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.
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. Swarm22:37, 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? DeterenceTalk23:59, 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. Swarm00:30, 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. DeterenceTalk01:00, 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. Swarm01:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon closer examination, the "precedent" provided by the law professor from Duke is nowhere close to being a legal precedent for the assassination of American citizens by their own government. Only one of those eight was American, and he was executed following a full confession and TRIAL. In other words, we're being fed a load of crap. DeterenceTalk01:54, 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. Swarm02:12, 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). DeterenceTalk02:21, 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. Jusdafax20:38, 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. DeterenceTalk21:38, 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. -- tariqabjotu22:21, 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-g5501:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Caution - The Washington Post article speaking of Anwar Awlaki's death says that there have been multiple occasions in which his death was falsely reported. Our source in this case is an anonymous Yemeni informant speaking through the U.S. federal government. We should not be so hasty to post this until more information becomes available.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With the exception of household names, like Osama bin Laden, killing one of these guys is like killing a Mafia boss or a drug dealer: there's someone to take his place within 5 minutes and it makes no real difference whatsoever in their War on Liberty. DeterenceTalk13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't realise he was an American citizen, (that is what happens when you vote at 2 in the morning). Given the clear breach of the fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - he was "deprived of life ... without due process of law" - this execution of an American citizen by the American government is a notable event. DeterenceTalk20:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If article needs further updating, so be it. This is highly notable for the due-process-free killing of an American citizen by his own government, in violation of the U.S. Constition's Fifth Amendment. Jusdafax17:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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 Geniustalk14:01, 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 DeterenceTalk15:11, 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. --Tone20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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
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. DeterenceTalk09:07, 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 | talk14:48, 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. Jusdafax18:18, 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]
The Chinese city of Shanghai shuts down line 10 of its metro system and slows down train speed following a collision that injured 271 people. (Bloomberg via Business Week)
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. Swarm17:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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(T•C•G•E)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]
Stale the last significant aspect of it was on September 12 when the CDC declared the outbreak and the recall was put in place. That is well over two weeks ago, unless there is recent developments in the past few days there is no point in posting now. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was first reported by the CDC on September 12. The more recent report which propelled it into mainstream news coverage was on September 21, adding more than six new deaths to the total. Since then, there have been even more deaths and confirmed cases. And the latest CDC report was yesterday, the 27th. You can follow all of the coverage here. It is definitely current news and i'll have the article improved with this information tonight. SilverserenC00:38, 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. --Tone22:16, 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. -- tariqabjotu01:03, 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. --Tone07:36, 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-g5501:07, 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 There seems to be some discussion about the actual cause of the explosion. Naturally, I'll support this nomination if it proves to have been caused by a meteorite, (instead of a gas leak), but, at this point, that is a big IF and I'll need to see some pretty clear WP:RSs (in English). At this stage, I'm wondering if this is someone's idea of a prank and "meteorito" is the name of a restaurant destroyed in a gas explosion. DeterenceTalk20:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One miner is killed and another injured following an underground roof collapse at Kellingley Colliery in North Yorkshire, one of the United Kingdom's deepest remaining mines. (BBC)
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 | talk19:34, 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. JimSukwutput20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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. DeterenceTalk08:31, 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:...". DeterenceTalk22:19, 26 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. DeterenceTalk02:57, 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]
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]
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]
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-g5518:08, 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]
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 Geniustalk23:44, 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]
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]
Comment. Still in support of this, but maybe something could be sandwiched between it and the other Kenya-related story which is currently top of the ITN box. --FormerIP (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good article and notable subject. Agree with Johnsemlak that the article's sources are diverse enough, and that the updates give additional perspective. Jusdafax19:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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-g5502:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is only significant within the aviation industry. What will be the real news for most people is when the plane is first used for a commercial flight. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 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-g5502:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The plane doesn't really break any records or set any new significant standards. Although it may be one of the most common airliners in the near future along with the A350. YuMaNuMa (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The A380's first flight was on April 27, 2005. here is what the article looked at the time, which looks like a decent article to me (in-line citations didn't get fashionable until at least 2007). I wonder what the ITNC criteria was like back then? hbdragon88 (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. DeterenceTalk22:24, 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]
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]
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(T•C•G•E)15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, an article about a power outage. I honestly never thought I'd see that. Love the image by the way! I'm not even going to... Nightw17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here are some more articles for you to be amazed at. As for the nomination, I suppose the article would need some work, and regarding notability - while its mentioned in many international newspages, I cant really spot this amongst the headlines. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for obvious reasons, the main one being "just a blackout". They happen so often in places far bigger than Chile that it's not even worth talking about. — Joseph Fox18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now, based on significance and update size (see Criteria). I would like to see what, if any, noteworthy effects the blackout has had or will have; absent such information, it is difficult to see how a one-hour blackout is sufficiently significant (notability is another matter (Added 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC):, and the blackout likely will prove to be notable)). Also, new event-specific articles should have approximately three "complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" before being posted to ITN. -- Black Falcon(talk)19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added two paragraphs to the article, so it is now almost 1,500 characters long. This should satisfy ITN's length criteria, but significance is still questionable, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon(talk)20:53, 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
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 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. DeterenceTalk13:18, 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]
Support, but note that Saudi Arabia does not hold any elections beyond the municipal level. The significance of this story is that they are now, under the law, only a little inferior to men. But this does not mean that common women (or men) would hold actual power. JimSukwutput18:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I'm having a little local difficulty with an editor mass-reverting the updates to the article. For the time being, please refrain from voting "not ready", because you may not be looking at the updated version. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:07, 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. --Tone21:02, 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]
Support in principle when updated, but that blurb needs reworking. How can you retain this year's title? Which title anyway? I don't know the subject well but there's at least the men's and women's, and probably a wheelchair class as well. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:59, 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]
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]
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 nice03:36, 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. DeterenceTalk04:05, 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]
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]
I would rather err on the side of publishing than not. It's not like a 2nd posting is going to break ITN - we have dozens of Israel-Palestine ITN posts to do that for us. DeterenceTalk13:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—we post developments in the same story regularly. Twice in 14 months is nothing compared to some other stories we've repeatedly posted. Swarm16:00, 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]
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! Nightw17:10, 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. JimSukwutput18:51, 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. --Tone07:48, 26 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. DeterenceTalk11:34, 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. GreyHoodTalk11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Vladimir Putin accepts Dmitry Medvedev's proposal to run for the Russian Presidency
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§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Dmitry+Medvedev&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])
