!!!! Almost a grand slam in the yearLihaas (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

[edit]
Disasters

Politics

Sports

Rugby World Cup

[edit]
Article: 2011 Rugby World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2011 Rugby World Cup commences in New Zealand. (Post)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Recurring item (notability already established). Started yesterday. Jolly Ω Janner 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^That's one of the best oppose !votes I've seen in a long time. Modest Genius talk 23:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the above and my comments at WT:ITN#Rugby World Cup Modest Genius talk 23:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rugby world cup is the 3rd largest sporting event in the world. If this doesn't qualify for ITN at some point then only the Football World Cup (2nd largest) and the Olympics (1st largest) qualify. Deterence Talk 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that true? Surely the European football championship is larger. What metric is being used here anyway? By total audience the Superbowl and the Champions League final both have a larger audience that the RWC final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure on how many people overall watched the UEFA but the RWC receives a total of 3.5 billion views. With 48 games that means the RWC receives an average of 62.5 million viewers each game, presuming the finals will receive a larger viewership than knockout matches its not that far behind from UEFA's 106million views for it's finals.YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can trust on stats.grok.se than these overly-hyped figures. :) The stats do give out pretty surprising view stats for some events, at least we'd know how big it is at least on people who read the English Wikipedia. –HTD 03:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 ten years ago

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Article: September 11 attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The US has a day of rememberance of the ten year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks in in New York. (Post)
Nominator's comments: It will be all over the news from midnight. We might just as well prepare.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • just because humans like round numbers that have 0's at the end does not make it any more notable than 9th or 11th anniversary. There is no news here... we have TFA and POTD for this anniversary even though we usually never have more than one section dedicated to anything. So i would say its very well represented. -- Ashish-g55 21:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's settle down... --Swarm (talk)
  • BabbaQ, you flippantly opposed the ITN nom (below) about a ferry disaster where at least 182 died, yet you appear astonished that some people would dare to oppose posting this topic - a mere anniversary where nothing has happened - which already appears in two categories on the Main Page. I'm not sure you're being consistent here. Deterence Talk 22:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No how can I compare a disaster that killed around 200 people with a terrorist attack that killed almost 3000 people and will be headline news all over the world tomorrow for its ten year anniversary. How is not consistent, really?--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. We never feature simple anniversaries on ITN. That's what OTD is for. On top of that, both TFA and POTD will be themed on 11 Sept. Just because the Earth has orbited around the Sun a number of times that happens to match our numbering system doesn't mean there's any news in this item at all. Modest Genius talk 23:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9/11 will be recognized by the featured article of the day, the picture of the day, and at DYK. While I entirely (and unemotionally) disagree with the notion that this is not "in the news" or "significant", our primary goal is to showcase articles. This will be accomplished by the other sections. Just as WP:selected anniversaries/September 11 will not be mentioning the attacks, we shouldn't be doing so either. Those who want to see a 9/11 mention on the front page will not be left wanting. Therefore, oppose. Swarm u | t 23:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remembrance of an event that occurred ten years ago isn't news (unless any events that occur on that day garner international attention), and as pointed out above, this will already be covered in other sections of the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and BabbaQ deserves a good trouting for this ridiculous nomination. Coupled with his ridiculous comments above ("for me personally rugby dont belong on ITN at any time") and below ("unfortunatly accidents like these arent that unusual", referring to the sinking of a boat with over 800 passengers), I'm beginning to think there's a serious issue with competence here. JimSukwutput 01:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

[Posted] Golden Lion

[edit]
Article: Alexander Sokurov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Russian director Alexander Sokurov wins the Golden Lion at the 2011 Venice Film Festival for his film Faust. (Post)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's ITN/R. GreyHood Talk 19:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least 380 people feared dead after ferry Spice Islander I sinks near Zanzibar. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • As Wikifan has pointed out, (albeit inappropriately, given the admonition at the top of this page against accusing editors of ethnocentrism), if this ferry had sunk in the English Channel while carrying American or European passengers there would be no issue about posting this. Regardless of where this tragedy occurred, since when was a ferry disaster, resulting in the death of 182+ people, not notable? Deterence Talk 21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

[edit]
Politics

Disasters

Science

Sport

[Posted] Protesters break into Israeli embassy in Cairo

[edit]
Protesters in Tahrir on 9 September 2011.
Protesters in Tahrir on 9 September 2011.
Article: 2011 Israeli embassy attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protesters in Cairo breaks into the Israeli embassy, the protesters was said to be about 3000. (Post)
News source(s): http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/09/09/egypt.protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Feel free to change the blurb its not the best. But the news story is major.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not out of the ordinary for Israeli embassies! Attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Attack on the embassy of Israel in London, 1972 Israeli Embassy attack in Bangkok... Nightw 04:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly certain if those are comparable to this. Protesters storming a counsel floor isn't the same thing as terrorists blowing an embassy up, right? I would wait and see if this mutates into something bigger. WikifanBe nice 05:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Jürgen Stark resigns from ECB board

[edit]
Article: Jürgen Stark (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Jürgen Stark resign from the Executive Board of the European Central Bank. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/us-ecb-stark-idUSTRE7883DF20110909
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Economics is a con trick. The stability of the Euro depends on Europe being steadfast about their plans to stabilize the region economically. Especially the opinion of Germany is important here, since Germany is the most economically powerful euro-member. So when Germany's representative to the six-man Executive Board withdraws in protest against the current policies, it will raise eyebrows. Thue

[Posted] Sakhalin–Khabarovsk–Vladivostok pipeline

[edit]

Nominator's comments: This is a multibillion construction project ($21–24 billion), aimed to connect Russian natural gas to huge East Asian markets. GreyHood Talk 07:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Inquiry into British army abuses in Iraq

[edit]
Article: Death of Baha Mousa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A public inquiry finds British soldiers guilty of "serious, gratuitous violence" over the death of Baha Mousa (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14847126 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/08/baha-mousa-report-british-soldiers
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm not madly keen on this myself since it is perhaps too local, particularly in my case where the QLR was the local regiment. However, it has been the prevailing British story for the past 24 hours or so and is perhaps worthy of consideration, particularly since nothing else has been put forward. New content will need creating but it is the end of the day for me now while I seem to be working nights. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WFC, that comment reads more like a "conditional support" than an "oppose". Is that a correct interpretation? Deterence Talk 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a minimum update now, though I am still working on it. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm ambivalent about this, but can the original nominator amend the banner? Those kinds of sarcastic/witty statements belong in forums or blogs, not here. It trivializes the conflict and victims (on both sides!). WikifanBe nice 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

September 7

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture
  • ICM Registry – the company that sponsors the .xxx Internet top-level domain for adult entertainment, planned for launch in 2012 – is giving organisations and people in the public eye the opportunity to block their names from being used by websites with the suffix. (BBC)

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Politics

[Posted] Yakovlev Yak-42 plane crash kills most of KHL team

[edit]
Article: 2011 Yakovlev Yak-42 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A plane crash near Yaroslavl, Russia, kills at least 36 people, most of them members of the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl Kontinental Hockey League team. (Post)
News source(s): Russia Today
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I would suggest this is ice hockey's own Munich air disaster. A number of top internationals were reportedly on the flight. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support damn entire hockey team dead... rare and fairly notable. -- Ashish-g55 13:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERRORS. Swarm u | t 23:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made requests like this in the Errors page on previous occasions, with an astonishingly low rate of success. Deterence Talk 01:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to 43. --PFHLai (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Delhi bombings