Support Obviously an extremely notable development in Russian politics, especially given that this virtually guarantees that Putin will return to the Presidency. (I'm confused. Like the President of the USA, the Russian President has a two term limit. How is Vladimir Putin legally permitted to run for a third term?) DeterenceTalk11:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was speculation that Putin would do this from the very moment Medvedev was set to succeed Putin as President. Legally, a third non-consecutive term is not prohibited.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Maybe we should mention that Medvedev himself is not yet term-limited, which makes this event even more humiliating notable. Colchicum (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again your hyperscepticism towards Russian politics. Why should he be humiliated if he has done exactly what half or more of Russia's population expected him to do? GreyHoodTalk11:59, 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]
Support with simpler blurb - But if a proposal is not a requirement for running for president like I think it is, I would just eliminate any mention of Medvedev. At the United Russia Congress, Vladimir Putin announces his candidacy for the President of Russia.MarcusQwertyus16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't like that. Putin didn't just come and announced; first Medvedev proposed, then Putin accepted. Giving the fact that Medvedev in turn accepted to head United Russia, the majority party, at the elections, this is important. GreyHoodTalk16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant development in Russian politics and effectively means Putin is going to be the next President of Russia. Hut 8.519:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even more importantly, could someone reset the timer, which is still red? I'd do it but don't seem to be allowed to, not sure if that's an adminny thing or what. Jusdafax21:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South Korean prosecutors raid the offices of seven savings banks whose operations were suspended last week, with the president of one bank committing suicide. (Yonhap)
Support pending announcement of the outcome of the application. This is one of the more notable milestones to appear in the endless nausea of the Palestine-Israel Shakespearean saga. DeterenceTalk15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only once it has happened, when it will undoubtedly need a different blurb. Also, does the template on the article indicate that it may not be ready? --FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Nightw15:12, 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]
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. -- tariqabjotu04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In his/her defence, after all these years of the same stupid sisyphean crap my eyes tend to glaze-over when I see news reports about the Israel-Palestine problem. DeterenceTalk06:13, 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]
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. Nightw07:12, 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]
Oppose for now, when the UN acts, then it will be news. If it's posted now, I would oppose a repost if the expected result occurs, unless we want to post that the sun rose each day, which is rather remarkable and led our ancestors to doubt, cherish and worship that event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 24 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. DeterenceTalk14:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supportonce 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.
Oppose It apparently just landed in the ocean, I don't even think they know where. It turned out to be a non-event. Swarmu / t11:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Swarmu / t11:54, 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. Swarmu / t14:02, 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. Swarm22:35, 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. -- tariqabjotu03:54, 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. JimSukwutput16:18, 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. JimSukwutput16:57, 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. Swarmu / t17:51, 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. JimSukwutput18:41, 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 8.517:57, 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]
Alternative blurb suggestion: On this slow-news day, the sun rose, the paper was delivered, the cat meowed and more crap fell out of the sky. Just like every other day.DeterenceTalk20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Chances are that the re-entry will happen over populated areas, making this a once in a lifetime spectacular event. You can find if there are passes of the UARS visible to you on the Heavens Above website. Check for all passes, including invisible passes, the UARS will be visible when it re-enters even if it is in the Earth's shadow. Count Iblis (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support purely down to the coverage this is getting (which is unarguably "a lot"). If it hits something, then that's een more reason. — Joseph Fox02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the debris has already landed at unknown locations (most likely in the ocean) 12. Let's see how much more coverage the media can manage to squeeze out of this non-event. JimSukwutput06:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. Nightw05:56, 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)
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. Nightw10:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This topic is ITN/R, so we're just assessing whether it is ready. The article shows promise, but there is virtually no content about the results of the election for the representatives of the General Assembly. Indeed, if it wasn't mentioned in the lede then the casual reader might believe it was solely a Presidential election. I'll await an update of the voting results before supporting this. DeterenceTalk07:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No obvious issues with the article. Expecting an FA candidate for an article about a general election in a developing country is systematic bias. --FormerIP (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. He's been sworn in now. I take the point about the parliamentary election results being sparse, but there is sufficient information about the presidential election to warrant posting it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 23 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. DeterenceTalk20:37, 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... –HTD12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on significance and update quality. Saleh's return to Yemen is noteworthy but its significance is not altogether clear yet. After all, he wasn't exactly driven out of the country so much as he left for reasons of health and/or security. Also, the size of the update – only one sentence, currently – is insufficient, perhaps because there isn't (yet) much more to say about this development. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any connection between Saleh's return to Yemen and the assassination of Rabbani, other than that they occurred within a few days of each other, so I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question. -- Black Falcon(talk)00:06, 25 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 Geniustalk21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. Wikipedia does not publish gossip or original research. Remember that this is an unverified observation. They are not saying it could not be just a bug in their equipment. Reproducibility is one of the central pilars of science, and these results have not yet been reproduced. It would be truly groundbreaking if the observation was reproduced by an indepdendent team, but given that particle detectors at this scale are very complicated instruments, I suggest holding the ITN until an indendent team of researchers verifies this claim using their own equipment. --hydrox (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (edit: support for new blurb 21:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
"PR department of the highest science agency in all the land"? I guess you must be refering to CERN, which has made no press release. Assuming the BBC and AP have not suddenly become the PR department at CERN. --hydrox (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading the reports utterly wrongly as is demonstrated below. CERN are not reporting this. Due diligience is an important part of ITN and you're not apllying it I'm sorry to say. Pedro : Chat 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spokesman in the telegraph.co.uk article above is apparently from CERN. He is the "spokesman for the international group of researchers". Nevertheless, the point is there is no gossip here. MarcusQwertyus21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Travelling faster than the speed of light. CERN has the highest reputation in the international scientific (cosmological physics) community. If you know anything about physics, you know that this is a very big deal - Einstein is having conniptions in his grave. DeterenceTalk21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) no-one at CERN has said anything, as far as I am aware. The report comes from Gran Sasso. b) CERN is indeed a top particle physics institute. It is not a top 'cosmological physics' (by which I assume you mean cosmology) institute. Modest Geniustalk21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. It is a particle physics lab. I have a PhD in astronomy, I know what I'm talking about here. If you still don't believe me, see how many times the words 'cosmology', 'cosmological' or 'Big Bang' are used in our article on CERN (hint: it's zero). Modest Geniustalk22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> Various commentators on this item have suggested that those !vote oppose simply doesn't understand the science, so shouldn't pass judgement. I thought that was relevant information that demonstrated that I am indeed qualified to know what is and isn't cosmology. Your opinion obviously differs. Modest Geniustalk00:29, 23 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? DeterenceTalk06:23, 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)
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]
Oppose. Apparently this is just very very slightly faster than the speed of light, so it is not that impressive after all. Ok, seriously, neutrinos may travel faster than light but ITN updates on science topics do not travel faster than a peer-review paper... --Tone22:01, 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. DeterenceTalk22:30, 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]
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]
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. DeterenceTalk00:58, 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]
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. JimSukwutput18:51, 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. JimSukwutput19:05, 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-g5522:57, 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-g5500:18, 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-g5500:32, 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]
Wait, at least until the announcement on 23 September, when we will (hopefully) have more information. If this is confirmed in a few months or years, it will still be ITN-worthy; until it is confirmed, it's more difficult to judge, and hopefully additional details will be released soon. The scientists who reported this observation took measurements for "over three years"; let's wait a day before giving students everywhere an excuse to ignore their physics homework. :) -- Black Falcon(talk)01:52, 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. Swarmu / t03:42, 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:
The blurb is factually incorrect as of now.