[edit]
Article: 2011 Delhi bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 11 people are confirmed dead and 76 injured in a bomb blast near the High Court of Delhi, India. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

 Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's your nom and you haven't provided any reasoning behind the nomination. Deterence Talk 14:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops...I customarily vote "As and per nom." for all my noms. :P Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should the blurb have " , India" after the Delhi, just for clarification? Mar4d (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo!'s CEO replaced

[edit]
Article: Carol Bartz (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Carol Bartz, Yahoo!'s CEO was fired by the Board of Directors; CFO Tim Morse is appointed interim CEO (Post)
Article updated

 Ottawahitech (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to need a much bigger ITN page if we're going to create an ITN item every time there's a new CEO for a large business entity. I'm not going to explain to you the difference in notability between Steve Jobs and *insert name of generic suit no one has heard of*, or the difference in notability between Apple (one of the two most valuable businesses in the world) and any of the other countless businesses around the world. That would be akin to explaining the difference between Kate Middleton marrying into the Windsor family and Jane Doe marrying into the Smith family down the road.
You need to have another look at WP:AGF. While I disparaged a ridiculous nomination (a sentiment that is shared by most of the editors commenting on this nom) about a generic staffing change in a generic company, you have attacked me personally. Stop it. Deterence Talk 23:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to point out where I've attacked you, because I'm really not seeing it. Yahoo! has been a dominant name on the internet for years, and to hear that its head has been outright fired (unlike Jobs, who willingly shifted to a lesser position in the company) is a bit of an eye-opener. So to call the nomination -- or any other nomination -- ridiculous is not warranted. If I may add, we need more nominations if we want this section to remain on the site, so it's really not the greatest idea to shoot down first-time nominators like Ottawahitech. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I was out of line in using the term "ridiculous". Such language was unnecessary, especially with regards to a first-time nom made in good faith. Deterence Talk 04:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yahoo may now be up for sale. If sold, then that event + this is news.

--108.132.91.68 (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I still believe that Steve Jobs stepping down wasn't worthy of ITN but meh what is done is done. Another CEO stepping down or fired in this case doesn't make it newsworthy unless there is some sort of twist - perhaps if he was fired for corruption or something along those lines. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this had happened back when Yahoo! was the default search engine of the internet then maybe but certainly not now; though I agree that if Yahoo is sold/merged or whatever that that's news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bartz does not have one-tenth the profile of Jobs: the "we posted that, so we should post this" argument therefore doesn't stack up in my view. More generally I am also growing tired of this increasing lack of balance in our business coverage: when was the last time we posted a business story that was not in computing and IT? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see the significance or interest in this. Swarm u | t 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted a unilateral change to the title of this nomination. Titles of these nominations are meant to be easy to identify, not to assert any kind of particular notability - that is left to the blurb. JimSukwutput 20:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Businesses are ridiculous; the blurb, and the "news", in this case, are too.  Diego  talk  21:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am not sure how things are decided here, however, how about looking at the number of people who come to read articles at Wikipedia? Here are some comparative statistics that measure the number of daily views for each of the candidates for ITN for Sept 7:
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Carol_Bartz
46K
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/2011_Delhi_bombing
4k
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Lokomotiv_Yaroslavl_plane_crash
7K Ottawahitech (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice that the latter two were more recent events (thus less views), and they have also been posted (thus more views), so this is apples and oranges here. Here's a better metric: Look at Steve Jobs' views before his resignation even occurred. He got up to 80k views per day. Then after he resigned he got 691k views in one day. In contrast, Carol Bartz has been getting about 200 views a day before her resignation occurred, and of course as you cited only got 46k views one full day after her resignation. So the "comparative statistics" don't really make a strong case for this nomination. JimSukwutput 02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lacks any real significance, the parallels to Steve Jobs and Apple don't stack up, Steve Jobs is a household name, with all due-respect to Carol Bartz, she is not. Mtking (edits) 03:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – as above. the rationale's pretty obvious by now:it's not as if Yahoo is being bought up or going out of business. Corporate executives get fired all the time if they don't deliver what shareholders want – even Jobs was on the receiving end of that one time. No good trying to draw comparisons to Steve Jobs, because there's nothing comparable. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

[edit]
Arts and culture

Disasters

Economics

Law and crime

[Posted] Swiss franc pegged to euro

[edit]
Article: Swiss franc (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Swiss National Bank has introduced a minimum exchange rate of 1.20 CHF/EUR to prevent the overvaluation of the Swiss franc. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg
Article updated

Nominator's comments: It happens for the first time and seems to be a breaking news on the financial markets, that offers a solution for the deviations in the exchange rate. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like big news, just needs an update. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems pretty interesting to me and I would probably support, but there is absolutely no info about this in the article at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support As Jenks24 has noted, the article contains no information about this development, whatsoever. Obviously, it is pointless to post the item until the relevant updates are implemented. I also have concerns that the significance of this measure simply won't be understood by the overwhelming majority of readers, which may impact upon this issue's notability. Deterence Talk 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The significance of this is probably largely dependent on how widely in use the currency is. According to the article, the swiss franc is the 5th largest reserve currency in the world, which seems like a big deal. But at the same time it is ~38 times smaller than the 4th largest reserve currency, and constitutes a total of 0.1% of worldwide reserves. So I'm not sure about this one. JimSukwutput 17:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Will support if more info is found. WikifanBe nice 17:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, significant development in the financial market. Thue | talk 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added more information about the trend of the exchange rate in 2011, that combined with the security measure looks sufficient to me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major financial news. In raw numbers the franc isn't a huge reserve currency, but Switzerlands unique status in the world financial system amplifies the importance of this. Besides, I'd be tempted to support if any large economy did this, regardless of reserve status. Modest Genius talk 20:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but suggest blurb is tweaked slightly though. Many readers will not get the CHF and EUR codes and linking them is overkill. Also the "to prevent" seems rather like a crystal ball. The actual rate doesn't seem needed to me. How about;
The Swiss National Bank introduces a minimum exchange rate with the Euro to try to prevent the overvaluation of the Swiss franc
Pedro :  Chat  20:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. I think we have a consensus to post this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Good update, solid consensus and this is a minority topic. Added [Ready]. JimSukwutput 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - major financial news.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters

International relations
  • South Korea announces that it will start sending emergency aid to North Korea next week after devastating floods. (Yonhap)

Law and crime

Politics
Television

[Posted] Bastrop County Complex fire

[edit]
Article: Bastrop County Complex fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Amidst ongoing wildfires in Texas, the Bastrop County Complex fire destroys at least 1,386 homes. (Post)
News source(s): ABC Daily Mail IBTimes LA Times Xinhua