There is a disappointing amount of personal attacks in this discussion and not enough substantive debate.
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. JimSukwutput04:06, 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. DeterenceTalk12:06, 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. DeterenceTalk12:31, 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(talk • contributions) 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]
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 superluminalneutrinos 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. DeterenceTalk20:21, 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 8.519:48, 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-g5519:52, 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]
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). JimSukwutput06:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two articles that sum up the issue excellently: 12. 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.”' JimSukwutput06:53, 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]
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. DeterenceTalk21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I count 12 supports and 9 opposes, even after including opposes that were directed to the original blurb (but not those which have been struck). Marked [Ready]. JimSukwutput21:41, 24 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]
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. --Tone18:47, 25 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]
SupportOppose 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. DeterenceTalk14:50, 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. Lynch715:31, 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?
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 nice20:56, 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 Geniustalk22:12, 22 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]
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." Jusdafax03:30, 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. JimSukwutput03:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTelevision 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. DeterenceTalk03:45, 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. Resolute04:11, 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. DeterenceTalk04:02, 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. N419BH04:12, 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. Swarmu / t05:55, 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. DeterenceTalk06:38, 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. Swarmu / t07:01, 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". JORGENEV06:24, 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.". JimSukwutput07:26, 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. DeterenceTalk09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clear that this case has garnered far more worldwide attention than most executions in the US. But suggest different wording. Maybe simply refer to a "controversial execution", which surely can't be doubted. --FormerIP (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A lot of the comments here are approaching this from a POV that the death penalty is inhumane, and by extension, this execution was wrong. Wikipedia is not here to push a POV. Executions happen on a regular basis around the world, and frankly I'm not seeing a lot of fallout here.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 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! DeterenceTalk14:30, 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. Resolute14:24, 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? Resolute14:26, 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]
"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! Swarmu / t16:26, 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. DeterenceTalk20:15, 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(T•C•G•E)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]
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. DeterenceTalk23:39, 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). DeterenceTalk00:42, 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. JimSukwutput04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the international outcry is precisely what makes this item notable. Otherwise, as has been said many times above, it's just another exectution in the USA, and there's hundreds of them every year. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 23 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? DeterenceTalk01:51, 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. Swarmu / t06:07, 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. DeterenceTalk07:15, 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. JimSukwutput03:40, 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. DeterenceTalk04:58, 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. Swarmu / t06:05, 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. DeterenceTalk07:04, 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 nice10:01, 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. Swarmu / t16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I was not expecting such a large woosh-factor when I raised the obvious comparison with the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp. DeterenceTalk20:01, 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. Swarmu / t20:29, 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. DeterenceTalk20:45, 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. Swarmu / t02:01, 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'? Swarmu / t16:34, 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 Geniustalk22:19, 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 nice02:03, 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]
Two American hikers, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, are set free on bail by Iran as a humanitarian gesture, after being detained in prison for over two years under allegations of espionage. (Chron)
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. GreyHoodTalk12:13, 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. DeterenceTalk13:19, 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. GreyHoodTalk13:41, 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. DeterenceTalk14:17, 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. GreyHoodTalk15:17, 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 Geniustalk17:10, 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. GreyHoodTalk19:08, 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]
Support For a combination of reasons, above. We have neglected Russian news stories on ITN so that's one thing. This is a significant position, and First women to something something has recently been added after the Danish elections so it's quite timely doktorbwordsdeeds07:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poor job, ITN. How can it be "the highest political position attained by a woman in the country since the 18th century" if her new position has been widely seen as a demotion? Colchicum (talk) 23:13, 22 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;
Members of US rock band R.E.M. announce they are splitting up after 31 years
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]
Support - Very influential and popular band back in the day. This will be of interest to fans and non-fans alike. Swarmu / t06:13, 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. JimSukwutput07:33, 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]
Support Just to add a post-posting support. I would expect any band which had existed for so long, and been such a significant part of world-wide music culture, to be considered for the front page. doktorbwordsdeeds07:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An investigation by Russia's Interstate Aviation Committee into the fatal crash of RusAir Flight 9605 in June 2011 finds that the disaster, which killed 47 people, was caused by a combination of pilot error, an inadequate weather forecast and inadequate ground equipment. It is furthermore reported that the aircraft's navigator was intoxicated at the time of the crash.(Wall Street Journal)
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. Swarmu / t16:59, 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. Swarmu / t03:53, 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
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 Geniustalk17:10, 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.
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. GreyHoodTalk23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Tone16:53, 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. DeterenceTalk22:01, 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. --Tone13:47, 21 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]
Support High-profile assassination of pivotal figure in Afghan peace-talks. Obvious long-term implications upon his death. World-wide media coverage. DeterenceTalk21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the reference maintenance tag gets sorted out, I'd be willing to post this, although the update is just a tad skinny as well. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)16:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. DeterenceTalk07:25, 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:
Oppose this has already been covered, and I do not see a reason why it should go up for yet another time when other items are rejected on the same grounds. --PlasmaTwa215:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The official end of DADT has not been posted before, actually, so I don't know what you're talking about. This is far more significant than some people here would believe. Major event in civil rights with implications that extend beyond the US military. Frankly, if Wikipedia was around the US military was desegregated (now recognized as a major historical event), and we didn't post it because of some made-up procedural red tape, we'd be fools. Swarmu / t16:42, 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 Geniustalk17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, this has been posted twice (and nominated a few more times). I know this is really great and important news for many of the commentators here, but there's really no need to post it thrice - once for passing a bill, another time for passing the bureaucratic process, and finally again when implemented.. JimSukwutput02:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - nearly 29,000+ results on Google News, of which about 2000 articles are recent ones, and it's been reported on all major news networks worldwide: clearly a notable news-piece. It's also a monumental event for the United States military, the most powerful in the world, and for the LGBT civil rights movement in the United States and the rest of the world, and I strongly agree with User:Swarm's statement. The US military is held with high regard in the United States, this event marks a major tipping point for the LGBT rights movement in America and that of the world. --Scientiom (talk) 13:26, 21 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-g5517:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An earthquake of approximately 5.8 magnitude, two lesser related quakes, and an accompanying series of landslides kill at least three people in a municipality 32 miles south of Guatemala City, Guatemala. (Huffington Post)
Comment Concur with King, though if Berlusconi does resign then it could be an ITN candidate. The scandal does seem to be getting a lot of press. I doubt a blurb like "The Prime Minister of Italy boasted of sleeping with eight women in one night" would gain a consensus. :D WikifanBe nice01:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Berlusconi has been embattled for years, his wife left him, that 17 year old girl calls him "papi" and now the leader of a G8, Nato and EU nation is charged with fraud and soliciting sex with a minor. That's a big deal, a much bigger deal than DSK who got plenty of front page attention before there was any sort of conviction. --108.132.169.195 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both articles specifically state that Berlusconi has NOT been charged. The blurb is recklessly misleading. As a further note, I will support such an ITN nomination if Berlusconi is charged with fraud and sex with a minor. DeterenceTalk02:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I saw these floods on the BBC a few days back and was, based on their scale and effect, quite surprised to see their absence in ITN. — C M B J19:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with reservations about the current state of the article. The article contains inconsistencies regarding the death toll (233, 270) and the number of people affected (5.3 million, 5.5 million), as well as numerous grammatical errors ("declared as an most dangerous one", "have killed many of infected people", "this disaster has been dangerous then 2004 Tsunami"). While there is no doubt, in my mind, that the topic is significant and we should post this item, I think that we ought to wait until the article is devoid of glaring errors and contradictions before adding it to the Main Page. -- Black Falcon(talk)21:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The different estimates may result from two things - 1. Some user updated one part of the article but forgot to update another part (easily fixable); 2. The data comes from different organizations. In this article it seems like the second case. I don't think it's a problem, as the estimates are pretty close to each other. Data for these casualties count are understood to be highly volatile anyway. JimSukwutput23:29, 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.) –HTD17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's already listed as ITNR, and is the strongest basketball tournament in Europe with large media coverage and popularity outside the continent as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:17, 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 Geniustalk19:10, 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. Swarmu / t21:37, 18 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]
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.
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 Geniustalk19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NotReady 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. DeterenceTalk21:06, 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]
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.
I'm definitely not looking forward to the heated discussion that's bound to ensue from this ITN item. Either way, I support based on its status on ITN/R.--WaltCip (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. The article has been improved. Marking [Ready?] (question mark because too few people have voted, otherwise this seems OK). GreyHoodTalk10:22, 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-g5512:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Oppose This is just playing to the gallery, everybody knows it doesn't have a snowflake's chance in hell in the Republican House. Thue | talk14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think any American with a marginal knowledge of politics would agree with Thue. So, if it actually does end up getting passed, definitely worth revisiting. Other than that, its fate seems obvious. Swarmu / t16:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Almost no substantive prose, no claim as to why the fight was more notable than any other title fight, of which there are many every month. Kevin McE (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kevin. Even if the article is brought up to scratch this doesn't seem to be quite notable enough. A Mayweather/Pacquiao fight would be notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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? Swarmu / t22:43, 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. Swarmu / t23:26, 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 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]
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]
Oppose This is but a minor symptom of the real events brewing around Greece's economy. Let's wait until we have a real cause to post. And how is this an ITNR item? Thue | talk19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a reasonable nomination, but, as Thue says, this is a minor aspect of Greece's overall debt crisis, and it's too small of an aspect to post by itself. Swarmu / t21:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly, Greece's debt crisis is sufficiently notable for ITN. But, we can find a more vivid milestone than a cancelled visit by the Greek Prime Minister to the USA. DeterenceTalk21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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). DeterenceTalk13:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as if we wouldn't have posted the passing of the China seat. This is pretty controversial too, since the AU still refuses to recognise the NTC. Nightw13:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"Global corporations act cynically and screw customers over"...news? I doubt this will figure prominently ion the headlines of any global media, don't see why we should be an exception.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·16:39, 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]
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 Geniustalk17:39, 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. N419BH21:12, 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]
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 J23:51, 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 note that the one (unsourced, single sentence) section dealing with this event has been removed from the linked article; there's a mention in PlayStation Network, but it's brief and much lower-key than this headline suggests. I'm not sure we'd be fairly representing the situation by posting this. Shimgray | talk | 18:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it seems like it was (cynical?) vandalism - it looks like someone removed the various refs (claiming that it was original research at the same time), then the section got tagged as uncited - and removed. here's the diff. EdwardLane (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. N419BH00:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A huge number of casualties and it was even caught on video. It could lead to political consequences for dangerous air shows. Nanobear (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no confirmation of the 12 fatalities. And this event is notable primarily for the Darwin Award earned by the 80 year old pilot partipating in a high-G air-race above thousands of spectators. DeterenceTalk01:25, 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. DeterenceTalk01:35, 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. N419BH01:46, 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]N419BH02:21, 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.JimSukwutput07:12, 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. DeterenceTalk20:08, 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. Swarmu / t20:51, 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. DeterenceTalk21:09, 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. Swarmu / t22:56, 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]