Nominator's comments: Highest number of Texas homes ever destroyed by a single fire in recorded history, closure of primary route connecting Austin to Houston, two thirds of 5,926 acre state park burned, 5,000 evacuated, uncontained 25 × 9 kilometer blaze, #1 viewed on CBS as of nom.   — C M B J   12:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, though the article should be beefed up a bit, especially the lead. Nightw 15:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While forest fires (and other moderate natural disasters) are little more than a curiosity for those who are not directly impacted by the event, this event is sufficiently notable for inclusion as an ITN item due to the shear scale of this fire, (reports that 600+ 1000+ homes have been destroyed according to that ABC link). They have certainly had many times more of an impact than that dinky East-coast earthquake that made it into the ITN a couple of weeks ago. Deterence Talk 15:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar that the East Coast earthquake was a unique instance of a rare geological occurrence, I wouldn't compare the two based on merit of effect. Regardless, the blurb has been updated to reflect newer damage reports.   — C M B J   15:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest getting rid of the size, which isn't really of immediate relevance. Nightw 15:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is particularly relevant in some contexts because of its elongated dimensions, but I have gone ahead and removed it for now.   — C M B J   15:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose 600 homes is really, really insignificant in the larger scheme of things. Think about it - forest fires happen in Texas all the time, so chances are they are heavily insured. The only effect this forest fire has is to (maybe) drive up the insurance costs of maybe a few thousand people. JimSukwutput 16:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I appear to have been significantly mistaken with this comment, so I will strike it. I am still uncomfortable with posting this, however. Regulars here know that I have always been opposed to posting natural disasters with no foreseeable long-term effects, and this seems to be a prime example of one of them. JimSukwutput 02:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second most destructive wildfire recorded in Texas history razed 168 homes. I'd hardly call that contrast insignificant.   — C M B J   01:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Sukwutput, I share your disdain for posting "natural disasters with no foreseeable long-term effects" in the ITN page. Indeed, I am especially partial to your criteria that posted ITN items have "foreseeable long-term effects". But, we should not exclude all those exceptional events that amount to little more than popular curiosities for those who are not involved. If we did, we would not include items such as the Death of Princess Diana or Spain's victory at the World Cup, and that would render Wikipedia's ITN page into a veritable Swiss Cheese of news media.
I see no problem with including reports of truly exceptional examples of each kind of natural disaster. With 600+ homes destroyed and the fires continuing to rage out of control, the Texas fires do stand out in the list of bush fires in recent years, despite being (at this stage) less comparable with the fires of Victoria, Greece and California (and). Deterence Talk 03:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated.   — C M B J   01:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it and think it's ready, not sure on a consensus though. WikifanBe nice 04:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I marked as ready, there's a consensus to post. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose fail to see how this meets the ITN criteria in that I can't see the lasting significance of this event and with Jim Sukwutput in that I don't think ITN should post about natural disasters, especially ones that only effects a single country with no loss of life. Mtking (edits) 04:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines atop this page specifically deride attempts to exclude an event simply for relating to a single country, and this disaster did result in loss of life. I do not disagree with Jim in that we should exercise discretion in listing events that lack long-lasting effects, but the counterpoint in the case of this fire is that its effects are contextually unprecedented; per capita destruction is egregious and total residential losses exceed the previous state record by more than fourfold eightfold. Newer reports also indicate that a 5,926 acre state park has been reduced to 50-100 and an endangered species has lost the majority of its habitat. I am honestly quite surprised that the story wasn't posted ≥40 hours ago.   — C M B J   10:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read those guidelines because they say no such thing. There is no requirement that a story be international in nature, but that does not exclude the geographical scope of an item from consideration when assessing notability. Asserting that a story has limited impact and to a limited area is not something that can be casually dismissed: it is a substantive argument. It is certainly enough for me to oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I stand by my assertion, because "I don't think ITN should post about natural disasters, especially ones that only effects a single country" is precisely what the guideline describes; it is neither concrete nor substantive with regard to this individual nomination, especially when we just ran Typhoon Talas less than 24 hours prior. Regardless, I respectfully (and strongly) disagree that the above points are even remotely tantamount to casual dismissal.   — C M B J   16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The ABC link now reports that 1000+ homes have been destroyed by these fires, and rising fast. This figure includes 852 homes destroyed in the last 48 hours. Upon reading the links, and the implications of these fires upon the people of Texas, the notability of this event is clear. Deterence Talk 10:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of homes destroyed by this particular fire reached 1,386 as of Thursday at 09:00 CST.   — C M B J   14:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters

Politics and elections

Sport

Science

- At least 19 people have died in Japan. Seems to be very important. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update looks done from what I can see. Support. Nightw 12:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per BBC, suggest blurb Typhoon Talas, the most damaging typhoon to hit Japan since 2004, kills at least 26 people and leaves more than 50 missing. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 14:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: 2011 World Championships in Athletics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2011 World Championships in Athletics concludes with Jamaica setting a new world record in men's 4 × 100 metres relay. (Post)

Nominator's comments: The event is really underrepresented, but combined with such world record it probably would be sufficient for including. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're aware of this "news" 5 months before the event, it is not even remotely newsworthy that the Super Bowl will finish on February 5, 2012. Deterence Talk 23:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article at the minute is a table and a picture gallery. It needs a lot more prose if it's to be posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The updates look good enough to me. As mentioned in Wikipedia:ITN#Criteria, a highly significant event may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] UN Palmer Report of Israel's Gaza blockade

[edit]
Article: Blockade of the Gaza Strip (2007–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UN's Palmer Report finds that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law, but excessive force was used in the flotilla raid. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes UN Report Jerusalem Post