Oppose I echo Deterence in saying we need to put put reason ahead of emotion and as horrific as this is, I don't foresee this having any lasting significance. Mtking (edits) 02:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're already talking about the possible permanent cancellation of the Reno Air Races, along with the cancellation of this year's event. The Reno Air Races are probably the most prestigious air race in the world. N419BH02:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was a major accident at a notable airshow that seems to have brought about maximum casualties, considering the circumstances. This has been front page news for news outlets, and considering the amount of interest for a recent event, I believe there is merit in having this displayed. DarthBottotalk•cont03:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not the biggest news in the world, but unusual and significant enough to warrant inclusion in ITN in my opinion, especially as there is a dedicated article to accompany it. (Though that article could still use some expansion, which will presumably come as more details are made clear.) Dragons flight (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A plan crash by itself isn't particularly notable and many nominated crashes have been shot down simply based on that argument. But this plane crashed into a crowd? Until editors manage to find something more interesting than dolphins and poems for ITN, I will support this. WikifanBe nice06:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Deterence. The media will cover this because it is easy to understand, But it doesn't really make a difference to the world at large. Thue | talk08:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose If there's going to be no mention of the Welsh Miners who died, then there should be no mention of these people or the incompetent pilot. Colofac (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCE applies to WP:AFD for reasons unique to AFD, (most notably, the fact that anyone can create an article about anything at any time). It is not an argument against consistency in other areas of Wikipedia. DeterenceTalk10:40, 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. N419BH10:48, 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]
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. N419BH23:38, 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. DeterenceTalk00:20, 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. N419BH00:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deaths at a sporting event are rare. This is a high profile accident that our readers will be interested in, which is the point of ITN lest you forget. Some of the opposes would be laughable if they didn't demonstrate the abysmal state of commentary here. RxS (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The articl's prose still only says two people are dead. If the article is updated properly I'd be happy to post it on the basis of the current consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 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). N419BH23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- JuneGloomTalk13:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably biased, but support anyway. Who would have thought Monash Uni would do something of note? Regarding the blurb, it would probably be better to fully write out Burrunan dolphin somehow, rather than pipe from "dolphin". Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only read the ABC source and it says that it was discovered, so I am going to put my bet on these two species co-existing. Sources say that the Burrunan dolphins have a different skull and external structure as well as different colouration, I have no idea how they could of been misidentified. YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't really possibly see how this can make ITN. New species are discovered everyday if not every 6 hours or so, the new specie of dolphin was misidentified and so could thousands of other animals be. YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably more undiscovered sea creatures than undiscovered land animals but 1 possible reason why it's harder to discover sea creatures is because lack of accessibly. Daily telegraph reports that 80% of sea creatures in Australian waters are yet to be discovered. 1— Preceding unsigned comment added by YuMaNuMa (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The blurb is misleading. There were two known species of bottlenose dolphin, and a third one has been confirmed. That's what happened. A diver didn't suddenly discover a new type of dolphin one day. What was thought to belong to one species has been "discovered" to be its own species as a result of scientific research. That's not that big of a deal, IMO. Swarmu / t17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A similar case occurred in New Zealand in the 1990s with the discovery of Maui's dolphin, which were previously thought to be Hector's dolphins. While they looked and behaved the same they had distinct DNA. Such discoveries are curious, but not notable. Worth suggesting for DYK. DeterenceTalk22:09, 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. GreyHoodTalk15:25, 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-g5515:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure what kind of update we would add to the main article. It's true he had an interest in the arts, but I don't think his work was significant as that of, say, Cicero or Catullus.--WaltCip (talk) 15:24, 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. Swarmu / t17:33, 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? GreyHoodTalk21:48, 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. DeterenceTalk21:44, 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. GreyHoodTalk21:54, 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. GreyHoodTalk08:59, 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. DeterenceTalk12:55, 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). GreyHoodTalk13:05, 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. GreyHoodTalk08:59, 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. –HTD04:02, 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. --Jayron3204:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting story about important historical figure. History stories will always be less "influential" than current affairs so not a reason to oppose. 80.229.125.231 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UNICEF releases a child mortality report indicating that the number of children dying under the age of five has fallen from more than 12 million in 1990 to 7.6 million in 2010. (UNICEF)
Figures from the United Kingdom's Ministry of Justice indicate that three quarters of those charged with offences relating to the riots which occurred in August had previous criminal convictions. One quarter had committed more than ten previous offences. (BBC)
The Supreme Court of the United States halts the execution of Duane Buck for double murder in Texas while it reviews his case that the sentence was unfair because of a question asked about race during his trial. (AP)
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 Geniustalk17:49, 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? DeterenceTalk21:52, 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 Geniustalk11:46, 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. DeterenceTalk09:44, 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. Swarmu / t17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support general election and change of government. Some clarifying notes: The Prime Minister of Denmark is the head of government and the most powerful person. The head of state since 1972 is the queen regnant Margrethe II of Denmark but she has never had any real power. Helle Thorning-Schmidt is the designated Prime Minister based on having support from parties winning a majority in the new parliament, but she isn't officially elected yet. However, the current Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has already announced he will resign. Formally the Prime Minister is appointed by the queen but in practice she is elected by the parliament. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 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. --Jayron3203:05, 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]
Blurb: "The Danish Parliamentary elections give a new majority to a centre-left coalition led by Helle Thorning-Smith, designated to become the first female Prime Minister of Denmark."·ʍaunus·snunɐw·12:16, 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:
Oppose I'm not sure that this event is capable of sufficient notability for ITN even with some dramatic developments. Without meaning to sound callous, it's only 4 miners in a fairly routine mining accident. Certainly, a mining tragedy of this scale is a daily experience in China. DeterenceTalk01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To play the devil's advocate, one could argue that, although this is common in China, it is very rare in the UK. Similar to how we posted that earthquake that hit the eastern US a few weeks ago – no real damage was done and there were no deaths, but it was quite out of the ordinary for that area. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - One of the first mining accidents in the UK for a few decades is notable, but let's face it, if this occurred in the US it would automatically be featured. Colofac (talk) 12:42, 16 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]
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). Swarmu / t17:55, 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 8.518:25, 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. JimSukwutput00:35, 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. DeterenceTalk10:44, 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. Swarmu / t17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the first one orbiting two main sequence stars. Discovered circumbinary planets so far were orbiting pairs where one of the components were pulsars or brown dwarfs. I don't know if this is notable enough, but I feel I should make this point.195.57.146.182 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pretty press release, but really little in the way of new science. Simply detecting exoplanets is getting pretty damn routine now, so they need to be truly exceptional to make it onto ITN. This isn't. Modest Geniustalk00:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 Stoptalk-contribs05:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This saga has been on-going for a couple of years and there have been no recent developments of note. Indeed, the experiences of Shane Bauer and Joshua Fattal are only notable to the juxtapositional extent that they have been treated better than any young Iranian men could expect to treated if they strayed across the U.S. border while hiking in Canada - at least they've been named, charged with actual crimes, represented by lawyers, brought before real Judges in real Courts and have had contact with the outside world. DeterenceTalk07:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - This is nom is actually kind of unproductive; you're nominating a news story that hasn't happened and isn't guaranteed to happen, with no blurb and no description of what you're nominating, yet you want us to discuss it? Poor show. Swarmu / t18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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. DeterenceTalk07:50, 15 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. DeterenceTalk00:44, 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 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]
12.3 million people have been displaced and 11.2 million homes affected, as well as 1.7 million acres of fertile land inundated, in the wake of the monsoonal2011 Sindh floods in Pakistan. The death toll from the flooding currently stands at 270. (Express Tribune)
Unions in the United Kingdom call on members to stage a nationwide "day of action" on 30 November in protest at changes to public sector pensions. (BBC)
Comment - The article is very poorly written. I see very little (if any at all) demonstration of notability; instead it is filled with trivial anecdotes, the kind you would expect from a popular biography. The only reliable source it cited is in relation to this claim "is considered by critics and historians to be one of the early works of pop art", and it doesn't even give a page number, nor explain how one source constitutes "critics and historians". JimSukwutput23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support First nuclear power plant in the Middle East and exceptionally troubled planning and construction would both be notable enough in their own right for posting in my view. Throw in Western concerns as to Iran's nuclear programme and this must be a shoe-in. Really like the article too, one of the more readable ones here. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support While I caution against sensationalising this news simply because it comes with the moron-magnet word "nuclear", this is a notable development for Iran and the Middle East. DeterenceTalk05:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The UK's Independent Commission on Banking recommends that British banks should separate their retail banking divisions from investment banking arms to safeguard against riskier banking activities. (BBC)
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]
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. Swarmu / t13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BBC. I haven't read the article fully, but if this is terrorism (not sure if it is fully decided yet), I think it ought to go up. If it's an accident, it probably shouldn't. I have to head to work though, so can someone else take a fuller look at it? NW(Talk)13:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Article says industrial accident, so it isn't even a nuclear accident. Basically a foundry used to melt metal waste defected and a small explosion occurred that unfortunately killed a worker. JimSukwutput14:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no mention at all of terrorism in the article, nor in this one [55] so I don't know where that has come from. Precision is always very important in nuclear coverage: it's already been noted this was not a nuclear explosion. It is also apparent there is no reactor at Centraco - it is a reprocessing facility instead. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
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]
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. DeterenceTalk02:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article has been cleaned up a bit (lots of 'citation needed' tags). I agree with Deterence that it's not that unusual, but I don't think we've featured a similar story on ITN and we do have an article on it. Physchim62(talk)16:04, 13 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. DeterenceTalk09:08, 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." DeterenceTalk11:22, 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 - TP14:25, 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 - TP15:01, 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 Levy15:17, 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 - TP15:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Memorial ceremonies are held at New York's Ground Zero and elsewhere in the United States, to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Ceremonies are also held worldwide to mark the anniversary of the attacks. (Yahoo News via AP)
Comment I don't know how this is covered on the networks, but the actual attendance figure is only 3% of what the 2010 FIFA World Cup had. Based on that figure I don't think this passes the criteria. JimSukwutput20:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why necessarily compare with the 2010 FIFA World Cup? We have plenty ITNR items with far less attendance than such a giant sporting event ;) GreyHoodTalk20:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A fringe sport, at best. Even websites dedicated to sports are unlikely to post this result. If we made an ITN post for every quirky new sporting event then the ITN page would be inundated with sporting items that possess very little encyclopedic value. DeterenceTalk22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably if it would have been held as an annual tournament, I'd not support it, but seems like every two years is a fine span to consider posting of this kind of football. And the most recent edition really did break many records in its popularity.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:45, 11 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. JimSukwutput06:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A fringe sport with limited coverage. The Vuelta (just below) is a much higher profile sporting event and at the moment the consensus doesn't even seem that we should post it. Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for similar reasons to the others - this is altogether too niche. The teams involved and who won does not change that. Increasing popularity is not notable either, especially if as here it is from a very low baseline. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. The related articles seem updated. I'd also note that beach soccer is less popular sport than some others, but certainly not a "fringe sport". GreyHoodTalk06:42, 12 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]
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]
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.
Oppose any women's only result since that is not an ITNR item. I've proposed a compromise to this issue in the past (no bump on update) and it has been rejected. To be clear: the women's result alone is not an ITNR item. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:57, 12 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? –HTD04:28, 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]
Oppose This was covered on one of the talk pages yesterday. The final is ITNR. If you want use to consider the coverage of the final, no it's not ready, it doesn't even tell us who will win. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:45, 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. DeterenceTalk00:33, 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. –HTD03:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An anniversary is not something we would generally report and I don't see any reason to deviate from that here. On the other hand, reporting of events marking the anniversary is a different matter, and I suspect there will be widespread support. However, it's impossible to guess in advance what gets the most coverage (and therefore references) or where the best updated content (and therefore blurb) is in advance. Therefore this is possibly premature. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This is probably more suited to on this day. I don't think the rememberance events are particularly notable in themselves, and the article you are highlighting doesn't appear to say much about them. Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Will no doubt be linked to on other sections and I'd really rather not see three links to the same article on the main page. Nightw21:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you people seriously saying that the 10 year anniversary of the most noted terrorist attack in modern times arent notable? omg.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 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-g5521:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. DeterenceTalk22:23, 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]
Instant oppose as this is already going to be the featured article, the featured picture and probably have a few lines in DYK about it. More than enough, I think. — Joseph Fox22:22, 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 Geniustalk23:02, 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. Swarmu | t23:06, 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.JimSukwutput01:18, 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.