Nominator's comments: This report (the Palmer Report) is important for many reasons, one of which is that the UN is generally quite biased against Israel and nearly always criticizes it for everything it does (see United Nations and Israel), so a statement to the opposite, largely vindicating Israel, is far more significant than it otherwise would have been. The Palmer Report is also the underlying event that triggered Turkey's expulsion of Israel's ambassador (see current ITN blurb), not Israel's refusal to apologize, as the blurb asserts. IMO the report is far more newsworthy than the ambassador expulsion itself, which is basically just a minor incident, one of many in a string of actions related to Turkey and Israel's deteriorating relations over the last two years. Listing the expulsion in an ITN blurb but not the reason for it -- and in fact, giving an incorrect reason -- presents a quite distorted picture. In fact, the current ITN blurb statement about the reason for the expulsion being due to Israel's refusal to apologize is even more factually inaccurate than this. Turkey has explicitly stated that apologizing wouldn't be sufficient; Israel would have to end the blockade. Turkey has been making these demands of Israel for quite awhile now; Israel has made a statement of "regret" but not apologized. Nothing in Turkey's demands or Israel's actions towards Turkey has changed recently. What changed is that this report came out, which not only declared that the blockade was legal but largely vindicated Israel's subsequent diplomatic behavior: It called for Israel to express regret (which they have already done), and said that Turkey should resume full diplomatic relations with Israel. This significantly undercut the rationale of Turkey's case for insisting that Israel must end the blockade and for cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel. This greatly angered Turkey, which is why they expelled the ambassador now rather than earlier. (I would actually suggest removing the current ITN blurb about the ambassador expulsion in favor of this report.) Benwing (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I proposed a similar blurb in the Turkey ITN but didn't go through the formal process. I believe this compliments the blurb on Turkey's expulsion of the Israeli ambassador but also think IMO it is superior in terms of notability and neutrality. I would expand legal with "legal under international law" as that is what the Palmer report concluded. Legal itself is ambiguous - what laws? Israel's? WikifanBe nice 04:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Should probably combine this with the blurb about Israel's ambassador since the two appear so closely related. N419BH 07:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and combine with current ITN on the Israeli ambassador; it adds context and due weight.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article nominated has a maintenance tag on the top, so obviously that will have to be addressed. Also, the proposed blurb is too lengthy and clumsily written. It should be reduced. Nightw 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but NightW more or less took the words out of my with respect to the concerns. Firstly the issues templates are something that was raised in the diplomatic expulsions item, and I don't see it going away quickly. The blurb is not only too long but arguably unbalanced: it selectively quotes and elaborates on only a pro-Israeli argument. In view of the length requirements I don't see we have space for any quotes or elaboration so I'll trim that out of the proposed blurb now. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • Looks good. Nightw 17:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does it rely on pro-Israel argument? It summarizes the Palmer Report - Israel's blockade is legal, Israel faced violence on the flotilla raid (even includes several pages describing the threats they believe Israel faces from Gaza justifying the blockade), Israel used unreasonable force when they boarded the flotilla. Report also said Turkey should have devoted more time in trying to prevent the flotilla. I'm sort of okay with the current blurb, but it doesn't make a lot of sense because " but excessive force was used in the flotilla raid" is ambiguous. Who used excessive force? Here is what I propose: The Palmer Report concludes Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law, but excessive force was used by the army during the 2010 Gaza Flotilla Raid. Somewhat wordy, but there needs to be some emphasize that Israel used excessive force and the blockade is legal under international law. Personally, I think the previous blurb was perfectly fine. Editors should read the cliffnotes of the Palmer Report before weighing in here. WikifanBe nice 18:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get too hung-up on the "International Law" aspect. International law is such an amorphous beast that lawyers, politicians and governments can make "International Law" say whatever they want it to say. Deterence Talk 22:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't really think "... under international law" needs to be said. What other law would the UN reasonably consider? Certainly not Israeli or Turkish law. Benwing (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - I would be neutral on this personally, but I'm opposing on the principle that this is an attempt to restart a closed discussion where this has already been extensively discussed. JimSukwutput 14:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support conclusion of a major event,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But, the language seems a little clumsy. I suggest something like: "UN's Palmer Report finds that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law, and, that the IDF used excessive force against flotilla raid."
Also, as has been stated above, (see commentary by User:N419BH and User:NortyNort above), this story should probably be merged with the existing ITN item about Turkey's expulsion of Israel's ambassador. The two stories are distinct, but very closely connected - is it possible to have two stories linked to two different sections, of the same article, in the same ITN item? I acknowledge that this might be impractical simply because the blurb would become unwieldy. Deterence Talk 22:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is to be bolded? Also, what are we going to do with the current Israel-Turkey blurb if or when this goes up? Are we replacing that blurb with this one? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a similar question (above) and wondered whether it was possible to have two bolded links to different sections/articles in the same ITN blurb/item. Deterence Talk 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest either eliminating the current blurb, or merging it, e.g. as a simple add-on statement "Turkey subsequently expelled Israel's ambassador." (Or possibly "In response to the report, Turkey expelled Israel's ambassador.") I don't think the statement about the cause being Israel's refusal to apologize needs to be said, and it's not really accurate anyway -- see my comments above. I agree that adding this statement would make the blurb rather long, although taking out the words "... under international law" (see my comments above) would remove some of the wordiness. Benwing (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the original ITN, I suggested we simply do away with the Turkey expulsion because that was simply part of the whole downgrade in relations between Turkey and Israel. I don't think the current posted blurb has to be replaced with this one as Turkish officials said they were going to expel the ambassador if Israel didn't apologize for the raid, regardless of what the Palmer Report said. So linking the two could be possible but it would take up the space of two blurbs opposed to one. I'm okay with the current blurb right now. WikifanBe nice 04:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also Ben, we can't say "in response to" because Turkey did not expel the ambassador because of the report. Two separate events though they are part of the same situation. WikifanBe nice 04:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's arguable what's really going on. The NY Times [57] says:
The decision to expel the Israeli envoy from Turkey on Friday came after the leak of a United Nations report on the episode. It defended the embargo on Gaza and said activists on board had attacked the raiding naval commandos, but also accused Israel of using disproportionate force.
They also say [58]:
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said an apology and compensation would not be sufficient to return Turkey’s ambassador to Tel Aviv. Israel also has to end its naval blockade of Gaza, he insisted.
But I agree "subsequently" or "subsequent to" is more accurate. I actually have no problem keeping the two blurbs separate, I was just trying to suggest a possible way to combine them in case people don't want two of them. Benwing (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm good for now. Considering the timeliness of this event, I suggest the blurb be posted immediately before it enters stale-time. Any serious problems can be brought up at ERRORS. WikifanBe nice 06:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree. Benwing (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below, this has been addressed. Benwing (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So can an active admin please post this before it becomes irrelevant? WikifanBe nice 01:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not in that state. I have added the tag back, see my post on the talk page there. Nightw 03:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is fine Night. This needs to be posted. WikifanBe nice 03:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an edit war. There is a consensus for this article, no need for roadblocks. Article was posted on the main page before when it was in far worse condition. WikifanBe nice 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we under a self-imposed interaction ban on ITN? If you wanted to end it, you could have let me known, as there was more than one issue I had with your comments in this section. JimSukwutput 04:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are I guess - but you commented on my edit first, I responded. I actually didn't notice your name until now.WikifanBe nice 04:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that one responds to another comment by adding a ":" rather than starting a new thread as I did, but I just recalled that you don't seem to use this convention. So I'll accept that you made an honest mistake. Except that you should probably read the name of whomever you are responding to. JimSukwutput 05:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A comment is a comment. If an editor cites another editors contributions above that same editor, it is basically a direct statement towards that individual. If an interaction ban were in effect, that would be a violation of it. Though our interaction ban was not codified and blessed by an administrator so a violation of it wouldn't lead to sanctions I don't think. Regardless, this blurb is ready to go. If it pleases the one user who is concerned about the tagged article, I will support de-linking the flotilla raid, but that's a pretty outrageous demand considering the current main page includes the flotilla raid article in a blurb. LOL. So why is that not an issue? Lololol. WikifanBe nice 05:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Once again I've gone through and fixed up Gaza flotilla raid in response to sudden last-minute concerns that, as Wikifan pointed out, weren't present when the previous blurb on Turkey, linking to the same article, was put up. Looking at the support vs. oppose, there's very strong consensus in support of this, and it concerns me that the two people who oppose are exactly the ones who keep throwing up roadblocks to prevent this from getting posted. I have addressed all the unsourced statements in the lede of Gaza flotilla raid, either removing or sourcing them. The only possible issues left are some things that are primary-sourced instead of secondary-sourced, but this is hardly a blocking issue.
  • (cont.d) This is my first attempt at nominating a blurb and it has been a frustrating experience. Do the various concerns that the two opposing editors cite above really get brought up in every instance where they could? Plenty of political and even I/P blurbs get posted with bolded articles in much worse shape than the current one. For example, the Anna Hazare article has two orange-level notes at the top and lots of other problems, but the blurb about him was up for days and days.
  • (cont.d) At this point I've made a number of attempts to address issues that Nightw and Jim Sukwutput keep bringing up. I don't think there are any such issues at the moment, and we've gone over this with a fine-toothed comb to an extent that I doubt is done in most cases. Can we simply post this? It's certainly ready and has huge consensus in its favor. Benwing (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True - no editor, including the admin, objected to posting the flotilla raid article when it had an unbalance tag. The same editors who have opposed the blurb based on the tag here did not oppose the blurb in the Turkey ITN when the same article was part of the blurb and had the tag. As of now, the article no longer had the tag. This is ready to be posted, and has more support to be posted than the ITN posting on Turkey expelling the ambassador. WikifanBe nice 09:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me restate that I am not against the posting personally. I was previously opposed because this seemed like an attempt to restart the discussion below; now this has developed far further than that, so I have retracted my oppose. I also commented on Wikifan12345's violations of 1RR in that article, but I suppose that is largely irrelevant to whether we should post the article. I'd also agree that there is a pretty strong consensus and I'm not sure why an admin hasn't posted this yet.
One thing that you should know is that nominators are formally not allowed to add [Ready] tags to their own nominations. However, I do agree that it's ready, so let's just pretend I added it. JimSukwutput 13:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted and bumped the article. It's certainly not in perfect shape, but it's all right enough to post for now. I combined the blurb with the Israel-Turkey dimplomatic issue; if that was wrong just tell me or another admin how to fix it. It's kind of long right now, so suggestions for shortening it (WP:ERRORS) would be appreciated. NW (Talk) 14:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's okay to post now. Most major concerns have been addressed. Some issues with sourcing remain, but it's not a deal-breaker. Nightw 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, as the language is not what editors agreed to and is phrased in a non-neutral manner. Going to errors. Here is the link. The Palmer Report found Israel's blockade legal, not "Israel used excessive force on the flotilla raid" (that was only one part of the report). It must say, Palmer Report found Israel's blockade to be legal and not assume it is legal because that is disputed. Even the Palmer Report says this. I would have done away with the Turkey expulsion of the ambassador, because the situation has evolved into a much larger issue - cutting defense ties (allegedly) and downgrading all formal relations. WikifanBe nice 16:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad, for once, that Wikifan12345 seems to be arguing that there is an pro-Israeli bias present. JimSukwutput 17:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of bias, but facts. The Palmer Report determined Israel's blockade to be legal, we can't say "Israel's legal blockade, yaddayaddayadda." I would have preferred the original, consensus blurb be posted rather than the current mutant that millions of people are now reading. WikifanBe nice 17:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the thread at WP:ERRORS, I revised the blurb for conformity to what was discussed and agreed upon above. It simply isn't feasible to combine the two items in a satisfactory manner, so the new one can simply replace the old one (which has been up for a while anyway).
The event occurred on 2 September, so I undid the unexplained bump. —David Levy 17:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thanks Levy. WikifanBe nice 17:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the historical record this seems quite imperfect, as it suggests that the UN panel ruled on the legality of the entire Gaza blockade, it did not. (Almost?) All in depth sources says "Gaza naval blockade" or something to that effect (The Telegraph)(Jerusalem Post) --Alcea setosa (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Ynetnews) and the report of the panel itself (in

Facts, Circumstances and Context of the Incident ii). "The Panel finds:"-"ii. The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law." leaked report from NYT http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf --Alcea setosa (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

[edit]
Disasters

Iran-Kurdish conflict

[edit]
Article: Iran–PJAK conflict (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 30 Kurdish fighters were killed or wounded in a new military offensive by the Iranian army. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Reuters 2 Associated Press

Nominator's comments: New campaign in conflict with Kurds. Iranian government sources say 150 killed, not sure how accurate that is. War with Kurds doesn't get a huge amount of attention on ITN, so this would be a fresh and unique proposal. WikifanBe nice 02:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would like to see some independent WP:RSs, especially for the casualty numbers - history has shown that ALL governments routinely lie about the casualty numbers of the conflicts they're involved in. Reuters reporting that "Iran's State television says..." is not a reliable source for the actual casualty numbers. I would also like to know whether this is a sudden escalation of conflict between the Kurds and Iran (which would suggest that this sufficiently notable for ITN) or whether this is just another daily skirmish in an on-going war of attrition (which would render this story insufficiently noteworthy for ITN). Deterence Talk 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean military plane crashes

[edit]
Articles: 2011 Chilean Air Force CASA 212 crash (talk · history · tag) and Felipe Camiroaga (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Chilean military plane with 21 people on board, including television presenter Felipe Camiroaga, crashes in an unknown place near the Juan Fernández Islands. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua, Huffington Post The Huffington Post 2 CTV Canada BBC The Globe and Mail The Guardian The New York Times MSNBC