Actually not. The five sentence update guideline refers to the element under consideration - I only count 3½ sentences. The story we are considering here is the Golden Lion, and since it premiered at the festival we can be a bit more lenient and include coverage of the film itself. Anything outside those is simply an expansion of the article, not an update per se. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
No, it is not short at all. Perhaps you might want to notice how often ITN is criticized for its slow speed and tendency to stagnate. If you have a problem with this item, feel free to start a discussion to remove the Golden Lion from ITN/R. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Subject to more content, including a reliably sourced estimation of fatalities, (currently, the article is only 3 sentences long). BBC link estimates 260 rescued and 43 dead. DeterenceTalk09:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost 400 dead? Horrible. Moral support for sure. The Sudanese conflict that killed almost 600 was basically ignored. More attention should be brought towards these kinds of events. I'd wager if a European/American ship loaded with European/American citizens were to sink anywhere, it would be posted on the main page.WikifanBe nice09:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but 2011 Zanzibar ferry sinking seems a little thin, and that isn't helped by the fact the figures in the lede differ wildly from the figures later on. I'm not convinced there is adequate justification for two separate articles - on the ship and the sinking - at this point. That just seems to be making it more difficult to amass enough for a decent bolded article. On the other hand it may be greatly improved over the next 24 hours or so. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:35, 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? DeterenceTalk21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wikifan. In the last ten days or so we have posted 3-4 natural disasters in developed countries that caused a few dozen casualties at most. This isn't even a natural disaster, but an accident caused by human error, which makes it even more notable. I should note, however, that the casualties count appears to be settling in around the 150-200 figure, not 400. JimSukwutput17:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I'm strongly against a perceived correlation between casualty count and significance, sinkings like this are generally precedented to be significant to post. Swarmu | t18:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unmarked ready. The lines "The Zanzibar government has set up a rescue centre and called upon all reserves to join the rescue effort. It has also called for support from other countries, such as South Africa and Kenya" are a direct lift from the BBC reference. I trimmed a similar copyvio earlier today. The whole article needs going through to make sure there is nothing similar lurking in there. If there are copyright issues that's an automatic bar on a front page bold link. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section is either directly pasted from or very closely paraphrasing the article. I've tagged the section. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. As others have said, the death toll makes it significant enough for ITN in my book. Conditional on the copyvio/close paraphrasing issues being fixed. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Since there wasn't a formal blurb proposal, I took a crack at writing one which I posted. Feel free to fix up as needed. --Jayron3202:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syrians engage in mass Friday protests against the Syrian government, calling on the international community for assistance against PresidentBashar al-Assad's regime. (Al Jazeera)
Oppose It's a good idea next time to expand your article to beyond a stub and make sure it won't get speedy deleted before you nominate it to ITN. JimSukwutput00:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stroke now that the article has been tripled in size and doesn't seem to be on the verge of being deleted. It still needs a lot of work, however. JimSukwutput19:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support At a time when border tensions are already up, this is a major development, and certainly is big news mentioned in most/all news outlets. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to those who opposed or need more info Here's what happen on Sep 9: A huge protest took place in Tahrir Square among other places in Egypt, then the protest in Cairo moved to MOI, then to Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt and finally towards the Israeli embassy; hence the break-in was part on the protests. Aftermath of the break so far has been that the Israeli ambassador has left Egypt, and Im guessing Israel will send the Egyptian ambassador. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop adding "Non-violent" categories to the Egyptian revolution unless non-violence has a different meaning in Egypt than everywhere else (a strong anti-Egyptian point of view). The storming of an embassy, fires, deaths, riots are NOT non-violent in any NPOV world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know how much longer I'll be here, but as a final comment I would say if this is posted in the future the prose needs some fixing. "Protesters in Cairo breaks into the Israeli embassy, the protesters was said to be about 3000."
I suggest something like, "The Israeli embassy in Cairo is evacuated after thousands of protesters break into the consulate." Or something like that. WikifanBe nice18:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Deterence has a point— this isn't a Finnish-Swedish conflict, it's an Egyptian-Israeli conflict, which makes it significant. Swarmu | t18:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Over a thousand injured protests, several deaths. The entire embassy (80+ people) evacuated, ambassador fleeing to US embassy. International condemnation. Yeah, this is news now. Flag burning is one thing but this is an international incident. But the article is in terrible shape. I would love to spend a few hours on it but I'm probably not gonna be around for much longer. I added a new infobox and more sources. I suggest those who support contribute to the article. WikifanBe nice21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
Support While the resignation of one banker might not sound like a big deal, this is the central bank equivalent to using a punch in the face as an alarm clock. These guys don't have emotional dummy-spits unless the very fundamentals of the monetarist system have been threatened. This could easily portend to a massive overhaul of macroeconomic policy-making in Europe. DeterenceTalk19:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's crystal-balling, unless you have conclusive proof that a change in leadership could result in drastic changes to the economic system.--WaltCip (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something that causes the DJIA to drop 300 points in less than an hour is obviously significant. And it's not crystal-balling to say that this is likely to have a drastic effect on the monetary policy of EU, so long as you subscribe to some form of the EMH. JimSukwutput00:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There's trouble within the ECB. This is the most powerful manifestation of this yet. There's increasing speculation that this could spell the contraction and ultimate collapse of the Eurozone.--Ohconfucius¡digame!00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is a multibillion construction project ($21–24 billion), aimed to connect Russian natural gas to huge East Asian markets. GreyHoodTalk07:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Economic notability with significant implications for the Asia/Pacific region. I recommend adding a map of the pipeline to the article - which would also make an excellent pic for the ITN page. DeterenceTalk08:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Given the fact that the length is impressive and the economic outcome should yield very high benefits, it's worth mentioning as a huge project.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. The article has been updated. I'm not very good with maps, though. Either it should be posted without map, or someone could create a map based on the map from here. Anyway the map could be added later. GreyHoodTalk12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable posting a start class article that doesn't have a significant update, even if there is consensus for it to go up. Could someone expand it a bit (and I don't mean just on the launching of the project, but any relevant history or background). NW(Talk)13:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Six people are killed and at least three injured in a series of raids by Russian forces on suspected militants in the North Caucasus. (Monsters and Critics)
Over 2,600 people are classified as missing in the North Caucasus. (Interfax)
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]
Support Obvious notability in relation to the important topics of war crimes, the war on terror, the British military, Iraq, torture ... the list goes on. DeterenceTalk07:52, 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 nice18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)
That is changing rapidly. Canadian sources are reporting 43 (of 45) have died, and rumours are that the one player who initially survived as since succumbed to his injuries. The blurb should probably just say "at least 40 people died..." since the actual toll probably wont be confirmed for a while yet. Resolute14:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeRidiculous nomination. @User:Wikifan, Steve Jobs is an iconic figure recognised by every computer-savvy person in the civilised world, and Texas. His departure sparked a frenzy of discussion around the water-coolers of the world, along with an immediate and significant drop in the market price of Apple shares. Carol Bartz and Tim Morse are a couple of generic suits in an ocean of suits. Yahoo! is a large business, but it's not so influential that we should be posting staffing changes in Wikipedia's ITN. What's next, ITN notices about new CEOs for Mobil, General Electric and Toyota? DeterenceTalk06:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ridiculous nomination"? I think you need to keep the tone down and WP:AGF, instead of using your love for Apple to seemingly try to set a standard for CEO changes. Not to mention you can't compare Apple and oranges like that. I was thinking of nominating this myself when it broke last night (but held off because I've been here long enough to know the result), because it's important to note that she was fired for an, as of yet, unknown reason. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)16:32, 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. DeterenceTalk23:15, 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. DeterenceTalk04:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yahoo may now be up for sale. If sold, then that event + this is news.
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]
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. JimSukwutput20:21, 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:
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. JimSukwutput02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Carol Bartz" is a pretty straight-forward search term, but the Delhi bombing and the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash will have many reasonable alternatives. DeterenceTalk02:53, 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]
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]
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. DeterenceTalk15:43, 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. JimSukwutput17:34, 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 Geniustalk20:29, 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;
Turkish hackers gain access to the websites of several companies, including Vodafone, the Daily Telegraph and UPS, redirecting visitors to a site set up by the group. (BBC)
In the United Kingdom the first wave of independent state-funded schools, known as free schools, open their doors as the new academic year begins. (BBC)
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 J12:46, 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. DeterenceTalk15:22, 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 J15:31, 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 J15:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose600 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. JimSukwutput02:31, 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 J01:17, 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). DeterenceTalk03:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Fire doesn't seem too devastating, but the historical aspect and being a first for Texas is interesting enough. The blurb could be a little more exiting though. WikifanBe nice19:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a native Texan, I would like to refute an assumption Jim made. From a person not familiar with Texas Geography this has traditionally not been an area prone to fires. Central Texas is not like the fire prone areas of Southern California where fire is seasonal. The Texas Hill Country receives a significant amount rain from the gulf. This rain usually is sufficient but the area has been hit by drought. The Bastrop Area is significant economically as a resort town.The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 02:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to suggest that, if we were to post this, we ought not mention any kind of "record" in the blurb. First, it's somewhat unnecessary and I generally think blurbs should be as short as possible. Second, some people might find it slightly insensitive. JimSukwutput20:26, 7 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 J10:20, 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 J16:09, 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. DeterenceTalk10:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally would Support but the article is not ready. The bidding process makes up most of the prose. So, oppose until that's worked out. RxS (talk) 18:42, 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. DeterenceTalk23:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I agree, but it is notable that this particular sport event ended with a world record in one of its most anticipated events.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 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]
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 nice04:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should probably combine this with the blurb about Israel's ambassador since the two appear so closely related. N419BH07:21, 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. Nightw13:28, 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]
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 nice18:49, 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. DeterenceTalk22:40, 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. JimSukwutput14:52, 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. DeterenceTalk22:40, 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. DeterenceTalk23:37, 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]
Comment: I have rewritten the lede of Gaza Strip blockade to remove the out-of-date info, and removed the tag at the top. Many of the problems at the time of that tag (May 1, 2011) had already been addressed. Benwing (talk) 03:23, 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 nice04:43, 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 nice04:44, 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.
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 nice06:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The purpose of this section is to draw attention to recently updated articles. We cannot link to an article that has {{unbalanced}} tagged on the top of it. Nightw11:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay - seems we have a solid consensus. Can an admin please post this? I don't know why the "ready" tag was removed. @Night, there is no policy that suggests flawed articles cannot be linked to at ITN. WikifanBe nice18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the complaint is moot because the article is currently being featured on the main page for a blurb regarding Turkey. So since no editors seem to have an issue with that, I don't see why they would have an issue with this. Blurb is good to go. WikifanBe nice 05:45, 6 September 2011
Comment The issues with the "unbalanced" tag have been addressed and the tag is no longer present on the bolded article, so there should be no issues blocking the posting of the blurb. I looked through the bolded article and it looks in pretty good shape. Articles on I/P issues are always contentious but overall the article looks balanced to me. Benwing (talk) 00:59, 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 nice03:52, 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. JimSukwutput05:35, 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 nice05:43, 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 nice09:55, 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. JimSukwutput13:18, 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. Nightw15:48, 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 nice16:55, 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 nice17:45, 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).
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]
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]
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). DeterenceTalk22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly receiving coverage (on the front page of my preferred online news service), but I don't think this is particularly noteworthy. This was a military aircraft carrying a relatively small number of people, a few of whom were somewhat noteworthy. Had this been a commercial airliner or had the leader of a nation been on board then this would earn my support. N419BH07:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, 21 (probable) fatalities are enough. I don't think the number of fatalities gives the items "more notability"; the crash is still important. Diego talk12:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This plane crash is not sufficiently notable. Indeed, this item will be of little more than a passing interest to anyone who doesn't hold a morbid curiosity for fatal disasters. DeterenceTalk08:58, 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 talk13:05, 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. JimSukwutput15:09, 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]
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]
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 nice02:44, 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 talk04:14, 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 nice04:26, 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. N419BH05:59, 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 nice06:11, 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. N419BH06:23, 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 nice06:37, 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. N419BH06:46, 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 nice06:58, 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. N419BH07:11, 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. N419BH19:15, 4 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 (talk • cont) 02:22, 5 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]
Turkey expels Israel's ambassador and cancels all military agreements with Israel, hours before a UN report investigating the raid is published. (BBC)(The New York Times)
The UN report finds that the IDF acted 'legitimately' in trying to enforce Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, except for the lack of a final warning to the activists and the use of "excessive" force. (Jerusalem Post)
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. DeterenceTalk05:03, 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]
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]
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 | talk21:22, 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. DeterenceTalk23:02, 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. DeterenceTalk01:42, 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. JimSukwutput03:10, 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 (talk • cont) 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. JimSukwutput03:41, 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 (talk • cont) 03:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now - Sorry, i blindly put that comment on. I am not knowledgeable of this topic. Just googled for it and found hundreds of articles coming up about it. Yes, it is sufficiently significant for an update. You see, there has been no news for three days and a sudden twist in the relationship between two nations is big news. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons above, but there's one point I'm confused about. Most of the articles I've read attribute the expulsion to the leaking of the UN Report, but at the same time Turkey has rejected the findings of the report (which apparently they have debated over with Israel for a few months). I don't think they're expelling the ambassador because of what's in the report. I think they're expelling him because of what's not inside the report (they're not satisfied with it and expelled the ambassador as an act of protest). Is that correct? JimSukwutput13:16, 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 nice00:57, 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(T•C•G)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. DeterenceTalk23:44, 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. DeterenceTalk23:44, 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 nice00:39, 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. JimSukwutput01:33, 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 nice01:49, 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 nice02:51, 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. JimSukwutput02:11, 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 nice02:16, 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 herehereherehereand here (and I'm not even looking at your behavior outside the ITN - for example your grossly inappropriate accusations directed at an admin here).
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. Nightw12:02, 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. Nightw13:12, 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 nice18:24, 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 fora 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 nice18:57, 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. Nightw19:10, 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 nice19:17, 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 nice21:22, 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-g5523:13, 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 nice23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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? –HTD04:58, 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]
At least four people, including a high-ranking security service officer, are killed in a series of bombings and shootings across Russia's North Caucasus. (Voice of America)
The world's largest food group, Nestlé SA, opens a new production unit in Konolfingen, Switzerland, and its CEO affirms that the company is committed to its home country, despite problems created by the unusually strong Swiss franc against the euro. (Reuters)
I'm not even going to... Nightw 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Like The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. GreyHood Talk 19:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