Nominator's comments: Huge news, at least in South America, but as seen above, it is covered by many other sources worldwide.  Diego  talk  00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Do you think that this Chilean accident is a big stuff, because you are from that country? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same I would say when you write crap about earthquakes that nobody felt nor nothing was damaged; or stupid incidents which nobody cares about.  Diego  talk  13:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean 'stupid incidents'? Can you provide any example? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And...'Not felt, no damage, ...' earthquakes like that [59] that you have nominated for deletion? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like we're exaggerating some things in other nominations, and I don't want to talk about it. Probably this is not that significant in the term of the casualities, but it surely is if we take into account that this is a very rare plane crash in Chile and that the media coverage of this news is quite decent through the most frequent media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is basically an argument based on precedence. In deletion arguments it's not helpful because there are more than 3 million articles and the deletion process is not always 100% efficient. But here on ITN I can't see why it's a bad argument. Being consistent is pretty important, and here it seems we're being very inconsistent. JimSukwutput 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as creator. 21 deaths is a significant number, and it's the deadliest accident suffered by the FACh since 1977. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, posting this on ITN would give coverage to a country that doesn't get a lot of coverage at ITN (isn't there a guideline that adds a bit more weight to this point, can't think of its name) Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ready for posting IMO. Definitely noteworthy. WikifanBe nice 00:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as well. Mainly due to the high profile victims and the widespread coverage. Both articles are also in good shape and ready to post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Articles look fine but consensus here is sketchy at best, so I wouldn't go as far as to describe the nomination was "ready to post" yet. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First three opposes can be thrown a way because they're based on editor's opinion - e.g, "This isn't newsworthy, blah blah" or "not so notable because this crash killed more people, yaddayadda." Not fair or persuasive rationales. The event has been covered extensively by media organizations and one of the casualties was a person of public interest. I'm sure if this plane crash was American or European it would be posted immediately IMO. WikifanBe nice 02:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The confirmed death of popular journalist Roberto Bruce (who doesn't have an English Wikipedia article, yet) and presenter Felipe Camiroaga, would have been like... "OH MY F***ING GOD THEY'RE DEAD OMG WE'RE GOING NUTS IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD HOW THE **** WILL I WATCH TV NOW" if they were European or US-ians. Systemic bias, at their best expression.  Diego  talk  04:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I sympathize, English wikipedia is very much American/European as far as users go so it is only natural they would relate to, thus support, incidents involving their nations. A consensus is not a vote, so don't sweat over the opposes. I believe this event is notable enough to be posted, and probably more would too if the plane that crashed carried Matt Lauer. WikifanBe nice 04:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I would oppose the nomination of an airplane accident similar to this that carried a well-known American or European journalist too. Multiple factors go into my assessment of aircraft accidents and the notability of the passengers is one of them. Many others are involved too and in this case the crash overall just isn't that noteworthy. It's no longer being covered by my preferred online news service, a mere 24 hours after the accident. Unfortunately it will probably be forgotten by all but the Chilean media in the next couple days. N419BH 05:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your preferred online news service? The event is notable, and if the casualties were American journalists it would be on the main page right now. WikifanBe nice 06:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MSNBC. The crash is still on the main page of BBC for me. I continue to say the accident is not notable. If it were the President of Chile or if unusual circumstances were involved, say hijacking, then it would earn my support. The situation as it stands is an airplane crashed in bad weather and a well-known TV anchor was on board. Nothing is particularly noteworthy about either. I'd say the same thing if it were an American anchor. The media love to sensationalize plane crashes. They're machines piloted by humans. They can break, and humans can screw up. I'd argue we wouldn't be here debating this right now if it had been a car crash that killed this individual. His death isn't particularly noteworthy on its own, and neither is the accident on its own. I argue that even together there isn't enough notability for this to be on the main page. N419BH 06:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous airplane crashes have been featured on the main page, why not this one? Yes, the media loves to sensationalize plane crashes - derp. But that isn't our problem. WikifanBe nice 06:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally there are a lot, and if this were something like this or this or this it would earn my support. However, this accident is more like this and this. The only difference between this and the latter two is the presence on board of the news anchor. I don't consider the death of a news anchor to be worldwide front-page newsworthy. Certainly notable in Chile and perhaps more of South/Latin America but not very notable to a worldwide audience. N419BH 06:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not fair comparisons because the two later examples you give occurred before Wikipedia even existed and thus never had a trial at ITN. Smaller aircraft crashes have been posted on the main page, general commercial airline crashes have been posted on the mainpage. It's unfortunate American/European crashes are considered more notable than crashes in Latin America. Aren't human rights universal? If Barbara Walters was on that plane would it not be sent to the main page? WikifanBe nice 06:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Wikipedia existed (barely) in 2001... I'm not disputing that Barbara Walters dying in a plane crash would make ITN, but it would have to get through my Oppose !vote unless some other circumstance were involved. I'm also not disputing that if this were a regular American plane crash...Say Comair Flight 191 or Colgan Air Flight 3407 it would already be on the main page. As I recall Air India Express Flight 812 had considerable opposition before being posted on ITN, and it's fairly common for aircraft accidents occurring in Asia and Africa to be nominated for deletion. Systemic bias is alive and well here on the wiki. My oppose has nothing to do with systemic bias and everything to do with not considering the death of any news anchor of any nationality in any unremarkable plane crash to be notable. I fully respect your opinion that it is I simply disagree with it. Part of this opinion is because I don't generally buy in to the idea of celebrities/famous people actually being important. N419BH 07:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
N419BH, the accident is the deadliest accident involving military planes in Chile since 1982. It's not minor.  Diego  talk  13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. Blurb should be changed to say this accident was the deadliest in Chilean Aviation History. WikifanBe nice 18:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chilean military history since 1982...not even close to "deadliest ever in Chile" N419BH 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, "deadliest in the last 20 years" or "almost 30 years." Jesus. WikifanBe nice 19:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deadliest in 20 years, 30 years by one. A 1991 crash killed 20 with over 50 survivors. I appreciate your enthusiasm and respect your opinion but you're not going to change my mind. N419BH 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second worse tragedy in Chilean aviation history. That's certainly not minor.  Diego  talk  00:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's not get into hypotheticals about who might have been on that plane, because it's a red herring. Matt Lauer and Barbara Walters were not on that plane, so the whole thing is moot Also, it seems that although it's the most serious incident in Chile for years, it's not in the world-wide scheme of things. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the best recent incident of comparison (in terms of "people on plane") I can find happened just last month, when one of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's longest-serving journalists and his news crew were killed in a plane crash. We didn't post that one, so the argument of "if this was Western world we'd post it" really goes flying out the window right there. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which simply strengthens the point he is making - no one even raised the possibility of posting it, let alone supported its candidacy. Deterence Talk 15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If we go by your logic, then this accident is simply more notable than the Australian crash. And that's just assuming that a nomination determines the notability of an event; which it really does not. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics

IEA new Executive Director

[edit]
Article: Maria van der Hoeven (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs, Maria van der Hoeven, takes office as Executive Director of the International Energy Agency. (Post)
News source(s): (Wall Street Journal)

Nominator's comments: Taken from the WP:ITN/FE. Main energy organization in the world. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The IEA is an unremarkable organisation that few people have heard of. The appointment of a new "executive director" (yet another career bureaucrat who jumped through political hoops for 30 years) is not sufficiently notable to warrant a ITN. Deterence Talk 05:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that the number of people have heard about the IEA may be limited. However, based on what you state that the organization is unremarkable? Beagel (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just another quango. Like most quangos, the only people who would even notice if it disappeared would be those with their hands in the till. Deterence Talk 22:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even checked before commenting what kind of organization is it? It is not quango. Beagel (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Wikileaks releases all cables unredacted

[edit]
Article: United States diplomatic cables leak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: WikiLeaks publishes its entire cache of uncensored United States diplomatic cables (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian/El Pais/NY Times/Der Spiegel/Le Monde joint statement, Reporters Without Borders
Article updated

Nominator's comments: The release is significant, as is the criticism, including from previously-supportive Reporters Sans Frontières, the NY Times, et al. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like the cat's out of the bag. Wikileaks' admission to this and the updated news coverage makes this more significant than within the previous occasion that this story was nominated. Seeing as this will end up being the last Wikileaks story for a while as a result, I would say support but urge that the blurb be modified with regards to the section "drawing widespread criticism" - either omit it, make the origin of the criticism more specific, or elaborate in some other means as to make it appear less POV.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but let's concentrate on the cables. The criticism is not very warranted, seeing that the cables were already available to anyone who really wanted them. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but drop the criticism bit. And it is arguably false that Wikileaks actually was the first to actually release the uncensored cables, so drop the first part of the suggested blurb too. Thue | talk 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly a notable event which will be has been picked-up by media around the world. But, focus on the content of the new material, the manner in which is it became available and any significant implications. Further more, I agree with EricLeb and Thue regarding less focus on the predictable criticism of Wikileaks by certain elements of society which is often sensationalised, exaggerated and tends to resemble a witch-hunt. Deterence Talk 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still no update so far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose any blurb that does not mention the criticism. Wikileaks' friends have suddenly got a lot fewer as a result of this and it is important to reflect that in the blurb. We have posted Wikileaks' activities in the past and they have always been supported by more mainstream media organisations. It is important to point out that no longer applies in the interests of balance. It is very easy for an "anti-establishment" agenda to implicitly be covered in a favourable light. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Additional comment for the sake of clarity - I'm not interested in the cries of anguish from Washington or similar here - I think we can take that as read. The notable element here seems to be the condemnation from their former mainstream media partners. I that respect the orginin of the criticism may be legitimately made more specific in the manner suggested by WaltCip Crispmuncher (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an important caveat you make. Critical rhetoric from Washington cronies and uptight Tory MPs from the UK isn't worth a damn. But, the joint condemnation from the Guardian, the New York Times, German news magazine Der Spiegel, Spanish daily El Pais and France's Le Monde - the five media sources who proactively collaborated with Wikileaks for the initial publication of the redacted United States diplomatic cables - is very noteworthy and should be included. Deterence Talk 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this. While I do agree with the reasoning here, I can also see why many readers would find the blurb biased if they have not went through the same kind of reasoning. And I tend to support keeping the blurb short and concise in these cases, as its main purpose is to provide a link to the article where the topic can be discussed in more detail. JimSukwutput 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Anybody? No? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, for all the talking, no one seems to want this posted badly enough. For what it's worth, I oppose any blurb that does not mention any criticism, per Crispmuncher. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that is not our problem. See the section on top: "In order to suggest a candidate: ... Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated." I know we often leave this to other users, but you're really supposed to update the article or have an updated article before you nominated, rather than expecting any other user to do so. JimSukwutput 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't our current practice, and should be changed. It's not my problem anyway either, I really could care less over whether WikiLeaks gets more coverage than it deserves. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 03:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::::Naturally, you mean you couldn't care less.--WaltCip (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Turkey expels Israeli ambassador

[edit]
Article: Israel–Turkey relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Turkey expels its ambassador to Israel over the 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article updated

* Oppose - I dont find it much notable. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles suggested say anything about this development. I really want to post this given the dire state of the timer, but we need something resembling an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the sensitivity of this conflict, I suggest any posting must be thoroughly vetted and factually accurate. Time can wait. Sources attribute Turkey's decision to Israel's refusal to not apologizing for the flotilla raid. Turkey has been threatening this well before the UN report leaked. The Palmer Report was just icing on the cake, after it stated Israel's blockade was legal under international law. I suggest the blurb be amended to reflect the conditions of the report, rather than a focus on Turkey. Something like, "A UN report on the flotilla raid determined Israel's blockade of Gaza to be legal, but concluded Israel's raid was carried out with unreasonable force blah blah blah..." source. WikifanBe nice 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one there's an update, given that this seems at least relatively significant and given that if the timer becomes much more dire ITN might spontaneously combust. Ks0stm (TCG) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - according to Israel, the ambassador is has already finished his tenure, quote: "Regarding Turkey's decision to expel Israel's envoy to Ankara, the official said the ambassador – Gabi Levy – had already finished his tenure in Ankara, had taken leave of his Turkish counterparts in Ankara, and was returning to Israel in the coming days. No replacement for Levy, whose retirement from the Foreign Ministry has been known for months, was ever named." [60] Another reports says "Israel's ambassador to Ankara, Gabi Levy is currently in Israel on vacation and is retiring from the Foreign Service effective in the middle of September. Israel has not named any replacement for him." [61] It appears there is a downgrading of relationship - presumably the ambassador will not be replaced for some time - but this is not such big news, given the state of Israel-Turkey relations over the past year. The significant news seems to be the release of the UN's Palmer report stating that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was a "legitimate security measure" to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza but that Israel used "excessive force" against the ships breaking the blockade. PopularMax (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most expulsions of diplomatic staff are merely symbolic (its not like anyone cares who's working at an embassy). But, it is precisely that negative symbolism that makes this event notable. Deterence Talk 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per PopularMax links, looks like a real non-event. Mtking (edits) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Diplomatic expulsions generally are purely symbolic acts in any event, so musing on the actual impact of this seems moot, especially when this assessment comes out of Jerusalem. It seems to me that this UN report that triggered the event has been the biggest international story of the past day or so. I thought of nominating that myself but there are issues templates on the relevant articles which would probably take time to short out. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support per above. Without meaning to play-in to the endless nausea of the Israel-Palestine political saga, this is a notable development in relation to a notable political/military event. The relatively sudden and substantial cooling in relations between Turkey and Israel is a notable development in itself. The fact that the report is authored on behalf of the UN also increases its notability, albeit at the cost of its credibility. Deterence Talk 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Flawed and POV blurb. Mention of report is too ambiguous. Blurb should be about the Palmer Commission, the details (that embarrassed Turkey) led to the Israeli ambassador being expelled. Although Turkey threatened to expel Israel's ambassador for not apologizing over the flotilla incident well before the Palmer Report was leaked. IF anything, the blurb should state the UN's finding explicitly - that Israel's blockade was legal and does not constitute an act of collective punishment (straight from the report). Blurb is not only one-sided but factually inaccurate. WikifanBe nice 00:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That itself would be POV. The report had two headline conclusions: 1) The Gaza blockade is legal and 2) Excessive force was used in the flotilla raid. Mentioning both is balanced, mentioning neither is similarly balanced. Mentioning one without the other is POV. As I noted above the report is the substantive story here but it is precisely that kind of distortion that stops us running with it. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Agreed with Crispmuncher here. There's some not-so-subtle POV-pushing going on here under the guise of neutrality. I don't think we have the perfect blurb, but I'm not going to let Wikifan use my comment to push his agenda (once again). So let me state for the record that I support posting this item. JimSukwutput 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, quite clearly, the blurb should include both statements. The current blurb is blatantly false - Turkey did not expel Israel's ambassador because of this report, they expelled the ambassador because Israel refused to apologize over the flotilla raid. It would be better to simply post the Palmer Report rather than have a one-sided Turkey blurb. Yeah Jim, again with your dubious accusations of "POV-pushing." Please take your insinuation to the appropriate noticeboards with proof. Stop poisoning the discussion with personal attacks. WikifanBe nice 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Support The sentence is "Turkey expels Israeli ambassador after this report", not ""Turkey expels Israeli ambassador because of this report".Dizikaygisiz (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC) It is not the same.[reply]
the sentence is Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador "after details emerged of a UN report." Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador because Israel refused to apologize over the flotilla raid. We know this because the government has said it again and again.. They threatened to expel the ambassador before the release of the report. The current blurb suggests the Israeli ambassador was expelled because of the report - that obviously played a role - but the Turkish government official stance is different. If editors want the report to be mentioned, a neutral blurb would be "Turkey downgrades its relations with Israel after a report on the flotilla raid determined x, y and z." Or "A report released by the UN determined Israel's actions during the flotilla raid to be legal but found the army used unreasonable force. Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador blah blah blah." Prose needs work but I'm just throwing ideas out. WikifanBe nice 02:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikifan: No, I'm not going to take my discussion of this nomination anywhere else. If you repeatedly make inappropriate remarks and accusations in this section, you ought to expect to be called out for it here. Quite recently one of our most frequent contributors Lihaas (a very solid editor whom I respect) was blocked, justifiably, by an admin for turning this place into a political forum. While you have not reached that level of soapboxing, your continued politicizing of what should be a neutral discussion of significance and your provocative comments aimed at other editors (those presumably with opposite political views) are very close to being just as disruptive. This is not a political arena where you can start a crusade against allegedly "one-sided" blurbs. That kind of behavior might be acceptable at an article's talk page, provided that you back up your claims with reliable sources. But this is an internal discussion. This is where a bunch of very professional editors and admins work around the clock to get things posted on time. Your politicizing of every nomination that pertains to your area of interest, and your endless accusations of "POV" bias against other users who you know nothing about, are wasting a lot of their time that could be better spent on nominating more items or updating the articles. Plus it's immensely frustrating to deal with and, I presume, quite a bit insulting for the users who you accused of various heinous acts. JimSukwutput 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim, I think you might be projecting here. It is you who constantly accused editors of "POV-pushing. I did not accuse any editors of POV pushing. I said the blurb was flawed (it is), factually inaccurate (it is), and not neutral (a.k.a POV). I then provided proof to support my reasoning. Instead of responding to my reasoning, you attack me as an editor once again. This just embarrassing Jim. WikifanBe nice 02:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no need for me to respond to your reasoning because I pretty much agree with it (see my first comment). My issue here is not with your reasoning, it is with your inappropriate remarks coupled with your long history of uncivil remarks and/or hypocritical accusations of POV against other users who might or might not have a different political view from yours, for example here here here here and here (and I'm not even looking at your behavior outside the ITN - for example your grossly inappropriate accusations directed at an admin here).
    • As for "personal attacks", I have every right to respond to your comment here. It is a response to your behavior, not your person. JimSukwutput 02:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no inappropriate remarks here. I have filed an etiquette notice regarding your accusations of "POV-pushing." Feel free to include your grievances there. WikifanBe nice 02:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait up. The blurb is confusing. What's the story being posted, the UN report or the diplomatic incident with Turkey? The expulsion of the ambassador was over Israel's refusal to apologise for the deaths of nine Turks killed in the incident. It didn't have anything to do with the UN's conclusion that the incident was legal. Nightw 12:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we should give a context.The diplomatic incident with Turkey happened after the report was leaked and Israel didn't want to apologise becouse the report found that the boarding was legal though excessive force was used so I Support updated blurb --Shrike (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Israeli government refused to apologise because it believes its troops acted in self defence, not because the UN determined the action to be legal. If the story being posted is about the findings of the report, the article being updated should be Palmer Report. The proposed blurb strays from the focus of the story into a completely separate story. Nightw 13:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose As with Night w, I have struck my support. The original blurb was not perfect but acceptable; this one is much worse. JimSukwutput 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? I said the same thing Night said. Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israeli refused to apologize for the Gaza flotilla raid. In fact, Turkey threatened to expel the Israeli ambassador before the release of the report. This is why I suggest the blurb be about the actual report, rather than the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. Gaza flotilla raid received several main page postings, the conclusion of a UN investigation is very notable. The original blurb was just wrong - factually speaking. WikifanBe nice 18:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then feel free to nominate that story. You'll also need to update the flotilla article. Nightw 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is updated. I don't care too much, I'm saying a viable alternative to this blurb exists. The original blurb (Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador because of the report) was false, I explained why. Jim went on a tangent because I'm the one who said that, you say the same thing - in less words - and suddenly its an oppose. ITN is a bit of a joke in this situation no? I'm not against Turkey expels the Israeli ambassador, but the news is rather stale. The blurb could be revised to summarize a general downgrade in relations. Something like, "Report determines Israeli blockade legal, Turkey is pissed and and seeks an IJC investigation. UN/US call for a return to normalized relations, blah blah." Turkey's status as a NATO member, host of US nuclear weapons system, and historic ally of Israel is very notable. This 180 change in foreign relations is an important story but the expulsion of the ambassador is more of a symbolic gesture. The blurb could be something like, "A diplomatic row between Israel and Turkey is triggered following Israel's refusal to apologize for the Gaza Flotilla Raid and a UN investigation that determined Israel's blockade to be legal..." Sources suggest Turkey's new approach towards Israel is definitely about Gaza, and not just an apology. WikifanBe nice 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well in the absence of any formal nomination of the other story and since you don't oppose posting anything about this story, I've amended the blurb again and marked the item as ready. Nightw 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on oppose because Turkey didn't simply expel the ambassador over the flotilla raid. Blurb is too open-ended and no context suggests a conflict with NPOV (not to mention verifiability). I didn't know regular editors could amend a blurb they didn't start, is that allowed? WikifanBe nice 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am the nominator and I certainly don't mind the amended blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, obviously I support the nomination now. Can't speak for Jim. Nightw 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To re-iterate, I do not support the blurb because that is not the reason Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador. WikifanBe nice 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mistake IMO Mitchell. I suggest proof-reading a blurb before posting. See grammar issue? Going to ERRORS now. WikifanBe nice 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also Mitchell, is it fair of admins to post a blurb they support? Is that a COI or something? Pardon my ignorance, I remember another editor bringing this issue up before in a different proposal. WikifanBe nice 21:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok as long as consensus is clear even without their own support. There is already shortage of admins, cant be too picky now. -- Ashish-g55 23:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, but it have been more credible for an uninvolved admin not part of the topic area to enforce the posting. Editors who oppose the current blurb have not been approached as of late. I made a report in ERRORS, hopefully the blurb will be taken down or amended to reflect actual sources. WikifanBe nice 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the above discussion and the one at WP:ERRORS, I've revised the blurb to read "Turkey expels Israel's ambassador following Israel's refusal to apologize for its 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla." This much is undisputed and reported by reliable sources. —David Levy 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 India–Pakistan border shooting

[edit]
Article: 2011 India–Pakistan border shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ One Indian soldier and three Pakistani soldiers are killed in a cross-border shooting. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, AFP, Al Jazeera BBC, CNN, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: (1) Notability: Cross-border incident between two large countries with a not-so-pleasant history. Loss of life on both sides due to hostile fire. The cover story on the South Asia pages for BBC, CNN and Reuters. (2) Article Update: Updates added based on claims by both countries. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

How can a "Cross-border incident between two large countries with a not-so-pleasant history" even warrant a separate article? –HTD 04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt create the article, but I presume the same logic used for the creation of separate articles for Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and Battle of Daecheong were used (although admittedly the scale of both of these two were larger, but not by too much). I am guessing you are questioning the notability of the event - I concede that this is not earth shattering, but things have been (relatively) cool for some time now and both countries have just started talking to each other until this happened. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I created the article and there have been articles published before on such skirmishes. As far as the article is concerned, it is notable. Mar4d (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I initially added this (if you go through the page history) on ITN although later retrieved it. I think that while the event is notable and has made headines in some news, the occurence itself is not quite notable because there has been periodical unrest a number of times along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. This particular incident is nothing different. Mar4d (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreeing with Mar4d, India and Pakistan have been on a dispute for like... forever i must say. (I live in india), Something happening within the borders with just three or four people dying is very common these days. And also, the shooting doesnt require a separate article. It could possible be merged into one of the previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there are no "previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history." If there was/were, then this could have been merged. I think we can always create an article on India–Pakistan skirmishes, similiar to how we have Pakistan – United States skirmishes and Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes. Interested editors can then update the article with some of the sporadic conflicts along the border that may have taken place in the past although that would require a lot of research and work (no guarantee that I will be an extensive contributor). Mar4d (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

[edit]
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters