Open main menu

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.

Contents

August 31Edit


Arctic & oilEdit

ExxonMobil and OAO Rosneft reach a deal which may reach $500 billion in projects in the Arctic.

An article would be required. Significant development for the Arctic, I'd say. And we're running red with the timer. --Tone 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Support, large business deal. --Kslotte (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support pending a well-referenced article. Massive economic and environmental significance. Deterence Talk 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as there is nothing to support ! Mtking (edits) 22:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If somebody would write an article I would support just to give us something to post. Three nominations in the last 4 days, and two of them don't even have articles... There must be something going on in the world! Modest Genius talk 00:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It's been pretty quiet, now that I think of it. The Wikileaks ordeal and Libya is all I'm hearing as of lately. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • How about these two? (Note Beagel (talk · contribs) also deserves credit on the East-Prinovozemelsky field one) Suggest a blurb of Rosneft and ExxonMobil establish a $3.2 billion joint venture to develop Arctic and Black Sea oil fields or something vaguely along those lines (I don't particularly like the way the links to the two field articles are linked behind entirely different words). The Arctic field article is better, so I bolded that one. I put together the Black Sea article in a hurry, but if someone expands it further they could both get bolded. C628 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ali Jawad al-SheikhEdit

Article: Death of Ali Jawad al-Sheikh (talk, history)
Blurb: Ali Jawad al-Sheikh, a 14-year-old boy protester, is killed by Bahrain police, inciting further unrest.
News source(s): CNN, The New York Times, AFP, AlJazeera

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Here is a picture of his corpse (warning: graphic). I think his story is similar to Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Saeed and Hamza Al-Khateeb -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. We have not posted any of the above. Besides, we even don't have an article. --Tone 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, We failed to do so due to the fact the articles were written after the window to post them passed. as for you other point, you did nominate "Arctic & oil" to be in ITN even tho it doesnt have an article. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Neutral What is the notability of his death? WikifanBe nice 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlike the other who died in Bahrain, this one is well documented. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment Has it been confirmed that Mr. Al-Khateeb was actually murdered by the police? If so, please link to it. Here in Chile, there has been a lot of controversy whether a policeman killed or not a student protester called Manuel Gutiérrez; it was confirmed just yesterday by the Interior Ministry that a policeman whose Mapuche surname I can't recall killed him, so this may be the case too of the Bahraini guy?  Diego  talk  23:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think its best to read the sources and decide for yourself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see the significance (yet). JimSukwutput 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As tragic as that story is, it is just one unremarkable death among the countless thousands of innocent civilians who are killed by their own governments every year. Therefore, it is not sufficiently WP:Notable. Deterence Talk 04:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Tragic story, but doesn't meet our criteria for posting deaths. Swarm u | t 12:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

August 30Edit


False certificate for google.comEdit

Article: DigiNotar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A false digital certificate for google.com, signed by DigiNotar, is found in Iran.
News source(s): Ars Technica

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The digital certificate system is a cornerstone of Internet security. Digital certificates protect against man in the middle attacks when using https. In their infinite wisdom, the designers made it such that any certificate authority (CA) can make a certificate for any domain. So the fact that a CA has apparently been compromised, and an unknown number of false certificates created, has potential security implications for all websites using https, not just google. See also Comodo_Group#Iran_SSL_certificate_controversy, which was a similar incident 5 months ago, also involving Iran. This incident will further motivate the current effort to redesign the security of the Internet, probably using DANE+DNSSEC. I am not aware of any other incidents than this one and Comodo, so this incident should be unique enough to feature ITN. Thue : talk 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per Thue. jorgenev 00:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As a technophobe who is suffering under considerable ignorance about anything to do with computers, I am struggling to fully appreciate the significance of this story. Can we see some comment about the wider implications of a compromise in the integrity of a Certificate Authority? Deterence Talk 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • There is not much of a wider implication. One of the many CAs' credibility has basically crumbled, but all major browsers have already taken necessary action to 'untrust' the company. Therefore the danger is passed. This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs, such as VeriSign, now owned by Symantec. The Comodo controversy was caused by a flaw in the company's security, which is probably the reason for this forgery as well... but again, it means nothing for other CAs. Oppose for that reason. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, but you miss the point. The CA system is set up to be no more secure than the weakest CA. So it is irrelevant that "This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs". Thue | talk 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That's not what I'm talking about, though. The Comodo controversy was caused by the hacking of the administrative user accounts -- those that issue the actual certificates -- due to a flaw in the company's security; not in the CA system. That's how I understand it, anyway. The hacker gained access to the actual issuing process and issued valid certificates to fraudulent websites. That would mean that the company needs better security... because regardless of how secure certificates are, there will always have to be an administrator account issuing those certificates. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial, techie story which has no major impact.  Diego  talk  01:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
    • 1) Iran has hacked the main Dutch authority provider 2) Iran has been impersonating Google 3) This will be a major motivation to redesign a fundamental part of Internet security. This is not trivial. Thue | talk 08:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
      • According to [2], "this is the first time that a fake certificate is known to have been successfully used in the wild". Thue | talk 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose singificant tech news, but not of public intrest. --Kslotte (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • We can certainly agree that most people don't get up in the morning and think about the current problems in computer authentication. But on the other hand, everybody is dependent on the CA system, for example when they check their web-based email. So I would argue that "the public is not interested", not "not of public intrest". IMO the ITN should be whether something is significant, not whether people are generally aware of it. Thue | talk 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Thue and the glaringly red timer. C628 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I wouldn't normally have a strong opinion either way on this, but due to the standstill ITN is currently experiencing I'm going to go with Thue on this one and support. FTR, I've also marked this as a minority topic as it's obviously a tech-related story. Swarm u | t 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as a minority topic and a cure to the no new news for two days blues. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
You're a poet who didn't know it. Deterence Talk 10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As an administrator, I wouldn't post this no matter what support it had, in the state the article is in. The topic is certainly worthwhile, and newsworthy, and ITN-worthy, but folks, look at the article. It's an article about a company which says nothing about the company. Its a big, disgusting, textbook case of WP:COATRACK. If there were a three- or four-fold increase in the text of the article dealing with the company in question, which was not about this one scandal, then we may have something postable. But we simply cannot put this substandard tripe on the mainpage for the world to see. Please. Again, ITN-worthy topic, but definately NOT an ITN-worthy ARTICLE. Someone please fix it, and I will post it. --Jayron32 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

August 29Edit


Wikileaks unredacted cables leakedEdit

Article: United States diplomatic cables leak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The full unredacted version of the United States diplomatic cables leak appears online.
News source(s): Ars Technica

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: As the Ars Technica article says, " these cables are raw and unredacted, and contain the names of informants and suspected intelligence agents that were blacked out of the official releases. Der Freitag said the documents include the names of suspected agents in Israel, Jordan, Iran and Afghanistan, and noted that interested parties—such as the Iranian government or intelligence agencies—could have already discovered and decrypted the file to uncover the names of informants." The article needs to be updated. Thue

  • I'd support this if it were confirmed, but Wikileaks has denied it ("There has been no leak at Wikileaks"), and reliable sources are so far only saying there there's a "possible leak" or that the cables are ""apparently online". Any confirmation? JimSukwutput 22:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikileaks has only denied that they leaked the file, not that the file is on the Internet. Other organizations, such as The Guardian, had access to the file. Thue | talk 06:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a delicate situation. The U.S. government is certainly not going to confirm the legitimacy of the information found in this leak, and as pointed out above, neither is Wikileaks. Until the situation changes and the info can be verified by a primary source, oppose simply in the interests of verifiability.--WaltCip (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Not enough to post without more information and verifiable sources. Some sources say the release was the result of a conflict between the leaders of Wikileaks. WikifanBe nice 00:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Some insight: Wikileaks released an "insurance file" last year totalling 1.4GB. It was 256-AES encrypted and thus impossible to crack without knowing the really encryption key. These reports of a "leak" are indicating that access to the file has been achieved and thus the contents are now visible. The problem is that we can't really confirm this story without knowing the key ourselves... and you can rest assured that if it had been leaked, we would know about it by now (the story is seven hours old). So right now it looks like Wikileaks might be telling the truth when they say that there is no leak (they've posted on their Twitter that "All press are currently misreporting. There is an issue, but not that issue." and that "The issue relates to a mainstream media partner and a malicious individual.") So, as it stands, oppose. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait, I am getting varied stories on all the news outlets I check. I do notice a interesting correlation between anti-Wikileaks and Pro-Wikileaks editorial stance and how they write the story. Let us wait and see what else develops out of this. If the story pans out the way some are reporting it... this is BIG. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, Der Spiegel is acknowledging the existence of the cracked file, so that's a start. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is a distinct lack of verification and all the parties allegedly involved are refusing to admit that the event occurred. Further more, over recent months, we've all learned to become very wary of this kind of sensationalist "Wikileaks are endangering lives" allegation. Deterence Talk 00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikileaks is tweeting people to torrent a file, adding that an encryption key will be released afterwords... not sure if this is related. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Above is not related. However, Wikileaks is admitting that a Guardian's editor, David Leigh, divulged "top secret decryption passwords". Apparently, Leigh published a book about his experience with Wikileaks a few months ago. Around page 130, he published a password giving access to an encrypted and hidden Bittorrent file somewhere on the internet. No big deal, it was looked over. But Daniel Domscheit-Berg, former Wikileaks spokeperson (now rogue with his new "Openleaks") knew the location to this hidden torrent, but didn't know the password. And that's how it leaked. Now DDB is, quote, "'giving' the cables [...] in exchange for alliances and positive spin culminating with the now infamous Der Freitag [...] and now the thing is fucking everywhere" [3] That's what's going on... now we need that story in a secondary source. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Associated Press is summarising the above. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian is now reporting that the unredacted cables have been released. Modest Genius talk 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In light of the WP:RS supplied by ModestGenius I now support this nomination. That said, I would be more comfortable with a few more reliable sources - The Guardian has long taken a hostile stance regarding Wikileaks. Deterence Talk 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • This is now a separate issue. The cables have now been officially released by Wikileaks, unredacted, which is sure to cause more controversy (and have significant RS coverage). The original reported leaks were a relatively minor issue. I think this would benefit from a fresh (re)nomination to reflect the developments. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I have posted my support in the new nomination. Deterence Talk 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have already responded to this issue in a more recent nomination made along the same lines. With the addition of this new information, this older nomination should either be closed or merged.--WaltCip (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Prime Minister of JapanEdit

Article: Yoshihiko Noda (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ruling Democratic Party of Japan selects Yoshihiko Noda as Prime Minister of Japan, after the resignation of Naoto Kan.
News source(s): Reuters

Nominator's comments: Or something to that effect. --Dorsal Axe 17:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I suggest we update and bump the current blurb to reflect this news. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we wait until he is officially confirmed by the Diet? --Tone 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I think notability is pretty common sense here and has already been established in the previous nomination. As for when we should post this, I don't think we need to wait for a confirmation by the Diet. In a political system like Japan's, there's very unlikely to be any surprises from the legislature. JimSukwutput 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comfired by the Diet already--1j1z2 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as a bump/replacement of the existing Kan item. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Tripoli is overEdit

Article: Battle of Tripoli (2011) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Libyan rebels secures control of the Libyan capital Tripoli.
News source(s): Reuters

Nominator's comments: While the last bullet probably hasn't been fired, major fighting seems to be over, and the result is clear. Thue

  • The article could do with a bit more of an update, but beyond that, I think this should probably go up since this is probably the biggest defeat for Gaddafi yet. Nightw 16:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose That is a very definite assertion for a volatile situation. The emphasis of the source you cite is not on the fighting and even it notes that hostilities are still continuing to a more limited extent. Calling it now strikes me as reminiscent of Dubya's infamous mission accomplished speech concerning Iraq. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC).
While there may be some kind of loyalist guerrilla resistance in the future, it seems pretty clear that for now the rebels have won the conventional fight, and are apparently in control. Even if we can't rule out guerrilla resistance in the future, the apparent conventional control is newsworthy in itself. Thue | talk 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose In part because I agree with Crispmuncher's assessment above, and in part because I think this is to a large extent a repetition of the item we posted previously. JimSukwutput 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There will always be a grey area between on-going battle and complete victory while mopping-up operations continue, but we're still in the holding our breath stage as the world waits to see how events play-out over the next few days. It is most certainly not outside the realms of possibility that Gaddafi loyalists will launch a counter-attack around Tripoli. Deterence Talk 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not over until the fat lady sings. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
...or he's hung from a lamp-post using piano wire. Deterence Talk 08:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to make a comment about his wife, but that'll do. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

August 28Edit


Hurricane Irene updateEdit

Per BBC, Irene has made landfall in New York City at 1300 GMT as a tropical storm. Should we update the blurb? Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The blurb definitely needs an update. How about: Tropical Storm Irene makes landfall in New York City and leaves 4 million people without power. ? Swarm u | t 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I oppose this blurb. We shouldn't be doing hour-by-hour reports. Use something very general so that it represents the entire notability of the event and doesn't need to be updated every day. JimSukwutput 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hurricane Irene leaves millions without power along the United States' East Coast. We may also consider including early damage estimates, which currently top $1 billion.[4] Swarm u | t 15:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering that Irene is no longer even in the United States (or soon not to be) an update seems somewhat pointless. --PlasmaTwa2 22:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

August 27Edit


Typhoon Nanmadol (2011)Edit

Noticed this on errors page... Cat-3 Typhoon Nanmadol hits Philippines and threatens Taiwan. -- Ashish-g55 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - normally I would support, but right now I don't think this is significant enough to post a second storm. If that changes, I'll re-evaluate my position. Swarm u | t 22:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This is why I have a problem with some of these "natural disasters" items - multiple earthquakes and weather storms hit the world every single day. So far this week, we've had a couple of U.S. In the News articles about an earthquake that was so insignificant (no one even died) that Californians wouldn't have even gotten out of bed for it and a hurricane off America's east coast that is no more remarkable than the storms that routinely hit some part of the world a few times every week, such as Typhoon Nanmadol. We need a bit of consistency here. Deterence Talk 15:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we are fairly consistent in posting most natural disaster items. Unless they're excessively severe or something though, posting two is a bit overkill. Swarm u | t 15:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The 2011 Virginia earthquake made it onto the Main Page, (despite a mountain of protests), and that was only a 5.8 and didn't have any fatalities or do any significant damage. If we were truly consistent, and included every earthquake as trivial as that one, then the main page would have DOZENS of earthquakes linked every week. We are not being consistent. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Deterence Talk 08:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't post these things by a statistical threshold— be it cost in damages, death toll, or magnitude— we have to consider the significance, individually, on a case-by-case basis. Swarm u | t 03:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above and Philippines receives a fair amount of typhoon battering every year with some unfortunate loss of life. A typhoon like this is probable and expected; impact and damage done seems to be minimal. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support pending landfall. Seems to be a significant storm with a potential for serious damage to populated areas. --Jayron32 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

al-Qaeda second in command is killedEdit

Article: Atiyah Abd al-Rahman (talk, history)
Blurb: al-Qaeda second-in-command Atiyah Abd al-Rahman is reported killed in Pakistan
News source(s): Associated Press, xinhuanet.com

Nominator's comments: U.S. is bleeding al-Qaeda to death. Marcus Qwertyus 20:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - major blow to al-Qaeda ("...al-Rahman was regarded as an instrumental figure...") during what is already a critical time for the organization ("[According to the Obama administration] al-Qaida is on the ropes, its leadership in disarray.") Swarm u | t 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose posting anything at the moment. There is no confirmation that he is actually dead; we can't base an entire ITN item on "anonymous reports by a senior Obama administration official". Leaders of terrorist organizations tend to get "reportedly killed" an average of 2-3 times before they are actually confirmed dead. Besides, there's a reason why the reports are anonymous. Either the death is not confirmed, or the Obama administration is going to make a public announcement soon (and some official was ordered to do a leak/wanted to do a favor for the media). In either case, it makes sense to wait. Finally, designations like "second-in-command" tend to get thrown around a lot, but they are mostly based on intelligence analysis and should not be taken as factual positions, as for instance "the Vice President of the U.S." is. So, even if it turns out that he did get killed, I'd strongly suggest replacing "second-in-command" with some more reliable description. JimSukwutput 22:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons as Jim Sukwutput highlights above, plus lack of demonstrated significance in this (if it is indeed confirmed) death. Mtking (edits) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • American and Pakistani officials have confirmed the death.
  • "The officials who confirmed the death Saturday said it represented the consensus opinion of the U.S. government."
  • Officials speak anonymously simply because they're not authorized to make announcements to the press.
  • "Reportedly killed" scenarios generally don't get confirmed by multiple officials, even by mistake.
  • The significance is obvious if al-Qaeda is close to defeat (as the U.S. government claims).
  • "Senior al-Qaeda member" or "al-Qaeda leader" are reasonable alternatives to "No. 2". Swarm u | t 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Where's the evidence, except some hyperbole from the American State Department, that al-Qaeda "is close to defeat"? They don't exactly have a branch on every high street! No comment on the nom itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It's actually reported to be a widespread opinion among the CIA and other government departments. If you want to have this discussion on a talk page, let me know, but it's kind of beside the point here. Swarm u | t 02:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This reminds me of Al qaeda number three, see copy at http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Al_qaeda_number_three. I guess bin Laden's demise has promoted other reportedly killed terrorists to al-Qaeda number two. Three hours before the nomination we didn't call him second in command but we said he was killed in 2010: [6]. The article was edited a total of 10 times in the previous 10 months. You would think al-Qaeda's number two got more attention. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think ITNC community needs to really take a moment and think about this. We can't keep posting their replacements forever. I mean really 10 or even 5 years ago this would been a significant blow. Now? Al-queda is shadow of it's former self, Ayman al-Zawahiri really the only one left worth posting on ITNC. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • He's not some "replacement"— he originally joined bin Laden to "fight the Soviets". He was an "instrumental figure" who "[oversaw] al-Qaida's daily operations" (AP). Just saying. Swarm u | t 14:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Anna Hazare agrees to end fast after Indian parliament passes resolution on Jan LokpalEdit

Article: 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian civil activist Anna Hazare breaks his 12 day long fast after the Indian Parliament adopts a resolution to pass an Ombudsman bill incorporating his demands.
News source(s): CNN IBN, NDTV, The Hindu,

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Probably not right away, but its big (really big) news in India. News of his arrest was also posted. Lynch7 17:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes big news indeed but let him end the fast tomorrow before posting. -- Ashish-g55 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very regional event. Already what, 3 posted stories on this? Enough. WikifanBe nice 21:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
regional?... not a good reason lol (trust me) -- Ashish-g55 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Over-saturated? Three postings in the last week for what is arguably a very minor event as far as the rest of the world is concerned? I don't see the story heavily covered in mainstream media. The original postings were almost totally reliant on Hindu-based sources. WikifanBe nice 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
hmm, its on almost every single major news site... on main page (including cnn). but that should not be the reason to post it by any means. over 1 billion people directly care about this event and Anna Hazare is a name that pretty much entire world knows right now. Ending a highly influential 12 day hunger strike in modern day to change a law of the biggest democratic country is no minor event. -- Ashish-g55 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
@Wikifan: That comment is immensely hypocritical considering that you previously accused others of "bigotry" for criticizing this article's reliance on Israeli sources. And it is also plainly wrong: Reuters NYTimes CTV CA CNN Time Magazine. JimSukwutput 22:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I said it was bigoted for editors to dismiss entire article simply because they contain sources (reliable) from a specific country other than America/Europe. The India-related articles that were posted in the past relied on a majority of India-based news and no one objected. Many of of the sources in those articles are unreliable and unconfirmed. IMO This isn't front page news. The story has already received more than enough representation. WikifanBe nice 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
So you're opposing this as revenge for the fact that some other users previously opposed a nomination you supported? How the hell is that a valid reason? JimSukwutput 22:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Revenge? What? No, it is dubious to oppose one article based on x standards but support another article based on those same exact standards. It is really about policy or the article? I don't think my oppose is as outrageous as you infer it is. This Anna person has been featured for over a week on the main page, while many other stories have been ignored in spite of support. WikifanBe nice 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
You previously called the kind of argument "bigotry", then here you proceed to use the same argument to oppose this article, all in order to prove what you perceive as double standards from the ITN community. That is exactly the definition of WP:POINT. JimSukwutput 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's pretty obvious that this is much more notable than the two previous items about this topic that we've posted. JimSukwutput 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - due to the results of his actions. I get where Wikifan is coming from, but this is indeed more notable than the previous items. I don't think this is a minority topic, though. Swarm u | t 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the nominator simply forgot to blank the tags. JimSukwutput 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. His protest worked and his demands for fighting corruption have been met. What more can I say? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've given this a lot of coverage, our readers have had plenty of opportunity to read about it. ITN is not a news service. RxS (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. But the bolded blurb should be the Lokpal Bill and not his fast. Further, as I understand, the only two criteria for ITN are (1) notability and (2) updates/quality of article. Would request all to limit their arguments along these lines. This is clearly notable and has been covered throughout international media and the necessary updates have also been made. Also perplexed by what Wikifan refers to when he mentions "Hindu-based sources". Indian =/= Hindu. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. unprecedented ( in last 50 years) use of Gandhian methods to peacefully effect change. surely this is of interest to entire civilized world.--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support : The fast has already ended after 288 hours . Besides the bill is not passed yet. Only the government agreed to his key demands to be incorporated in the bill. Can the nominator / someone else change the blurb to reflect those ? I will then add it to ITN -- Tinu Cherian - 10:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it would be more appropriate to formulate the blurb as: Indian government passes a bill after the strike by Anna Hazare. --Tone 11:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Updated blurb, bolded Lokpal bill. @Tone, the bill isn't passed yet. Lynch7 11:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Adopted a resolution ( NYT ) or backed (Reuters), which of these is the correct phrase to use ? -- Tinu Cherian - 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Offline discussion with several other Wikipedians, suggested that "adopt" is the better word to use here. I am moving the blurb to the ITN section -- Tinu Cherian - 12:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, why the hell are you choosing an outside forum for a hidden discussion about this (or any) Wikipedia issue? That reeks of the sort of sausage puppetry that has given Wikipedia's administrators such a bad reputation! Deterence Talk 15:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I know some people have a tendency to really like this website, but some of us have lives outside of the site. And friends. Conversations are imminent with these friends, you know? If Tinu wishes to talk to a friend about an issue we're having, can he not? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Eric, I'm possibly a little more sensitive to signs of meat puppetry in Wikipedia. I'm from New Zealand, and all the New Zealand Wikipedia articles are ruthlessly controlled by a small handful of friends (including admins) who work together (meat puppets) to control all content about articles related to New Zealand. Deterence Talk 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur the same, Eric... @Deterence, the intention to quickly consult with a few Wikipedians (whom I could find online) was to double check the "accuracy" of the already stated blurb, before putting up on a highly visible page. Don't you think, it is fair at the bare minimum? -- Tinu Cherian - 22:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course you concur with Eric. My comment was aimed directly at YOU. Deterence Talk 23:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
And he responded to you, which you blatantly ignored with WP:SHOUTing. Quit criticising this extremely trivial issue with a petty excuse for an accusation, and perhaps make an effort to actually contribute to the discussion. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
In recent days, multiple editors have expressed concern that Wikipedia's Main Page ITN items are being used as a political football in India's Politics. In light of this, I am very concerned (albeit, not the least bit surprised) that an experienced WP editor considers apparent meat puppetry to be an "extremely trivial issue". As a side note, you need to relax. Deterence Talk 09:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] -- Tinu Cherian - 12:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In future, if you've supported an ITN candidate, please don't be the posting admin for the item. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure whether it is inappropriate unless there is no clear consensus or the admin is the nominator of ITN/creator of the article. Nevertheless, your opinion is noted. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 13:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a formal rewrite about the process in which stories are posted because it appears the system is very mob-based. No accountability, dubious double standards for specific incidents, and admins with vested interests posting stories they support? COI much? ITN is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia yet it is practiced in a very sloppy fashion. WikifanBe nice 19:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong the current system of discussing a topic and having an uninvolved administrator analyze the consensus. This is how things work everywhere on Wikipedia. WP:INVOLVED details the practices regarding administrators with a conflict of interest. Second, ITN is absolutely not one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia— our standards are pretty low and I would be concerned about anyone working here with that mindset. Swarm u | t 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
So you admit standards are pretty low? This is the first page readers see when they go to Wikipedia english. Millions of potential readers. I'm sure many are puzzled why this India story has gotten more attention than all other featured stories combined this week. A small group of editors get to decide what is "news" and what isn't news. IMO the whole vote system should be done away with it in favor of simple comments. WikifanBe nice 21:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think that the system needs to change, but you make a fair point. Swarm u | t 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
@Wikifan, I respect your view but not the "I didn't know, So not important" attitude. Also what more can I say of the so limited "Indian == Hindu" knowledge. As far as I see, except me and the nominator , who supported this ITN news, aren't even from this part of the world. It was even an unrelated and non-Indian admin, who added the image of Anna Hazare. Meanwhile just a Google News search on "Anna Hazare" will show how much the news is relevant and important currently. Just compare this with other current ITN news stories. Hope that clarifies -- Tinu Cherian - 22:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no meaning getting into a debate with Wikifan12345 over this. As he has said so himself, he joined the discussion to prove a point about alleged "double standards" on ITN and has little to say about this particular news item. This discussion should be in the talk page. JimSukwutput 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Abkhazian presidential electionEdit

Article: Abkhazian presidential election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Alexander Ankvab is elected as President of Abkhazia.
News source(s): Civil Georgia;Apsnypress

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Possibly the least predictable presidential election in the Caucasus, ever, and a second round had been predicted by most, which would have been a first for the region. Follows the sudden death of previous President Sergei Bagapsh, also featured on ITN. Preliminary results have been released, and opposition candidate Khajimba has already congratulated Ankvab - final results should follow soon. For those wondering whether we should somehow hedge the status of Abkhazia in there: past consensus for news blurbs related to elections/Presidents of Abkhazia or e.g. Kosovo seems to have been not to add any qualifyers, since the relevant articles already explain the situation in sufficient detail. sephia karta

Note:, WP:ITNR says that elections in disputed states (such as Abkhazia) do not automatically qualify but should be discussed on their own merits. Personally I weakly oppose this because I can't see any major impact outside Abkhazia. Modest Genius talk 16:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I Oppose this as well. Very small and mostly unrecognized government. Article needs an update too. JimSukwutput 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. A very important region, which has all the necessary economic (abundance of natural resources) and geographical (famous tourist resorts, strategic location on the Black Sea Coast) preconditions to be become a successful independent state. The Presidential election will very much determine the future direction of this country. Nanobear (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Modest and Jim. No major significance or wide interest. Swarm u | t 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The results (especially the surprising results) of Presidential elections and the elections for national Legislatures should be routinely included In the News. If nothing else, such links provide the perfect opportunity to inform people about those corners of the world that they would otherwise never hear about. Deterence Talk 15:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
They already are, for actual independent recognised countries. Abkhazia is neither independent nor recognised by the majority of other countries. Modest Genius talk 16:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Countries with contested political status' warrant more popular attention, not less. Deterence Talk 08:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Singapore presidential electionEdit

Article: Singaporean presidential election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Tony Tan Keng Yam is elected as President of Singapore.
News source(s): Agence France-Presse; The Washington Post via Associated Press; BBC News; The Straits Times

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: This is the first contested presidential election in Singapore since 1993, right on the heels of the May general election which resulted in the ruling People's Action Party's stunning drop in popular support. Polls opened at 00:00 UTC and will close at 12:00 UTC, and results will be announced a few hours later. Nominated in advance of events; blurb to be updated. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Elections for heads of states are recurring items, but there are several reasons I'm hesitant about this one:
  1. Whether it qualifies as an election is quite in dispute. Like Iran, there are numerous barriers to entry and only highly established politicians have a chance of running. Hence why three of the four candidates are from the same party (nominally non-partisan) and all four of them are Hoklos with the same surname.
  2. The result is not in doubt - Tony Tan is going to win, by a huge margin. While there is one opposition candidate, keep in mind that he didn't even manage to win a seat in the general election, while PAP still enjoys the support of around 60% of the electorate. Even the Tan Clan Associations have decided to endorse Tony, in a race where all four of the candidates are Tans.
  3. The head of state in Singapore is completely ceremonial. While this is also somewhat true in countries like UK/Canada, I don't think there's another country where the position is as weak as Singapore's. All three of the PAP-affiliated candidates, one of whom will win, agree that the president has no power and listens to the government on all matters. Only the opposition candidate thinks otherwise (of course), but he has 0% chance of winning. JimSukwutput 10:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Presidential candidates have no affiliation. They must resign their party positions before becoming eligible for the office. A comparison to Iran is inaccurate as Singapore directly elects its head of state; the fact that it's an election is not a dispute. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 10:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
In any case, any new head of state is ITNR, not only in situations where the head of state is elected. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow, Tan Cheng Bock is actually neck-to-neck with Tony Tan now. I don't think anybody expected this (though as expected the only non-PAP-affiliated candidate Tan Jee Say is trailing by a huge margin). Not too late for a switch to Support. JimSukwutput 17:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as this has the potential to be the closest direct presidential election in Asian history -- the elections department even ordered a recount. –HTD 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: Tony Tan won by 0.34%. JimSukwutput 22:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty tight margin! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support however think the blurb should indicate the very close nature of the election; perhaps
Tony Tan Keng Yam defeats Tan Cheng Bock by 0.34 per cent and is elected President of Singapore
Mtking (edits) 01:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is ready to go. The blurb proposed in the template is fine. 07:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The 'Results' section in the bold article has no references. Removing the [Ready], feel free to add it back once there are suitable references. (also, this should certainly go up per ITNR and the very close result) Modest Genius talk 13:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no need to support, this is a WP:ITNR item. Modest Genius talk 16:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, this is updated and referenced. If someone else can assess its readiness, please do so. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

August 26Edit


2011 Abuja United Nations bombingEdit

A suicide car bombing at the UN headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria, kills 18 and injures dozens more. (BBC). Death toll is relatively low in comparison to other terrorist attacks in the recent past, but attacks on the UN and in Nigeria are not that common, and Nigeria doesn't seem to get that much coverage on ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Death toll isn't relevant. Weak support considering the current state of the article. I'll go add a conflict template. WikifanBe nice 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per HJ. It's a brand new article, but assuming it gets developed further, it seems like a significant attack. Swarm u | t 01:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It is an attack on UN, on humanitarian workers, therefore should be considered important. The fact that there have been other, more deadly, terrorist attacks in the recent past is not a valid argument - we should never consider terrorist attacks as something routine!Olegwiki (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant attack. An attack against the UN could, in a way, be understood as an attack against many countries. Nanobear (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Also, Boko Haram has claimed responsibility, and the death toll is now 21. JimSukwutput 08:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hamza RiverEdit

Pretty big geography discovery. 18.111.35.209 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. But... From the article: "Scientist have explained that the research results are preliminary, and that the definite scientific validation of the existence of the river is to be expected in a few years.". Shouldn't we wait until the result is validated before reporting it? 95.166.216.227 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
There's not going to be a point where it's all of a sudden "validated". Scientific validation is a long, multi-stage process, and even discoveries that have been "definitely" validated can turn out to be wrong. It's usually best to report discoveries at their "preliminary" stage, as long as the discoverers are credible scientists, which seems to be true in this case. JimSukwutput 12:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Support in principle, but there's real issues in the article. Starting with the first sentence ( is, or seems to be). Needs more content. But it's a really interesting topic. RxS (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Support - Very interesting, but the article needs some more content. Swarm u | t 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there anything in particular that's missing (that would prevent this being posted)? And would anybody care to propose a blurb? I'm not posting just yet, but the nom's over a day old, so if it's going up, it would be nice to get it up relatively soon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose based on this BBC article, which includes statements like 'Professor Hamza told BBC News that it was not a river in the conventional sense.', 'water was moving through porous rock at speeds measured in cm, or inches, per year - not flowing.', 'the speed of movement is even slower than glaciers usually display, never mind rivers.', 'Press reports suggested Professor Hamza was optimistic about confirming his results over the next few years using more direct methods. But, he said, this was not the case.', and the real killer 'not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.' Modest Genius talk 12:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Japanese PM resignsEdit

Article: Naoto Kan (talk, history)
Blurb: Naoto Kan, the Prime Minister of Japan, announces his resignation.
News source(s): [7] [8]

Article needs updating

 04:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. PM of the third largest economy goes. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Isn't this a recurring item? JimSukwutput 10:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Technically, it's not ITNR, as its not a head of state; though I think common sense applies here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ready to post when a couple of sentences more are added. What was the reason he resigned, what are the reactions, etc. --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Japanese prime ministers are very prone to resignation. Since Junichiro Koizumi (2006), no PM has kept his job for over a year (except for Kan, who lasted 450 days). In fact, Abe (2007), Fukuda (2008), and Hatoyama (2010) have all resigned from the position, so Kan would be the fourth in five years. That's not to say that his resignation is not notable, but in a sense, it was kind of expected. So that's a weak support from me. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait till the new prime minister is announced next week then combine the two eg "Xyz appointed new Prime Minister of Japan following the retirement of Naoto Kan". Mtking (edits) 16:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait per Mtking and Eric. Let's just post this with the new Prime Minister. Swarm u | t 01:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Support, notwithstanding the recent high turnover in the office. Head of government of a powerful state. Whether we post now and update when the successor is determined, or wait and post them together, I'm agnostic on. Modest Genius talk 16:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, there are several !votes above without any reason attached, contrary to the 'please do not' section at the top of this page. Modest Genius talk 16:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - very important.Olegwiki (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Monterrey casino attackEdit

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

More than 50 people killed in a terrorist act at the city of Monterrey, Mexico, it was an attack of the organised crime (Drug dealers), I think it is a very important new that should be at the section "In the news", I repeat more than 50 innocent people died.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/mexican-casino-attack-40-dead_n_937411.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefairh (talkcontribs) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. I thought of nominating this myself but then I figured this is in an area where organised crime is rife anyway. But now I think of it again that doesn't make it any less significant - 50 deaths in a single criminal act is still hugely notable no matter where it occurs. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
We would need an article on this :-( Petri Krohn (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose drug dealers killing dozens of innocents in Mexico is unfortunately not major or unexpected news, hardly a fortnight goes by without the discovery of mass graves. It's as ordinary as Middle Eastern dictators slaughtering equal numbers of their citizens, which unless it seems likely to topple a dictator seems to be non-newsy round here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per nominator major event during Drug War. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I urge caution at what we include in the blurb. It's not clear that the attack is from organized crime, and it's not clear what the motivations are. We're not even sure all the victims were innocent bystanders (keep in mind that these casinos tend to be run by rival drug gangs). JimSukwutput 09:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but I second JimSukwutput's caution. Still, 50 killed in a crime is a lot whether they were innocent bystanders or not.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Needs more prose but support in principle. It's been a while since we've had a story about drug war in Mexico and this event was huge on the general scale. --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As a person living in the city where the attacks happened I can tell you totally that this is a major event not only for Monterrey, but for all Mexico, we've never had such a thing, the people killed where just plain customers, the relatives where in the news, they were innocent bystanders, the number of victims totals 53 deaths and 10 injuries. Lefairh (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. Death toll was lowered to 52. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly, but the article needs plenty of work yet. RxS (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an attack occurring in a major city about the size of Washington, D.C., not the discovery of a mass grave site weeks after a massacre. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is more of a terrorist attack than the usual examples of drug war-related violence. It wasn't an attack on police/rival cartel, but apparently innocent people. Swarm u | t 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. President Felipe Calderón declared 3 days of national mourning after the attack. [9] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Blurb: A fire attack at a casino in Monterrey, Mexico kills 52 people. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Two things. First, what on Earth is a "fire attack"? Second, The article really does need to be expanded. It's basically one big headline at the minute. I'd like to post it, given the state of the timer, but I really think we should aim to have something resembling a structured article before it reaches the Main Page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm with HJ Mitchell. I was ready to post this based on the support, but right now the article is way to stubby. It would be nice to see it expanded. --Jayron32 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Data from Japanese space probe that returned dust from Itokawa asteroid reveals origin of meteoritesEdit

Articles: Hayabusa (talk, history) and 25143 Itokawa (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The August 26 issue of Science presents findings from the recently-returned Japanese space probe Hayabusa, which brought back dust samples from the asteroid 25143 Itokawa. One conclusion is that most meteorites found on Earth originated from stony S-type asteroids such as Itokawa.
News source(s): http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/hottopics/hayabusa2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/science/30obmeteor.html http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-asteroid-meteorites-20110826,0,4632492.story

Both articles updated

 03:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The blurb's a bit long. My suggestion is Findings from the asteroid 25143 Itokawa by the Hayabusa space probe finds that meteorites found on Earth originated from S-type asteroids.. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice story. The article section needs some more prose but then I'll support. --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Support new blurb. Significant scientific discovery. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Support - I think the blurb should reflect that this discovery proves what was apparently a long-held theory. Swarm u | t 01:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Support, significant result from one of the first sample return missions, but agree that the blurb is a bit of a mess. How about:
and only bold one of those links (whichever has the better update). Modest Genius talk 16:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Update in the Hayabusa article looks good, marking [Ready] Modest Genius talk 12:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

August 25Edit


Planet composed of diamond discoveredEdit

Article: PSR J1719-1438 b (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers publish the discovery of PSR J1719-1438 b, a planet that is mostly likely composed of diamond.
News source(s): [10] [11] [12]

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Its popularity is trending on Yahoo! news, and it is big-enough news in the exoplanet community to warrant many, many online newspaper articles. --Starstriker7(Talk) 06:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Interesting discovery and very nice article. JimSukwutput 09:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I cant believe it has not been posted yet. What are we waiting for? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed User:Eugen_Simion_14's duplicate nomination above. I suppose we can count that as another support here. JimSukwutput 10:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really notable - it's not the first such planet found: see WASP-12b, BPM 37093 and others. Not newsworthy as it's not the first of its kind.81.129.134.82 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose (and minority topic de-asserted) The diamond analogy is basically to capture the interest of the mainstream media rather than a genuine attempt at scientific description. For a start it is also oxygen rich (a diamond isn't) and crystalline carbon does not inevitably equate to diamond in any case - graphite or even coal are equally crystalline carbon. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose cool but not sufficiently notable for mainpage. Bizarre astronomic phenomena and objects are discovered all the time. jorgenev 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Jim. Based on what I've read, Crispmuncher's comments are incorrect. It's not some made up analogy for "crystalline carbon" to get the media's attention, it's actually suspected to be diamond. Furthermore, it's not "oxygen rich", it's "likely to contain oxygen, which may be more prevalent at the surface and is probably increasingly rare [at the center]." Interesting story. Swarm u | t 01:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. This is partly further confirmation of something astronomers have sort of known for ages, partly a very big inference from not particularly strong evidence, and partly a dressed-up press release. And yes there have been other claimed discoveries of this in the past. It means virtually nothing new for astronomy. 'Star is probably made from what we already thought anyway, but we're not particularly sure' isn't exactly a big story. Modest Genius talk 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Yankees hit 3 grand slamsEdit

Article: grand slam (baseball) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The New York Yankees become the first MLB team to hit three grand slam home runs in a single game.
News source(s): (The New York Times)
Article updated

 Withdrawn. Fun to think about anyway. SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - Unprecedented achievement for a team, and significant event for baseball in general. Of very wide interest as well. Swarm u | t 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose -- sorry, but I do not see the wider significance of this. The fact they did something unprecedented does not make it inherently worth posting; plenty of unprecedented things needn't be posted on ITN. Halladay's no-hitter wasn't posted, despite being the first person to have a perfect game and no-hitter in the same season, for example. This has absolutely no wider impact upon the game, the results or the league, beyond a note to be added to the statistical record books. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support this exceptional, unprecedented occurrence (and I'm not even a Yankees fan). I would also be tempted to say that this, while it is sports, might just be valid for minority topic since it's quite rare that we post sports items unrelated to championships (at least so far as I can recall). Ks0stm (TCG) 02:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is sports stat trivia that ultimately has no impact beyond the individual game it occurred in. We don't post things simply because they are unprecedented: if we did we would post nothing else. Therefore there has to be a broader claim to notability and I simply don't see it here. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose It is unprecedented, but ultimately it is just a sports record, and one of many dozens that are in Major League Baseball alone. And no, this is not a minority topic. Minority topics were pre-decided by the community. You can't just see a nomination and say "Oh I think this ought to have been a minority topic." JimSukwutput 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
does this even qualify as a record?... -- Ashish-g55 02:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, a highly laudable achievement but simply not important for ITN. This won't get a single mention outside the sports pages in probably the northeast U.S.. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
oppose lacks an article of it's own. Really cool but Trivia ultimately The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fancruft trivia with no real significance. Mtking (edits) 02:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't support this but we have posted statistical achievements in cricket.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC we have posted the major career-defining statistical achievements in cricket and baseball, most runs/home runs in a career come to mind, rather than unusual match occurrences like this. Is 'most grand slams in a match' a record that people really pay attention to until it is broken? 137.222.187.124 (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is not really something that get's long term attention.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The one you are referring to is most runs in a single game by sachin Tendulkar. That as IP mentioned is one of the major statistics that people follow in cricket. and that score happens to be so high that its was last broken like 13+ years ago. -- Ashish-g55 11:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane IreneEdit

Article: Hurricane Irene (2011) (talk, history)
Blurb: Hurricane Irene heads for the United States after causing significant damage in the Bahamas.
News source(s): N.Y. Times, CNN, BBC

Nominator's comments: I know it is ITN practice to wait until after the damage has taken place before posting an item. However, in this case, millions of people in one of the developed world's most-densely populated areas will be looking for information on the story, and it has already done damage in the Bahamas. Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont forget the Antilles - after all Richard Bransons house was destroyed to much laughter by Irene.Jason Rees (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Significant, event for the Bahamas and the Antilles especially with their Tourism Industries. Let's wait till the storm gets closer for the Eastern Seaboard part of the blurb. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The significance of internationally destructive hurricanes pretty much speaks for itself. By the look of things, this could be devastating to much of the US East Coast as well, which is a rarity in itself. Swarm u | t 01:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Swarm, but I would prefer post when it gets within about 50–100 miles (80–161 km) of Cape Hatteras. Ks0stm (TCG) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support But sorry ITN is not a meteorological service for US... It should be posted now since it's already a hurricane and already did damage in Bahamas. Update it later when it gets to US. Also blurb should focus on damage already done and not be a side note to a weather warning... -- Ashish-g55 01:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait at least until Saturday. I see no reason why we have to post 2-3 days before any significant damage is done in the U.S. ITN is not a meteorological service, as Ashish said. We should not be posting based on predictions of significance. JimSukwutput 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose in current form but support per Ashishg55. The focus should not be "omg this could hit the US", because that's not really noteworthy. More important is the damage it's done elsewhere. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose the current blurb - would support Hurricane Irene after causing significant damage in the Bahamas heads for the United States as at the moment it has not reached the US. Mtking (edits) 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait As per Jim Sukwutput. Has this storm done anything yet except raise the ratings of people who get paid to try to make weather sound dangerous? Sharktopus talk 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes this storm has caused significant damage to several islands in the Caribbean including the Bahamas, Puerto Rico and the Antilles.Jason Rees (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I see this repeated several times, but it is simply not true that it has caused "significant" damage to Bahamas and elsewhere. It has caused 4 deaths, which is nothing spectacular for a hurricane. Compare with this. We're only giving it so much attention because what might happen in the US. But that's in the future. JimSukwutput 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support when it actually hits and goes on its rampage. I expect some moderate damage though before we post; what passed through the Caribbean is no different than any other hurricane. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I suspect there will be some postable developments such as evacuations even before it hits. Marcus Qwertyus 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose at least in current form. 'Prepares for' is not news, and nothing has actually happened yet. The existing damage is pretty minor. If this does do some serious damage, then it will be suitable. At present it is not. Modest Genius talk 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the blurb is not appropriate. The news here is the damage made over the Caribbean islands that were already hit. My suggestion is re-wording to something like The hurricane Irene hits the Caribbean islands causing damage and global warning., or if we really need to mention the United States, than let's wait what will happen and pull the blurb in current form out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Per the above two comments, blurb has been tweaked. --Jayron32 14:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It is now the lamest blurb in ITN history. -- tariqabjotu 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as is. The blurb has relevant information people are looking for on an encyclopedic topic. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the current blurb is rather lame. I suggest something like, Hurricane Irene causes significant damage in the Bahamas, Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, and triggers hurricane warnings through the East Coast of the United States. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Your blurb is a bit long. I will note that this once mentioned the United States, and was therefore a longer blurb, but there was vehement opposition to mentioning the U.S. within seconds of its posting. --Jayron32 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
and there is a good reason for that. mentioning a country before it gets hit makes it a forecast. as said above thats the job of a meteorological service which ITN is not. The only instance of posting something before it happens that i remember was the longest solar eclipse since it was guaranteed to take place. We dont know in this case if this thing will do any damage to the US... forecasting is very similar to crystal balling. Having said that, the current blurb sort of sucks lol. Perhaps mention the islands effected. -- Ashish-g55 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
How about just Hurricane Irene does damage.? -- tariqabjotu 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
So fix it the overtly informal "does damage". Please change to something less informal such as "Hurricane Irene tracks through several Caribbean Islands, resulting in significant damage". ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Tariq was being somewhat sarcastic. ;) Swarm u | t 01:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It's time to shift the focus a little I think: Hurricane Irene forces mandatory evacuations along the East Coast of the United States after causing significant damage in the Bahamas . Something like that...RxS (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hurricane Irene is only a category 1 at this point, and it's potential damage dealt to the United States East Coast has been grossly overestimated. Change the blurb or pull this story.--WaltCip (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Six are already dead, hundreds of thousands are without power and millions have been forced to evacuate. New Jersey, Philadelphia and New York City have yet to be hit by the storm. Your argument is invalid. Swarm u | t 22:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Mass Chilean protestsEdit

Article: 2011 Chilean protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​About one million students and workers protest throughout Chile.
News source(s): [13] [14]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It seems to be covered worldwide and I'd say it's a huge event.  Diego  talk  22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For starters, oppose since all I can find on the protests with a quick Google is from earlier this month. — Joseph Fox 23:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You should do your research a bit better  Diego  talk  23:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
All of those seem to be ... well, from Chile. — Joseph Fox 23:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
euronews, Honduras Weekly, Radio Cadena Agramonet, Miami Herald... these are not Chilean. There may be lots of other sources; if I wanted to look up for Chilean sources, I would have used the local version.  Diego  talk  23:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite not a lot of those listed being anywhere near notable enough to be worth talking about, I'll support based on Jenks below. — Joseph Fox 00:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Is a huge event (millions striking), has received coverage in the press worldwide. Also, apparently six police officers wounded, hundreds arrested. Coverage from BBC, Bloomberg, NYT/Reuters, UPI, Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc. Jenks24 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Article updated. C628 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to me an inaccurate synthesis of a few different events. The recent march was led by unions to protest against the government in general. The previous matches were led by students for education reform. Why are they put in the same article about "student protests"? JimSukwutput 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • They aren't. C628 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, you moved it a few minutes after I read it. But my point about synthesis still remains. I can't see an obvious connection between the latest union protests and the previous student protests. Is there one? JimSukwutput 09:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Huge news and the article seems good to me -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


  • Posted. Despite the relatively few comments, there has been no dissent, nobody has contested the "[Ready]" marker, and the article is in good shape. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

August 24Edit


[Posted] Steve JobsEdit

Article: Steve Jobs (talk, history)
Blurb: Steve Jobs resigns as Apple's CEO.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, Reuters, BBC, New York Times

Nominator's comments: High profile founder of the largest company in the U.S. and the most valuable consumer-facing brand in the world RxS (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support I just saw this on the news and it seems notable enough given Apple's prominence. Ks0stm (TCG) 23:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
he went from CEO to chairman. i dont think thats really ITN material, No matter how prominent he simply changed job title... -- Ashish-g55
That's a fair point, but I still feel that his resignation as CEO is notable enough for ITN regardless of what new job he takes. Ks0stm (TCG) 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed User:Yong's duplicate nomination above. He nominated it two minutes after this nomination, at the bottom of this section, then decided to move his nomination on top afterwards. Not sure why he would do that, but I'll assume it's a good-faith mistake. It's probably also fair to assume that he'd support this nomination. JimSukwutput 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was a simple good-faith mistake. I thought there was a glitch that caused me to make repeated nomination so I tried to fix it, but in reality it was nominated by another person 2 min. ago. Thanks for helping cleaning the entry and I do support this nomination. --Yong (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's currently the front page story on nearly every major news outlet. GregChant (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he's changed his job title, that's it. Was long-coming, anyway, with his ill health. — Joseph Fox 00:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Hyperbolic Breaking New Headlines get it wrong again. Just normal organizational reshuffling. Lets not post this and be the one rational news source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Clearly significant, and think his mug shot should replace that of DSK's Mtking (edits) 00:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't a mere change in job title but a substantive change in role. There are a few issues in the nomination statement I would take issue with - he was Apple co-founder and "the most valuable consumer-facing brand in the world" is both vague and arguably wrong. However you only need to look at the doldrums Apple was in during the Gil Amelio days to see this is one executive appointment that really did turn a company around. As noted Apple is a very high profile company and as such I think that is worthy of our support. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose current blurb - Misleading headline is misleading. Swarm u | t 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, the top of many major news outlets, massive company, iconic figure, of interest to readers... clearly ITN material. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Had he resigned outright from the company or took a lesser role than chairman, this would be a much different story. But I don't see this as being an important development. Symbolic, perhaps. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is significant move. Some of the comments above betray a lack of understanding of corporate governance: A CEO runs all aspects of a company, a Chairman chairs the board of directors, is the company's outward face, but is usually otherwise remote from the running of a company. Enough about that, though. Jobs isn't a person, he's a god and the world's only true visionary. It's equally important fact that a worthy successor as head of the world's most iconic and valuable consumer products company has been found. Suggested new blurb: Current Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook replaces Steve Jobs as CEO.--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually while I like the content of the blurb I can see how someone reading it at first sight might erronously assume that he was replaced unwillingly, versus resigned willingly. Is there any wording that might fix that? Ks0stm (TCG) 02:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Steve Jobs steps down from his position as chief executive officer of Apple and is replaced by Tim Cook. ? Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
        • That works for me....RxS (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Does it really have to be explicit? Many people already know Jobs isn't in the best of health. We actually want the readers to read the article(s); a little bit of mystique is like good lingerie – nice packaging that leaves you wanting more. ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - normally for most companies a change in leadership only generate news in business section. Steve Jobs and Apple Inc have a higher level of awareness amongst the public and large community of users and followers of the tech industry. Its a significant event which is covered by major newspapers. Steve Jobs is synonymous with Apple Inc, cultural icon. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 03:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support--2nd story at BBC and would be top if it weren't for the Libya story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Quite a significant shakeup. This is the corporate equivalent of the U.S. getting a new president. Marcus Qwertyus 03:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Steve Jobs resigned as CEO, but he is still a part of Apple leadership. It was bound to happen eventually and Cook had already acted as de-facto CEO during Jobs' absence. Now if he died that would be a different issue. The blurb is dubious because it infers Jobs' has left Apple, he was immediately elected to the board of the directors the moment he resigned. People will read it as "Jobs has left Apple." WikifanBe nice 04:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I can't see how anything is inferred one way or another about Jobs' departure from Apple. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I certainly can. The blurb should mention his new position. Swarm u | t 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, when Bill Gates - the world's richest man resigned as CEO of Microsoft it didn't even make Wikinews candidacy. In 2008 Bill Gates definitely had more influential power than Steve Jobs at that time. It's not that significant, you will still get someone in a turtleneck performing press conferences.YuMaNuMa (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    Since Gates resigned there's been a push to get more business stories in. In fact, as this is a Minority_topic, I will mark it so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Article is updated; minority topic; plenty of supports--I'm marking it READY.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Question. How is this a minority topic? Didn't we have an Apple story on ITN just a few weeks ago? Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • We also just had a business story last week with a Apple patent story shortly before that. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, the end of an era. Nsk92 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • posted --Jayron32 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought we were agreed on a later blurb... Steve Jobs steps down as chief executive officer of Apple and is replaced by Tim Cook.--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • So fixed. --Jayron32 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No one updated the blurb nomination template. Also the article isn't in good shape. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support after the fact. Thank you for posting this. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment shouldn't we at least mention that he remains Chairman of the Board? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly. The blurb is misleading and some news sources are even omitting it completely. He's not out of the company. He's still retaining a very important role. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Agree as well. This is an "OMFG CLICK ME" headline. Swarm u | t 20:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support iconic business decision. Gates' standing down should clearly have been posted. Given Apple is more profitable and more valuable than Microsoft Jobs is definitely a peer of Gates. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope, sorry not Gates. A comment from Reuters compared Steve Jobs not to Bill Gates but to Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Disney, Michael Jordan, and Jesus. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Who cares what Reuters says? Gates was the pioneer of modern computing. It's almost solely because of his work (and with the initial boost of IBM, of course) that computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public, during a time when technological advancements were not embraced as much as they are today. Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM were pioneers; Apple built upon this to create their success. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No way. I replied at Wikipedia talk:In the news. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fix Misleading Blurb please. Right now it makes it seems like he quit apple altogether. He was appointed chairman of the company. That is one of the biggest reasons the stock is still up for apple. If you are going to post him leaving CEO then you must also post him becoming chairman. Very misleading... please fix. -- Ashish-g55 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree, blurb to be fixed: Its important to indicate that he remains with Apple as chairman. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Progress launch failureEdit

Article: Progress M-12M (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The unmanned Progress M-12M spacecraft fails to achieve orbit on a mission to resupply the International Space Station, after a malfunction of its Soyuz-U carrier rocket.
News source(s): BBC Wall Street Journal Reuters

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Failure of an unmanned mission to the ISS. Additionally, this is the first time the launch of a resupply mission has ever failed. GW 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. No dangerous consequences for the space station crew - they have enough supplies to last until the next scheduled resupply flight at minimum. The loss of one supply ship is within the safety margin. Progress launches are very much routine, and the space station program is designed to survive situations like this. I think ITN puts too much weight on routine space launches. A failure doesn't make a launch notable; for example, the Chinese Long March 2C also failed recently but was not covered. Nanobear (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article is very short, basically a stub, and there is not much that can be added to it. There is next to no information about the resupply flight itself - I can imagine the article, if expanded, will only consist 95% of info about the accident. Nanobear (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
maybe i dont know but loss of anything should not be within safety margin... -- Ashish-g55 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Nanobear, regardless of the merit of your comments, this is pre-approved for listing. I would suggest taking your argument to WT:ITNR. Swarm u | t 01:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support This will have consequences for crew resupply and possibly crew rotation. This failure comes soon after the shuttle retirement which will cause all sorts of interest considering this (Soyuz-U Progress and Soyuz-FG Soyuz) are the only way up for a while. The next resupply (Soyuz TMA-22) looks like it will be delayed. The IIS at current crew level has 40 to 50 days until some of them have to come back or a mission flys. Once the article is updated, this a good topic. People will be interested in it, it's a very topical event. Bad time for a failure. RxS (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support, generally agree with RxS. "first time the launch of a resupply mission has ever failed" seems pretty notable/interesting/newsworthy to me and there is clearly coverage in big-name sources around the globe. That all said, the article definitely needs to be expanded. Jenks24 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks to GWS's work, I now think that the article has been expanded enough to be main page-ready. Jenks24 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR is IMHO overly favourable to space-related items but here I would contend the launch failure is much more notable than the success of many missions that get posted. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Support. A failure for the Soyuz-U (which has a failure rate of 2.8%) is fairly rare, and since it occurred while on a resupply mission, it only gets more notable. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nanobear. JimSukwutput 09:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support notable accident per above. It's a start article in my opinion.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support spaceships going bang. Space is still non-routine enough that we can report every failure. Thue | talk 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nanobear. This is a routine launch and not an important mission. GreyHood Talk 16:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article is updated and ready to go up. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Dammit! Steve Jobs goes to the bathroom and this news item gets overlooked. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

August 23Edit


UN launches inquiry into Syrian uprisingEdit

Article: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Emergency talks at the United Nations Human Rights Council result in a formal inquiry into continuing violence in Syria.
News source(s): Al Jazeera English

Article needs updating

m.o.p 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. This is more of a tentative suggestion to see if people think this is noteworthy. The death toll was around a hundred in March. I'm just not sure how to go about updating, so I thought I'd just bring it up and see where that takes us. m.o.p 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless they take some important decision. GreyHood Talk 06:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, these conventions usually do little to nothing to ease matters. Doubt that the people of Syria will stop the uprising or the Syrian government will change the regimes or stop opposing the protesters due to these talk. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GreyHood. I don't see any reason to post this, if there is no exact outcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: they've launched an inquiry now. Is that outcome exact enough? m.o.p 18:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Now we should wait for the outcome of the inquiry ;) GreyHood Talk 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Virginia EarthquakeEdit

Article: 2011 Virginia earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 5.8 magnitude intraplate earthquake centered near Mineral, Virginia, the region's largest in 114 years, shakes the eastern United States and Canada
News source(s): [15][16][17][18]

Article updated
Support Little or no death or damage but a rare event widely experienced. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The Capitol and Pentagon were evacuated. If this is rated higher than 5.8 (some reports have said 6.2) it will be the biggest in VA in recorded history. See http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1897_05_31.php μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems very prude of us to put this in with the goings-on in Libya, but support, seems notable enough in that it's a rare event and is (starting to) get coverage. — Joseph Fox 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No real development on this, so looks like it's just a passing thing. Probably going to oppose for the time being. — Joseph Fox 21:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
oppose unless there is atleast some damage. at the moment its more a novelty item... ooh we felt an earthquake...rare or not 5.8 isnt big enough -- Ashish-g55 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support in 2 hours after it stops being crazy --Guerillero | My Talk 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose It's worth noting that it was felt in Eastern Canada as well. Evacuations were ordered as far as Fredericton. [19] I have no particular position on posting this though, as it is relatively minor. I've changed my position... this is a pretty rare event but that's all it has going for it; there is no actual implication other than its rarity. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Highly notable in its field. But hold for the moment. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment I don't think anyone's saying it's a national crisis or disaster in the US or anything, it's notable in the field of earthquakes because it is very rare to have ones of such strength in that part of the world. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is definitely the biggest on the eastern shoreboard since the 1897 Virginia 5.9 quake, if not the 1886 South Carolina 7.3. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support if the article is suitably expanded. GreyHood Talk 19:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The article currently has 11 sentences and 17 refs at about 6000 bytes. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is a non-event. Its only newsworthy component is that it has frightened earthquake ignorant people. --TruckOttr (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Good to see your opposition is based not on newsworthiness, but your personal attack. We'll have to give it extra weight. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now. News coverage thus far seems to have focused more on precautionary reactions to the quake (the evacuations) rather than the quake itself, and that it not something I'd consider particularly notable. Damage does not appear particularly widespread (nor should it - ~6 is fairly tame) but if significant details emerge I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
Oppose Notable for its rarity, but its not really a news event; there hasn't appeared to be significant damages as a result. I would suggest adding it to the 'did you know' section instead. Seleucus (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose if a burst water pipe is all that resulted then no ITN--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support It is really notable for its rarity, but not just that but because it was felt from South Carolina to Toronto, Canada, including Ohio. It also prompted evacuations of the Pentagon, Monuments in Washington D.C it also prompted evacuations of the Capital Building. So, I consider that notable enough. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Absolutely notable earthquake. Swarm u | t 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment This event has international impact, is an historical event more rare than tropical cyclones hitting Europe, and has nothing to do with people being scared but with being a rare geological event. The article is well more than updated, has no tags, and is ready to post if someone will mark it so. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
what international impact? rain does more damage than this lol. Just being in an area where normally there arent many doesnt make it that notable. That happens every single day in other parts of the world. If it did any damage then i would have no problem with it but this did nothing. -- Ashish-g55 21:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You made your scorn evident above. Unfortunately its not a wikipedia criterion. If you have anything more helpful than to imply that Canada is not an independent nation or that this isn't the biggest in a hundred years of its type of event, please make your point. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
i am quite aware of wikipeida criterions. And i dont really understand how you got "imply that Canada is not an independent nation" out of my comment. I'm in toronto so i find that really dumb. I think i made my point quite clearly... stop trying to take out random implications from it and lashing out at people who oppose. You did it above too... twice is enough now -- Ashish-g55 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If you need to ask "what international impact?" I find it hard to believe that you even know enough about the subject to comment on it. Swarm u | t 00:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
i asked a question and instead of a decent answer got 2 random sarcastic comments that make no sense. The only reason to post this would be the rarity of it. Dont kid yourself by thinking their was some international impact unless the meaning of impact has changed. dont know enough about subject matter lol... i mean come on jeez. if you dont have an answer dont reply. -- Ashish-g55 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you've never seen the word "impact" defined as "impinging" but that's not really my problem. Swarm u | t 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Support on rarity and impact. Loss of life does not have to be sole measure of impact. Geez. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Notable enough to have an article, but I don't feel it's ITN worthy (I suggest nominating at DYK if this does not get posted). All coverage seems pretty US/Canada-centric and it doesn't appear to have add any serious impact (deaths, damage, etc.). Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    Kindly do everyone a favour and avoid pointing at US-centrism. — Joseph Fox 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    Would you care to explain how coverage of an event that occurred in the United States and Canada could be anything other than "US/Canada-centric"? —David Levy 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    I am not an ITN regular, so I didn't realise the negative connotations that came by using US and centric in the same sentence. I was not trying to say that those supporting were being US-centric, merely trying to note that all news coverage I could find (either in the article or google news) was from US or Canadian news agencies and there was minimal, if any, coverage in by the BBC, Reuters, AFP, Al Jazeera, Xinhua, etc. Although saying something is only of local importance is apparently not a valid oppose rationale, I have seen quite a few natural disasters that do not get posted because there were only a few deaths or there was only limited coverage outside the country(ies) involved. I still fail to see the significance of this event, but I look forward to seeing everyone who supported here supporting natural disasters of equal importance in the future. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    I didn't interpret your comment as an assertion that "those supporting were being US-centric"; I interpreted it to mean that coverage focused primarily on the U.S. and Canada.
    Regarding your argument's clarified meaning, I'll note that I see numerous news reports originating from other countries, including coverage from all of the sources that you mention above (the BBC and AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Xinhua). I don't know how many predate your original message.
    Indeed, we do sometimes reject items on the basis that relatively few fatalities and little property/infrastructure damage occurred, but death and destruction aren't the only possible measures of notability. In this instance, the earthquake is noteworthy because if its extreme rarity in the region in which it occurred and the massive public response — justified or not — that followed as a result.
    When a comparable (nonfatal and largely nondestructive, but nonetheless highly disruptive) event occurs elsewhere in the world, please point me to the discussion on this page. —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, even as I was clarifying my argument, I realised how weak it had become, but I can assure that at the time I opposed I could not easily find coverage of this earthquake in the sources I mentioned. I agree with you that death and destruction aren't the only measuring sticks for ITN and if the discussion here had continued there is a good chance that if people had provided the sources you just did, that I would have switched to support. I do stand by my original oppose at the time, though I will refrain from referring to US/Canadian-centrism. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I find it disappointing that some regard an earthquake as sufficiently noteworthy only if it results in death and destruction. This one was the region's strongest since the 19th century, directly affecting millions of people along North America's Atlantic Coast, in both the U.S. and Canada (myself included, for the record). How, by any sensible measure, does this fall below the inclusion threshold of a section that often contains items about sport championships?
    I realize that earthquakes of this magnitude are common, but not in the area in which this one occurred. I'm sure that people in earthquake-prone areas are laughing about our "overreaction," but that doesn't negate the impact experienced here. —David Levy 23:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hear hear. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support per Clarkcj12 and David Levy. Ks0stm (TCG) 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - There clearly isn't no damage, as the area immediately near the epicenter and the National Cathedral have sustained damage, and the historical rarity of such an earthquake in this area of the world make a blurb being added appropriate. Hello32020 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
So far the only opposes we have are based on claims of US-centrism, odd, as David Levy, points out, or complaints that not enough people were killed, or that Earthquakes are common elsewhere. But the point has been from the beginning that this is a very rare event where it did occur which is of great interest to readers. Are there any valid structural complaints against this being posted? Do we lack enough of an update or reliable sources? Comments would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support While a 5.8 is not uncommon, it is in this area and was felt up and down the East Coast. There was a lot of talk about it and 2012 nonsense. Also, there was a communications disruption, flight delays, etc. Its no different than a blizzard would be in LA or Florida. Metallurgist (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean Manila or Darwin.
Oppose Absolutely not significant on a global scale. It really does look like US-centrism. That it was widely reported is simply because of where it happened being the home of a lot of news sources, not the real, historical significance of the event. There will be none. This is a classic example of a proposed addition where the locations of those supporting should be posted. (I'm Australian, btw, and happy to stand by my uninvolved view from far away.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not US-centrism -- the East Coast happens to bear a large portion of the developed world, and one unused to earthquakes. Analogously, think of news coverage of an incident involving several dozen protesters in the People's Republic of China -- absolutely insignificant for most democratic countries, but quite significant in repressed ones. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) HiLo, I think you should refrain from commenting on these discussions. Too many of your contributions to this section reek of WP:POINT, and frankly, you're obviously just trying to provoke American editors. It's really disruptive and completely unnecessary. I'd also like to cite the top of this section, which reads, "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you should ease up on the paranoia and personal attacks, and read my post properly and fully. What impact will this still be having tomorrow? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll read it again. You accuse us of US-centrism, you claim that the media attention is because most of the media is stationed in the area, and then state a bit on how it's not historically significant on a global scale. My point still remains that you are provoking editors here with your constant ad hominem arguments and it's not helping the discussion. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec)This quake is significant given the rarity for the location. It would be just as significant had it occured in Liverpool. And it wouldn't have been mentioned had it occurred in California. As for historical significance, like what? The latest cricket playoffs or protest march in Minnesota? μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Support For starters, significance on a global scale is not an ITN criteria. This isn't a huge deal but it's of interest to a large segment of our readers. The articles in good shape. It's a novel story that people will read about. RxS (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. A lot of our readers felt it and will be looking for information on it. This is what ITN is for -- not deciding what's important on a global scale. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a marginal consensus to post here, so marking [Ready?] for an uninvolved admin to take a look. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose per reasons given by several users above, in particular Crispmuncher. I would have elaborated more, but then I might be accused of anti-Americanism and the other insults that tend to get thrown around in discussions like this. I think I'll stay out of it. JimSukwutput 02:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously stop accusing those who oppose of being US-Centric or vice-versa for supports. There were 2 points here rarity of event and no damage done. Deal with those. Cant even have a decent conversation without people finding hidden implied US-Centrism out of the comments. Others dont even want to get involved due to it. Its very annoying and disruptive. I will be taking this to admins and repeated cases need to be dealt with. Happening way too often. -- Ashish-g55 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do. We really do need to raise the standard of discussion here. The key elements of my post were ignored while I was again accused of provoking Americans. If some Americans (or people from anywhere) post rubbish, they should be called on it. If those Americans happen to be more sensitive than others, that's their problem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That's probably the most blatantly hypocritical post I've seen. You yourself made the accusation of US-centrism! You have no logical basis to be defensive. Swarm u | t 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there's an important distinction that needs to be understood. "US-centrism" is a description of the content of the nomination. It may be a legitimate criticism. You may disagree with it and respond to such accusations by stating why you think it's not US-centric; however, too many users instead respond to such comments by directing attacks against the user, accusing him of being anti-American or so on. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion and unhelpful.
That said, the argument applies both ways and I do agree that HiLo48 is unnecessarily provocative here by commenting on the location of supporters rather than sticking with the content of the nomination. JimSukwutput 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is again about the location of supporters. Maybe, before posting, topics like this should have to wait for the residents of the area involved to be asleep, so that the views of the rest of the world can be ascertained. This topic got a high number of posts, far more than equivalent events elsewhere in the world. One can only guess that the reason was that many of those who actually felt the earthquake posted. Surely it's up to those who didn't feel it to really judge the significance of the event. I still note that absolutely nobody has responded to the real point of my post - that the ongoing impact of this event, starting tomorrow, will be zero. I submit that WP:Recentism AND local centrism contributed to this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, HiLo48, but the location of the supporters is nothing except an irrelevent ad hominem point. It has nothing to do with why something may or may not be appropriate for ITN. --Jayron32 03:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
In the past, I've supported items pertaining to events whose significance was unclear to me (due to geographic/cultural separation), specifically because editors from the countries in which they occurred attested to their impact there. I wouldn't accuse you of "Australia-centrism" for attempting to provide such an explanation, and I strongly oppose the idea of shutting out the users most familiar with a subject.
Perhaps you overlooked the 2:44 (UTC) message by Medeis (pointing out that we routinely post ITN items pertaining to events with little "ongoing impact"). —David Levy 04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Tell us how many Support posts came from non-Americans, and I will perhaps change my view. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I neither know the answer nor see how it's relevant to what I wrote above.
Assuming that the split occurred along national lines, one could argue that Americans supported the item due to bias or that non-Americans opposed it due to bias (or both). I assert neither, as I don't fancy myself a mindreader or an impartial arbiter. —David Levy 08:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
HiLo, I must say for the record that the first time I was made aware of the earthquake was when I was walking through a market last night and saw that the show on television was interrupted with a small banner at the bottom that had the breaking news that there was an earthquake on the East Coast of the U.S. The show and the banner was in Arabic, and I was in Syria. I don't think Syrian media has any bias toward the U.S. -- tariqabjotu 08:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood my point about news sources. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • A crime against English Can someone please rework the current blurb? I haven't checked who the posting admin was but they deserve a good battering with each volume of the OED and in numerical order. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC).
    What wording do you suggest? —David Levy 08:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    A magnitude 5.8 intraplate earthquake, the largest in the eastern United States and Canada since 1897, was centered near Mineral, Virginia. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    The section is written in the present tense. —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-Posting Oppose, like Crispmuncher, HiLo48, Jim Sukwutput and others, I fail to see the significance in this event, I also don't see that there was a clear consensus to post this, there was not much more than a majority. Even if it is not pulled, the blurb needs changing to something resembling proper English such as A magnitude 5.8 intraplate earthquake shakes the eastern United States, centred near Mineral, Virginia, it is the region's strongest since 1897.Mtking (edits) 08:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    1. Consensus isn't determined via a simple vote count.
    2. A run-on sentence isn't "proper English." —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Battle of Tripoli updateEdit

Article: 2011 Battle of Tripoli (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Battle of Tripoli, Libyan rebels capture Muammar Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia compound.
News source(s): CNN, Vancouver Sun, BBC

Article needs updating

 The compound was Gaddafi's headquarters, and one of the final areas under pro-Gaddafi control. Swarm u - t 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose If there is no Gaddafi inside this is vain news, so we need to wait for more substantial and conclusive reports. Also, I'd suggest not posting any developing events of this conflict at all, only 100% sure events that had already happened and were confirmed by all kind of sources (either both sides of the conflict or by many independent sources). Remember that BBC, CNN, France Press, Al Jazeera and other coalition media are on one side in this war. GreyHood Talk 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sniper fire is still being reported and rebels and journalists continue to claim that there are still pockets of loyalists. It's not captured. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it's not captured? Hm. I better call the BBC and Reuters to let them know. Swarm u | t 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better reports say it is fully captured now. They're also entering Gaddafi's house now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support We might as well make sure that the blurb ITN reflects the latest development. Capturing Gaddafi's headquarters is a very symbolic event. And it seems to be confirmed now. Thue | talk 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I expect more people will call my comments nonsense.. But this is really LOL facts and I can't resist posting it here. Russian Channel One (one of the two main TV channels in Russia) questions Al Jazeera reports of the recent developments in Tripoli. Basically they say that the west of Lybia is still in the control of Gaddafi (the first journalist speaking after presenter, from Lybia). The LOL thing they say that according to many bloggers and independent journalists Lybian rebels might never ever reached the Green Square, Tripoli. All those TV reports were just fakes, filmed in a set of decorations imitating the Green Square, built in Qatar. The huge Potemkin village, hehe. According to a journalist (speaking in grey coat from around 4:30) who recently have returned from Tripoli (a week before the ongoing battle) palms and streetlamps are in the wrong places on Al Jazeera videos, and also there are no pitholes and constructions that were recently made on the real square. Russian TV report concludes with the statement that a massive information war is going on, and that the videos of rebels in Gaddafi's headquarters are not conclusive and need further confirmations. GreyHood Talk 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that says more about Channel One and Russian journalism than it does about what is going on in Libya... Thue | talk 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The exact answer I've expected, almost word to word ;) GreyHood Talk 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The nice part about Channel One's claim is that it is verifiable. If the compound was never taken, then we will hear about it later. Which in an ideal world would mean that people will take Channel One much less seriously in the future. Thue | talk 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The channel doesn't claim the compound wasn't taken. It just says that given all the previous misinformation and certain strange facts about the square videos the situation needs more confirmations. As for the taking news seriously, I wonder why everybody still takes Al Jazeera so seriously despite several notorious cases of misinformation. GreyHood Talk 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Channel One should not be passing on conspiracy theories unless they had very strong indications that they were true. Thue | talk 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't exactly think that Channel One, owned by the Russian government (who, in turn, had strong ties with the Libyan government and was expected to veto Resolution 1973, if not for the fact that it wanted to protect civilians above all else), is in a position to make these claims. Especially considering that they've had their bouts of controversy already -- editing the Belarusian president's speech to warp what he said. I think that, considering the fact that AJ is on the ground, along with AFP and BBC, we should rest assured that our info is okay. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The Russian government has much less interest in this conflict than NATO governments, some of which by the way established quite close relationships with Gaddafi in the recent years. And by the way other Russian state channels are more in line with AJ, BBC and others. Nevertheless, such reports as the cited one from Channel One reflect the level of distrust to the western media which was developed during the recent years in many countries of the world. GreyHood Talk 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. Having contributed quite a bit to the Tripoli article, this is well-documented and reported (live footage can easily see the rebel flag flying above the Gaddafi house within Bab al-Aziziya now), and Bab al-Aziziya is essentially the defining structure of Tripoli, akin to the White House in Washington, or the Reichstag in Berlin (well, if those doubled as fortresses.) The current blurb does not seem to be accurate given the situation - fighting is still heavy, yes, but it's not significantly more than the level of fighting in the civil war before the battle began. Seleucus (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment So, whatever with the footage, there was no Gaddafi nor anyone significant in that residency. GreyHood Talk 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment reply It's a symbolic moment that sums up the situation in the city at the moment. Like the burning of the White House in the war of 1812 (though of course the president had fled beforehand.) It was a major regime symbol, and now it's fallen. If this was an isolated event, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but this sums up the various advances the rebels have been making through Libya, which by themselves have been too small to report on the main page. Militarily, it is also quite a big deal, as Bab Al Aziziya was one of the main remaining loyalist strongholds in the city. Seleucus (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support If the story is worth keeping on the front page it's worth keeping updated. RxS (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support -- I like the way Seleucus put it. Even PBS reporters are saying much of the gunfire is merely the rebels' precautionary fire when entering areas, as opposed to actual fighting. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Per RxS -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE NEEDED – It seems the the Libyan Army has retaken control of Bab al-Azizia on Thursday. My only reliable source so far is this video report by Euronews correspondent Mustafa Bag. The associated voice over is extremely censored, so you will have to "read between the lines" to understand what's going on.

  • "Pockets of resistance in Tripoli as hunt for Gaddafi goes on". Euronews. 25/08 19:31 CET. Check date values in: |date= (help)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source for the battle:

Quote: Snipers loyal to Gaddafi were involved in the bloodiest battles in Tripoli's Abu Salim area, near the ruler's former compound in Bab al-Aziziya which was overrun earlier this week.

British war censorship again prevents the journal from telling who won the battle. The Euronews video however shows the aftermath; the the rebel camp abandoned and the Libyan Army firmly in control with civilian traffic flowing past. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to specify where you see this censorship and where you get this proof that Bab al-Aziziya is in the hands of loyalists, because I'm not seeing it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkey-Kurdish warEdit

Article: Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a recent military offensive, the Turkish Armed Forces launches air raids in northern Iraq, killing 100 Kurdish fighters.
News source(s): Boston Globe, Reuters, SMH

 WikifanBe nice 08:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Sounds like an important military action across international borders. But how is this a minority topic? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. I just pasted the basic ITN template. First time nominator. WikifanBe nice 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Taking the liberty of removing that and the ITNR tag (This is definitely not a recurring item either) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I created an article for ITN. Note the similarities between this conflict and the recent war between Gaza and Israel. Turkey's raids were in response to a surge in Kurdish violence, some say a very unique escalation. Although the Turkish offensive has killed many more people than Israel's response to similar violence. While Turkey does not have a "de-facto" truce with the PKK, it does have relations with Kurdish governments in Iraq and they say this raid was contrary to international norms. So? WikifanBe nice 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Hundred fighters killed? Sounds like a very major military action. Definetely notable and should be on the Main Page. Polozooza (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. GreyHood Talk 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In case people aren't aware, this isn't as major as it may sound - while death is death, Turkey and the PKK have been going at it for over a decade in a similar fashion. A new strike isn't notable. Rather, they've been talking about threatening war - I'd wait and see what comes of that. Something like this is (sadly) normal in said conflict. m.o.p 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources say this incident is a major escalation in the 27 year conflict. The scale of Turkey's operation par surpasses the traditional tit-for-tat conflict of the last decade or so. WikifanBe nice 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? If Israel killed 25 Arabs in Gaza that would make world news, let alone 100. Please. This is major news. If we are going to have news, we can report what the mainstream is burying. Metallurgist (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes they have been fighting for some time, but 100 dead is still significant. Thue | talk 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to post this, given the state of the timer, the article needs to be expanded. What's there isn't bad, but there's not much of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Expand how much? Can you be more explicit as to what the redline is for posting? This is the state Gaza air raid was in when it posted. No complaints then. WikifanBe nice 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlike DYK, there isn't a red line, and I'll concede that it's a bit subjective. But if you don't count the response (which is mostly canned soundbites from foreign ministers), it's quite a bit shorter than the Gaza air raid article and that itself is very much on the shorter side of what I'd consider postable. Bear in mind that DYK requires 1500 characters—we don't have a character requirement, but surely it's better to aim for something that's the best it can e instead of the bare minimum that will get it on the MP? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well it's a very recent event. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with the article. I imagine the article would be polished within the first hour after its posted as more editors will see it. Right now it's just sitting here. Some MP postings don't even list original articles but defer to old articles under a new, brief section. WikifanBe nice 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly support This is a major incident in a conflict that gets little coverage.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The figure of 100 deaths is, so far, an unverified claim by Turkey, and should not be reported as fact. The PKK has reported only three deaths (BBC), and the truth probably is somewhere between the two numbers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, doesn't change the notability of this topic. It should be posted. Meets the requirements. WikifanBe nice 08:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't see why Black Falcon's claim doesn't change the notability of the nomination. There's a huge difference between a conflict of 3 deaths and that of 100. Besides, a large portion of the supporters' argument (Wikifan's and Metallurgist's) was based on the casualty count.
I'm going to Oppose for now unless a confirmation of a higher casualty count arrives. JimSukwutput 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
how high does the body count need to be Jim? This is a massive escalation in a 27-year conflict, Turkey entering another sovereign state (and not Simply Kurds in norther Turkey) very notable. WikifanBe nice 22:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Strauss-Kahn indictment withdrawnEdit

Article: Dominique Strauss-Kahn (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The charges of sexual assault against the former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn are dismissed.
News source(s): WSJ, NYT
  • Nominated by Crnorizec (talk • give credit)
  • Updated by [[User:Now it's official.[20]|Now it's official.[21]]] ([[User talk:Now it's official.[22]|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:Now it's official.[23]|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BDominique+Strauss-Kahn%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Dominique+Strauss-Kahn&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])

Article updated

Crnorizec (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. We should publish this, since we published the accusations. Crnorizec (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Technically, the prosecutor filed a motion asking that the charges be dropped. However, the charges won't actually be withdrawn until a judge signs off (perhaps as early as tomorrow). Such motions are generally handled quickly and without controversy; though, in this case the victim's attorney filed a motion asking that the district attorney be disqualified based on allegations of bias and misconduct. If the judge decides to look seriously at those allegations (which would be very unusual), then it could hold up the processing of the withdrawal motion. Dragons flight (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - We made an exception to our normal practices and posted his arrest and charges. There should be no question whatsoever that this should be posted as well. Swarm u | t 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the charges are dropped with prejudice, then support. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support Yes, we should post this, since we already posted the accusations. But it really becomes boring, and after the whole story was watered down, the significance enormously paled. However, I give some kind of support.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Swarm - redress. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • ? Since when is "redress" a relevant criterion for ITN? μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Exactly what Swarm said above. JimSukwutput 03:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Redress is not a criterion here. We don't try and right wrongs...we post what's in the news if we have quality, updated content our readers might be looking for. Not too mention there's a single sentence update. RxS (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but we did try and wronged when we posted accusations, rather then wait for a verdict. If those accusations were alluring enough to make us wrong, then their withdrawal must be as well, don't you agree? BTW, I fully support the decision to post those accusations, because the event triggered the change of the IMF head, and change of 2012 presidential election landscape in France. Crnorizec (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What did we say that was wrong? We did not allege anything. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
We didn't post accusations. We posted formal charges and incarceration. There's a big difference. And no, I don't agree. The charges had a huge effect in several countries. The withdrawal didn't. RxS (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What was this "huge effect" in several countries that isn't being duplicated? There was a media frenzy, that's about it. Swarm u | t 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? He resigned as IMF Managing Director, a role he won't get back. He was front runner for the Socialist nomination for President, not anymore. It created an uproar in France about the treatment of women, it created French criticism of the US justice system. RxS (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose along similar lines to RxS. Yes, we posted his arrest as a matter of fact, and the fact he was arrested is not in dispute. We have not slighted him in any way and we have no moral or other responsibility to report every development in the case subsequent to that. Blatant errors tend to be quietly withdrawn on ITN rather than a correction be made; why should we "correct" something that was not erroneous in the first place? Crispmuncher (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose: Because (1) Its premature, charges have not been withdrawn yet (based on the news sources quoted in the nomination) - as pointed out by Dragons Flight, the prosecutor has only made a motion seeking withdrawal. (2) There is no obligation to post withdrawal of charges merely on ITN because the arrest was previously posted on ITN. The notability of the charges being dropped will have to be independently evaluated. No such demonstration of notability has been made in any of the comments above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If you guys don't think practical, basic, common sense moral considerations should play any role at ITN, fine. To hell with the moral obligations of the situation. Consider the reason that we made this exceptional posting of his arrest in the first place. We determined that it was of significance and wide interest. Where is the logic that the filing of charges is more significant than the dropping of charges? This is the textbook example of why arrests and charges should never be posted on the front page— we end up refusing to give balanced coverage to cases. I would also note that none of the above opposers try to claim that it's not of significance/interest, so one wonders what their reasoning is. Swarm u | t 05:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I wasnt party to the discussions there and I'm sorry if you understood what I said above to mean that filing of charges are more important than dropping of charges. I merely pointed out that its notability needs to be evaluated and established independently (when it occurs, its premature now as pointed out above). If that is independently established (not just because the filings were posted on ITN) and necessary updates are there, it can go on ITN as I understand those are the two criteria required - not moral considerations. The notability has to be demonstrated and cannot be presumed and the opposers cannot be required to disprove it when nothing has been put on the table in the first place. My oppose continues to stand for now. Willing to change if anyone can demonstrate notability and show the updates. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • My comment wasn't primarily addressed to you, though, in any case, I would argue that we've clearly already determined this case to be notable enough to post on the main page. Country A declares war on Country B. We post that. Months later, country A formally surrenders to Country B. Would it make sense to suddenly adopt the position that the war was insignificant? Of course not, that would be a suspect and bizarre move. Swarm u | t 07:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If country A declares war on country B, I would agree with you that the declaration, major developments, and result (whatever it may be - truce, surrender, withdrawal or conquest) would all be important because we are talking about two countries at war. But if we take a different example - Anna Hazare supported by several thousands starts a 15 day fast against corruption in India is important enough but unless there is significant legal reforms or government response, are we going to post if and when the fast concludes after 15 days with no result? are we going to post if Anna Hazare decides to drop the fast on the 7th day (for whatever reason - lets say, because he wants to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution)? You cant take one example and use that as the rule. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I just did a run of a few news websites - looks like this is receiving significant attraction even in local media in unaffected regions. Will change to support if and when court drops the case (I think its still premature). All that lawyering for nothing! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Swarm. GreyHood Talk 05:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait until the charges are actually withdrawn. Currently there is only a request that the charges are withdrawn. Thue | talk 11:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Support now. Thue | talk 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Charges have been formally dropped.[24][25] Swarm u | t 16:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the charges have been formally dropped. We bent the norm to post the conviction, so we might as well abide by the norm and post the dismissal. I mean, why not? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that it is not the judge who has dropped the charges with prejudice but the prosecutors who asked to have the charges dropped--and not because they believe DSK innocent, but because they feel they will not be able to overcome the credibility problems of the star witness. There is no exoneration here. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter. Even when he was under charges he was still considered innocent. This release doesn't exonerate him because he was never guilty of anything in the first place. Individual opinions of his innocence or guilt should hold no bearing whatsoever. Swarm u | t 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You are ignoring the difference between dropping the charges with and without prejudice. A judge can drop the charges with prejudice because he finds the facts exonerate the accused. That is not the case here. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ready for posting now that the charges have been officially dismissed.[27] Crnorizec (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How is this ready exactly? RxS (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the ready tag. I'd rather it be marked by someone who is not an advocate for the posting. RxS (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Orange tags need to be removed before posting. Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case is in better shape, but needs a better update. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It is ready now, I changed the blurb to highlight the case page. Cenarium (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Update is good. Definitely [Ready]. JimSukwutput 02:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's only ready if you accept the argument that redress (and the lack of any other rationale) is a valid reason to post something. You might, I don't. RxS (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • That wasn't the only rationale raised in this discussion. In any case, there are eight supports and three opposes, and the consensus is much greater than that received by the nomination for the Virginia earthquake which was just posted. We also have a high quality article with a decent update. JimSukwutput 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Right, the basis for posting isn't redress. I gave a widely elaborated rationale for posting without even considering the "redress" aspect. That rationale you either failed to read or chose to ignore. You then falsely labeled every support rationale "redress" and claimed that they're invalid because of that. That's called a strawman argument, FWIW, and it's not a pleasant way of conducting debate. In any case, we don't operate by personal opinions here, so even if there was a consensus to post because of redress, it wouldn't not be posted because of your personal opinion. Swarm u | t 03:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 08:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 22Edit


England cricket teamEdit

Article: Indian cricket team in England in 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The England cricket team give the Indians a damn good thrashing, winning the series 4-0, and become the number one ranked team in the world. Tally-ho, 11 of the best, bish-bosh-boosh.
News source(s): (BBC News)
  • Support: However, the blurb needs to be more encyclopedic and more mature. Therefore I suggest the following changes: The England cricket team give the Indians (except The Wall) a damn good thrashing, winning the series 4-0, and become the number one ranked team in the world and gets a big-ass mace as a trophy. Tally-ho, 11 of the best, bish-bosh-boosh. And Sachin is yet to get his hundredth hundred. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support why the hell not its pretty unusual. Obviously the blurb needs significant work. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this just nominated? RxS (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
They were formally awarded the test championship trophy (the mace) only at the end of the series. Despite the light tone used above, I consider this quite significant - this is the defining championship criteria for tests now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan clashesEdit

Article: 2011 Sudan clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UN says 600 people have been killed in clashes in South Sudan.
News source(s): (New York Times) (CNN)

Newsworthy subject, just needs an article. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds interesting, but we need an article! Thue | talk 23:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah someone needs to create an article fast. Big news. WikifanBe nice 00:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I started an article in my userspace here. Anyone can edit it. Here are some sources: AJ, AJ 2, NYT, and CNN. WikifanBe nice 01:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Created 2011 Sudan clashes. WikifanBe nice 10:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support 600 killed? Big news. Quite sad indeed to see South Sudan becoming just "another" African country. Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Jack LaytonEdit

Article: Jack Layton (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Canadian Leader of the Opposition Jack Layton dies of cancer at the age of 61.
News source(s): CBC BBC

I know that this probably isn't very interesting for the most of the English-speaking world, but I still wanted to nominate it, regardless. Layton was the leader of the official opposition, winning 103 of 308 seats in parliament in the last election. He is seen as the helm of the New Democratic Party and the driving factor for its record standing in Canadian politics. Although he is not a head of state or even a prime minister, he is still a household name in Canada, and this is an extremely shocking news for everyone in the country. He fought through prostate cancer in the past year very publicly and took a leave of absence after announcing the cancer was back, saying he'd be back next month. The news just broke so, at the time of writing even the BBC has no article yet, but it most likely will become a significant headline. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Death of a high-ranking politician (even if he had resigned to fight the illness) is highly notable, let alone that of the Opposition leader. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Just saw it on the BBC website. Wow, had zero idea. Definitely notable as Canada's Opposition leader. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 13:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible. How often is it that we post the death of an Official Opposition Leader occurring while in office in a country that has a population of 33 million? However, the article section needs expansion. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support while the death itself may not be unexpected given his history with cancer (although everyone expected him to return healthy next month), the potential fallout in Canadian politics because of his death will be massive. This leaves a huge hole in the official opposition - which is a party that really only made it there due to this man's actions alone - and because he will no longer be the figurehead of the party it could signal a massive reshaping of the Canadian political arena next election. Aside form that, this truly is unexpected news and is only made more tragic by the fact he passed away so soon after his greatest achievement, which stands as quite possibly one of the biggest political achievements in Canadian history. --PlasmaTwa2 14:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support notable politician and more notable is the fact that he was in office.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In my opinion, the death of the sitting Official Opposition Leader of Canada is sufficient for inclusion in WP:ITN. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. Blurb modified to "Jack Layton (pictured), Canadian Leader of the Opposition, dies of cancer at the age of 61". m.o.p 14:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Change made. I've just linked "dies" to Death and state funeral of Jack Layton. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm WP:SPEEDYing that article under A10 tomorrow if no one contests. It's just a fork of the main article with nothing to add other than the time and date of the funeral. Layton's death isn't notable enough to warrant an article for itself. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • A snowball keep at AfD would surely count as someone contesting it, no? A speedy is surely not suitable here. (I don't have any real opinion either way on it, honestly, beyond being against speedying it: I think it should be community-consensus driven decision.) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

August 21Edit


Arrest of Saif al-Islam GaddafiEdit

Nominator's comments: Clearly a developing, fluid situation in Tripoli, but imo this particular development warrants an item on its own. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 01:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't see why a separate post is necessary. Most of the information is already part of the 2011 Battle of Tripoli article, which overall is a better description of the events surrounding the arrest as well. JimSukwutput 07:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They didn't show him, it might be just another part of propaganda war. GreyHood Talk 11:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • This isn't simply rhetoric; the ICC itself has confirmed it. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Rhetoric by ICC is not conclusive proof. They need to show they really captured him. GreyHood Talk 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Do you doubt that bin Laden is dead? He was never shown, yet we posted his death. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 13:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
          • ICC just confirms they start negotiations regarding Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. GreyHood Talk 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
            • That's been known since last night. Libyans don't want to give him up to the ICC. But that's still confirmation that he has in fact been captured. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Confirmation would be if they show him on TV. GreyHood Talk 15:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
                • I don't know what you have against the NTC, but every reliable news source I can find is perfectly fine with the ICC's confirmation. Mohammed Gaddafi even spoke to Al-Jazeera following his capture confirming that the NTC were in control of his house. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • Now Al-Jazeera reports Mohammed Gaddafi ran away from the rebels ;) And more likely, he never ever was captured. GreyHood Talk 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • Source please. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • Gaddafi's son Mohammed flees house arrest. GreyHood Talk 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
                        • Thanks. Funny though how you choose to believe this unconfirmed report while categorically refusing to believe he was captured in the first place. Cherry-picking is not the best habit to pick up. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
                          • So far Al-Jazeera and other mainstream news had several times during the conflict falsely reported this or that Gaddafi son to be captured or killed. GreyHood Talk 19:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
                            • In the case of Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi, the Libyan government was the one who reported it, and they held a funeral. Khamis Gaddafi was rumoured twice to have died but yes, there is no confirmation. However, mainstream media reflected this, and we do not know if either report is true or false. None of these deaths have anything to do with this nomination. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They've obviously captured him, so Greyhood's comment (once again) is nonsense, but anyway, we should wait until Muamar Gaddafi is captured (which is only a matter of hours anyway). --bender235 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be obviously when we see him captured. And, yes better wait for Muamar Gaddafi ;) GreyHood Talk 17:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • @Bender235: I don't have an opinion about this particular dispute, but your comment about Greyhood's comment being "once again" nonsense is extremely unnecessary and probably quite offensive to that user. I would suggest that you strike it. JimSukwutput 19:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
      • How is that offensive? I think Bender was saying that he concurs with the others above who argued that Greyhood's remark is off, not that this is another nonsense remark from Greyhood. -- tariqabjotu 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Depends on how you interpret it I suppose. I read it as a remark based on their previous dispute in the "Battle of Tripoli" nomination below. But in any case, Greyhood has proven to be absolutely correct here, and I can't imagine the embarrassment it would have caused if we posted the erroneous report. So Bender235 should probably be more careful next time before he rudely dismisses another user's contributions to the discussion; and I congratulate Greyhood for pointing out the error and choosing to remain in the discussion even as he is being rudely dismissed. JimSukwutput 03:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Thank you Jim, I'm not really offended. It is quite understandable why the people who get information just from the one kind of sources might consider my comments nonsense. I advice everyone to remember that mainstream news like Al-Jazeera and BBC are taking part in this conflict, not just covering it. GreyHood Talk 05:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Wow. I don't think anyone was expecting this. Could you begin picking my lottery numbers for next week, Greyhood? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I couldn't doing lottery. I just get my information from non-mainstream sources, which, of course, also are not entirely reliable but at least didn't spread so major misinformation and fake news so far. GreyHood Talk 05:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
"Fake news" is a little harsh. The ICC is admitting today that they never received "official confirmation" of the arrest; so, to see them so convinced of the capture is easy for the media to accept. It's not like the media purposely misled viewers: they're simply relaying the information that they are getting. And this is the only occurrence of misinformation I've seen in the past week for this conflict. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
As for the ICC, all like I said: they just started negotiations and could not confirm anything. As for the misinformation, this week just has started.. However, half or more of the mainstream news about the ongoing fighting in Tripoli is in fact intentional or non-intentionally retranslated misinformation. Just as about this entire conflict from the very beginning. GreyHood Talk 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
By "past week" I meant in the last seven days. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Battle of TripoliEdit

Article: 2011 Battle of Tripoli (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fighting in the Libyan civil war intensifies as rebels advance on Tripoli.
News source(s): Al-Jazeera, Guardian, NY Times
  • Nom. Final hours of Gaddafi's regime just begun. Blurb may need some refinement. --bender235 (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment "Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi says attackers have been "eliminated"" - BBC News. There's a lot of uncertainty at the moment. I say we wait until the battle is finished and the results are clear. JimSukwutput 08:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment A historical moment, the possible end of the Ghadaffi regime. Certainly noteworthy. Polozooza (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment A bit premature? A planned attack according to the rebels, a "few armed gangs" according to Gaddafi that have been eliminated. Like Jim said, too much uncertainty. Let's not be hasty and wait until there's clear details. Swarm u | t 09:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I can see why you're hesitating, but seriously guys, Gaddafi is your credible source? According to him there isn't even a civil war in his country. --bender235 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
"Armed gangs" is nothing new from Gaddafi, and obviously he's not credible. I'm just pointing out that we have no more information than those two claims. Obviously we all want to support the rebels but we can't just jump on a vague incident because they say they planned it. Swarm u | t 10:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait. At the moment, not enough is known to write a consice blurb and update the articles. --Tone 09:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. We know that rebels have entered Tripoli, and that is clearly notable in itself. We should of course also post an item when the fighting has ended and the results clear, but that is a separate news item, and does not prevent us from also posting now. Thue | talk 10:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. So far this battle is a joke. Small bands of rebels may enter any Lybian city with support of the NATO aviation, but to actually gain control, and especially the control of such city as Tripoli (1 million people) one needs much more than small groups of poorly trained men mostly acting for staged TV-reports. With all the propaganda war going on we need much more serious, unambiguous and conclusive confirmations of events. GreyHood Talk 11:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Well-said. There has been plenty of exaggerated or misleading reports from all sides of the conflict (government, rebels and Western). There is certainly no need to rush posting this; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for breaking news reports. JimSukwutput 12:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • What's your source for the current battle being "small groups of poorly trained men mostly acting for staged TV-reports"? Gaddafi? --bender235 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support We report what reliable sources report, not our analysis of the story (see several comments above). This is a big story right now and reliable sources are all over it. People will be looking for updated quality content about this and if we have updated content this is a perfect candidate for ITN. RxS (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, either when something significant comes out of this or, if everyone else agrees, whenever they begin fighting in Tripoli. This is a civil war, guys. Regardless of what your opinion is, this is a deciding event for the future of an entire country. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The fighting already started. From [29]: "Heavy Fighting Reported in Tripoli". Thue | talk 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a little weird to see that not many sources are concretely saying that there is a clear battle. They're mostly saying "Rebels push toward Tripoli" or "Rebels advance on the capital". Then there are reports of some fighting overnight but again, it's as if no one is really sure that the battle actually has begun. That's how I'm seeing it, anyway. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The civil war is a major and deciding event. The battle, however, will be a deciding event only if it has some deciding results. So far no indication for this. GreyHood Talk 15:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Its a decent article, there have been no other nominations, nothing has been posted for over 24 hours and there is a rough consensus. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Removed [Ready]. I'm leaning to a support right now, but I don't really see a consensus here. 3 Supports, 1 Oppose, and 2 "Wait"s. Give this a bit more time. There are at least two articles below with better consensus for posting (HP purchase and Khyber Agency bombing). JimSukwutput 16:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Both of your examples have significant problems that are preventing posting. RxS (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As an example of the uncertainty and lack of information that persists at the moment, it seems that the "battle" is more of an uprising within Tripoli, while the rebel forces have focused on cutting off roads to the city and avoiding actual conflicts with the sizable Qaddafi force. There is disagreeable about whether to even call this a battle - see the talk page for example. (The uprising itself of course would also be notable, but my point here is that we don't really know what's going on at the moment and waiting a few hours or a day seems desirable here) JimSukwutput 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It is also still unclear whether the rebels really "entered Tripoli" or just "push towards Tripoli", so the blurb is problematic. GreyHood Talk 17:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The blurb can be adjusted, but there's no doubt reliable sources are reporting major developments. RxS (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    Maybe: Fighting in the Libyan civil war intensifies as rebels advance on Tripoli and large anti-Gaddafi protests are held All very commonly reported by reliable sources. RxS (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    Scratch the mention of the protests and you have a suitable blurb! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No doubt there are reliable sources, but here is an example of what they're saying: "The rebels will hope security forces will melt away." "Some say Gaddafi himself might already have fled." "But others say the nascent uprising reported in Tripoli on Saturday night..." "If the rebels are wrong and significant Gaddafi forces remain..." "Much, of course, will depend on how Gaddafi himself chooses to play the endgame." [30]. (all emphases mine) Nothing appears to be of certain at this stage. JimSukwutput 17:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
We are not conducting battlefield analysis, we're reporting what reliable sources are reporting. That's not only appropriate here but it's the foundation of how Wikipedia works. And RS are reporting intensified fighting. Nothing magic or tricky. It's a real thing, we're not here to sort through reports and find truth. RxS (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you propose we just mention "intensified fighting"? Because there's nothing else that we definitely know for certain. We don't know if rebels have actually entered the capital. We don't know if they're actually advancing onto it or surrounding and besieging it. Of course we're not doing analysis, but I see nothing from the news reports that can be formed into a meaningful blurb. You state the obvious in that we report what reliable sources are reporting, but my point is exactly that no reliable source has a definite account of what's taking place. The reliable sources are implying that there's a lot of doubt about what's actually happening (see above) and are in many cases conflicting (see the article). I think you had a pretty good argument in a past nomination about another case where reliable sources seem to disagree. What gave you a different impression here? JimSukwutput 18:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No reliable source disagrees with the basic outline which is things are heating up (intensifying). We can hone the blurb as events warrant, we've updated blurbs before and we can do it here. My suggested blurb is pretty general at this point (see above). RxS (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Marked ready. I'd like to throw my support in as well. Marcus Qwertyus 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Your support brings no new argument to the discussion, and the issues outlined by Jim Sukwutput and other people who prefer to wait are still not addressed. De-marking [Ready], sorry. GreyHood Talk 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I think things have become much more clearer in the last couple of hours. Reuters has confirmed that some rebel forces have, indeed, managed to reach the outskirts of the city centre. But I still urge caution at what exactly to include in our blurb. The one by RxS above seems fine at this moment. JimSukwutput 20:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose things are too fluid right now, let's see how it works out over the next 24-48 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as temporary entry. When Tripoli has certainly fallen this could be replaced. --Marianian(talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - the blurb should mention rebels entering Tripoli, and we can update it later, as situation evolves. Crnorizec (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems we have consensus. Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I was just about to comment, to say that reports are coming in that Gaddafi is willing to negotiate directly with the NTC's president, that the rebels are meeting little resistance, and that Gaddafi's son and some other top ranking guy have surrendered. [31][32][33] EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Oh, and the rebels claim they were able to make it three kilometres from the city's centre, with only sniper gunfire being a threat. Either something isn't right, or Gaddafi's constant threats are really just one big bluff. EDIT: Now they're saying that they have the entire city under control except for one region. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

August 20Edit

Most expensive cars sold in auctionEdit


Article: Most expensive cars sold in auction (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A 1957 Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa was sold in an auction for $16.4 million; breaking the world record
News source(s): San Francisco ChroniclesAutoweekNBC

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Apologies for any inconvenience caused as I am a WP:ITN noob, I thought of this list with ITN in mind not long after the 21 year old world record was broken in 2008. But then no concerns if this get rejected as I am also nominating it in WP:DYK which is a dream for me to achieve this with DYK, GA and FA, not forgetting this is my longest project ever as i have been working on it for two and a half years. Like paintings, newsworthy subject as the exorbitant prices paid for cars is news material, a huge majority of these grab media attention, Chris Evans's Ferrari is that one example. Donnie Park (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. Auto news are rare here, and beating the long-standing record is notable. GreyHood Talk 11:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Minority topic and ITNR unasserted. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
  • What about the one for paintings, that was on ITN before, it may be minority but is it minority in the auto industry. Both the two Ferraris that previous held records made it into news, therefore it is big news in the industry and is the car industry minority. The reason why it is INTR unasserted is because its a new article, no articles like this have exist before, not to mention that it won't always likely to happen all the time and it didn't for two years, therefore I would call it infrequent recurring like all sales records. Donnie Park (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Israel-Hamas end of truceEdit

Article: 2011 southern Israel attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: Hamas announces the end of a de-facto truce with Israel after attacks on Gaza
News source(s): Source for story

Article updated
  • Support - as nom.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - now this is what I call news. Polozooza (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support clearly a significant step. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but omit the last part and instead link "Israel attacks on Gaza" to the article 2011 southern Israel attacks. The Israeli "retaliations" targeted the PRC, and the PRC (and Hamas) had denied involvement, so there is dispute about whether they are actually retaliations. And, according to their statement, they ended their truce because of the Israeli government attacks, not because of the terrorist attacks that had occurred in southern Israel, so depending on which side of the story you take, the terrorist attacks that occurred in southern Israel may very well be irrelevant. JimSukwutput 10:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    Sukwutput: Agreed. Should be something like: "Hamas announces the end of a truce deal with Israel after attacks on Gaza". Still, the truce in itself is very noteworthy. Polozooza (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Marking [Ready]. Article looks good now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "end of the de facto truce" and not "end of a truce deal"? The article calls it a de facto truce, not a truce deal. Thue | talk 11:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Changed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. I have concerns about how much the article relies on Israeli sources rather than the international media as a whole, but the article is OK enough to post right now. NW (Talk) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
If you have those concerns (and they are shared by quite a lot of people), wouldn't it be better to wait untill these issues are settled before posting this to the News Section? Just my two cents. Anyway, it's not that bad. ;) Polozooza (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Jpost makes up just under half of the sources cited. Add Ynet, Haaretz, etc and it's well over half. Also, there are a fair few cite tags littered around. Nightw 15:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there are some problems with the article. Take for example the fact that only the 8 Israeli deaths were mentioned in the infobox, while the 14 Palestinian deaths were banished to the remote "Israel retaliation" section. But it's not too bad overall. JimSukwutput 16:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
That's not a result of bias or a flaw in the article. The article is simply on the attacks against Israel. If someone wants to create an article on the attacks against Gaza, that would be appropriate. But it's not one single conflict. Swarm u | t 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Yea, that's the second problem with the article. IMO there should be two separate articles as these are two separate incidents, with only the Israeli government claiming that they are related. Either we have that or we have one single article that covers both attacks. Not this article which spends 80% of its content on the ambush and not the much more widespread "retaliation" (which is what we should link to in the blurb, by the way). JimSukwutput 16:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
@Polo: Who else shares those concerns? NW (Talk) 16:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Simply fixed. just create an article on the Gaza strip attacks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Um, let me point out that this is not a trivial problem, because the currently non-existent article on the Gaza strip attacks is exactly what we should be linking to. JimSukwutput 19:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, on the other hand the truce was ended after Israel reacted to the events of the article its currently linked to. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
True: they reacted by killing some Hamas officials and a child. Even though Hamas has denied any involvement. These airstrikes are what led Hamas to end the truce. I doubt these airstrikes would have taken place if it weren't for the attack of the bus(es) though, but that's an indirect reason. The direct reason was the air strikes in Gaza. Polozooza (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Complete BS to have posted this to ITN, wikilinking "attacks on Gaza" to an article that devotes at most one paragraph to attacks on Gaza, does not mention attacks on Gaza in the lead, and gives the misleading impression that the attacks wikilinked to (attacks on Israel which were claimed as motivating Israel's latest attacks on Gaza) were examples of Hamas breaking the truce. That's quite aside from the many complaints others have expressed about the article wikilinked to. Sharktopus talk 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Can we please stop this. You can edit the article yourself if you want to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I propose to change the blurb in such a way it links to August 2011 Gaza Attack, the article on Israel's retaliation attack on Gaza. It is that attack that directly led to the truce coming to an end. Polozooza (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello, have you guys read August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids? It is a blatant fork, imo a POV fork. The original template itself was the same as the one on 2011 attacks on Israel, another act of OR as editors are drawing a moral equivalence between militants attacking civilians and Israel attacking military targets. The blurb should remove the barely stub-class article until it reaches start or C class. The intro is totally off as well. WikifanBe nice 21:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Its rated Start class, and its perfectly reasonable to post. Posting both articles keeps it neutral. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a false neutrality. We shouldn't have to create an obvious fork to satisfy editors who think there is an excessive Israeli platform. All the content in that article is straight from the original article. IT's hilarious to see so many editors oppose the feature of a well-sourced article, yet have no problem supporting a bare-bones article that is copy-paste from the article they opposed except its a fork. Boggles the mind. WikifanBe nice 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The second article has nothing to do with POV balance. It just doesn't make sense for the terrorist attack article to cover the air strikes in full. The air strikes simply deserve their own article because they're an independent conflict. Swarm u | t 04:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan12345: I count at least 10 users (from all around the world) who have raised the same concerns about the article and this blurb. Do you really think it is us that's POV-pushing? Do you think it is fair to accuse all of us of anti-Semitism, as you have implied repeatedly? Your hypocrisy is unbelievable. JimSukwutput 05:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said "POV-pushing" - I said the airstrike article is arguably a fork. You see - the original proposal, all of the "opposed" editors stated their opposition based on excessive Israeli sources. This article had the same sources (from the same article they opposed), only less of them. Worst of all, most of the the article was unreferenced at the times of its proposal. And the airstrikes are not an "independent conflict" - no sources have said that. So clearly this isn't about sources, or POV, but something internally. Or am I missing some policy here? WikifanBe nice 08:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please drop it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The blurb can still be amended. WikifanBe nice 08:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No it can't because your beating a dead horse. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I do think bias coming into play on both sides. Mainstream Israeli news sources unreliable? Terror attacks on Israel should get their own article but Israeli attacks on Gaza (however related) shouldn't? Come on guys, both sides are kind of saying ridiculous things. At the end of the day, the overall concept that if a military attack is retaliatory it shouldn't have its own article is just ridiculous. Swarm u | t 09:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Idem. I don't recall ever even using the "Israeli sources are unreliable"-argument myself. I believe it to be a bullshit argument. The attack took place on Israeli soil, so Israeli sources will be used, for example for the ammount of casualties. When an attack occurs in Gaza, Palestinian sources are used. I don't see why this is a big deal. And there is no such thing as an entirely neutral source, that is an illusion. Polozooza (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Defer to Wikipedia policy when in doubt, not "common sense" or "fairness" or whatever personal editor philosophy that has is cited in ITN frequently without sanctions. The issue is about Wikipedia policy. There must be strict standards when sending articles to the main page. How young incomplete articles created in response to another article is accepted through the system makes no sense at all, policy-wise. WikifanBe nice 10:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There you go again with the "created in response to another article" claim. It's simply not true, there was a solid agreement that an individual article was warranted for the attack on Gaza. Swarm u | t 10:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
@Wikifan: Let me explain. Polozooza was the user who created the article after some lengthy discussion with me and other users (which you abstained from). BabbaQ was the one who significantly contributed to the article at the beginning. I was the user who copy and pasted some content from the 2011 southern Israel article (where the content doesn't belong, and I expect would be removed) to the current article. This was quickly augmented by a series of well-sourced and substantial edits by Lihaas, which constitutes the majority of the article at the moment. At no point was the article a "response" or a "fork" to another article. If there was duplicate content, then that is the problem with the 2011 southern Israel article, not this. If you feel that the two articles should be merged, there is a discussion going on at the moment which you can participate in. Your comments have no relevance here and are simply disruptive; your additional personal attacks on numerous users, accusing them of ignorance or bigotry, are a breach of Wikipedia policy in themselves. So please, drop it. JimSukwutput 11:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Please, can we discuss this somewhere else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The major story being covered by international media today is heightened tension with Egypt, once a solid ally of Israel, with popular opinion in Egypt playing an increasing role. Meanwhile, Israel just arrested 130 Hamas members on the West Bank.[34] Neither of the two articles under discussion here is sufficiently broad to cover the developing rush of events. Sharktopus talk 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on overlinking: I see no reason 'de facto' needs to be linked. Also suggest alternative linking scheme with more transparent piping:

    "Hamas and Israel end a de facto truce after Israel responds to attacks in southern Israel with air strikes on the Gaza Strip." --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hamas is now offering a ceasefire. JimSukwutput 19:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Please remove this: It appears that a cease-fire is in the process of being re-established, see [35], so I don't think a claim to the opposite belongs on the front page (if it ever did). Benwing (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose removing: Even if cease-fire is restored, the notability of the cease-fire being called off does not go away. In fact, the blurb may be edited/updated to account for any development. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hamas Truce updateEdit

Hamas have got a ceasefire again so the item needs updating. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Khyber Agency bombingEdit

Article: August 2011 Khyber Agency bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 48 people die and 40 others are wounded during an attack in Khyber Agency, Pakistan.
News source(s): AFP, AlJazeera

Article updated
Support: As nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Support An unusually bold attack, and newsworthy. --Sherif9282 (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support But amend blurb with "hundred wounded" and maybe mention the fact that it occurred during Ramadan prayers? The target was a Pakistan mosque. WikifanBe nice 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but the article needs work. The entire "Attack" section is unsourced (I believe the editor used Al Jazeera), and there seems to be some original research in statements like "Pakistan has faced a renewed insurgency since the death of Osama bin Laden in April 2011". JimSukwutput 04:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support 48 innocent people dead, and counting. Surely this attack is noteworthy for the ammount of casualties and the fact it took place in the Holy Month of Ramadan, in a Mosque, a house of the Lord. Polozooza (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Marking [Ready] article looks pretty decent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree, I think the article is pretty thin and the background section is a little random. I would never post this with the article in this shape, one of the purposes of ITN is to feature quality content. I don't think this qualifies. RxS (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Agree with RxS; the article needs more substantial content. NW (Talk) 14:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Support: pretty major discrete attack even by Pakistani standards. that it happened in a mosque during Ramadan heightens the notability and shows the mindset of the perpetrators.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

August 19Edit


AdcentrisEdit

Article: Brentuximab vedotin (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the the cancer drug Adcetris, the first approved drug for Hodgkin's disease since 1977.
News source(s): Food and Drug Administration, Associated Press, Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Adcetris is also the first approved drug for the treatment of the rare anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL). The article is still short but should be of sufficient length for posting once more info about approval is added from sources. Nominated without prejudice toward outcome. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article needs substantial expansion as well as updating. SpencerT♦C 04:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak Support if we are going to post oncology drugs we also have Vemurafenib which got approved this week and represents a bigger advance IMO for a disease which is much more common and lethal than Hodgkins--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

August 18Edit


HP buys AutonomyEdit

Article: Autonomy Corporation (talk, history)
Blurb: HP announces an agreement to acquire Autonomy Corporation for £7.1 billion
News source(s): [36]
Article updated
  • Support, Autonomy is the largest software company in UK such a large takeover deal does not occur everyday (even though it seems like it). YuMaNuMa (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is quite significant, as it is part of HP's strategy to move away from PC-based hardware to tablet technology. We may be seeing the end of the PC era. JimSukwutput 13:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Haha, no, the PC era is still in full-force and will continue to progress. Tablets are no competition whatsoever. Not yet, at least. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral: looks like a big deal, but I note that it only appears on my regional TV news coverage (I am in the same TV region as Autonomy's Cambridge HQ), not on national news. But if it is posted, surely the £ price is more relevant: the company is listed on the London Stock Exchange. Kevin McE (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
HP is an American company so why not use Dollars? Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Because HP is not being bought: a company listed in a UK stock market, where prices are in UK currency, is. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The big news here is that HP decided to drop the PC business, the tablet business, the handhelds, the Palm, and WebOS, the later two they bought just 2 years ago. The Autonomy acquisition announcement is only intended to sweeten the news about the total disaster in the personal devices business. Crnorizec (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
... resulting in an equally disastrous drop of their share price of almost 30% in two days... Crnorizec (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Autonomy is probably the most notable British IT company. And probably the most notable non US one other than SAP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you mad? (term of endearment not NPA) Lenovo, Wipro, Infosys, TCS, and im sure countless others.Lihaas (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
And there is ARM too. Quite a few of them are hardware, but I take the point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok this seems ready. The question is which monetary unit. Since the target article is a UK company, it make sense that pounds are used, right? RxS (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd agree with pounds. I don't think there are any relevant policies for this, but Kevin McE's reasoning for using pounds is pretty solid. JimSukwutput 04:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The deal doesn't seem to be over yet, according to many sources: [37][38] Crnorizec (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Crnorizec. The amount is decent, the companies as well, but the deal is not officially concluded yet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Attack in IsraelEdit

Article: 2011 southern Israel attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: At least six people died and dozens injured after multiple attacks on some military bases, two buses and one car and in southern Israel near the Egyptian border.
News source(s): [39]

Article updated
  • Propose new blurb: "In Southern Israel, a series of coordinated attacks by militants killed eight Israelis and wounded more than 40." Doesn't mention Palestinians as suggested by other editors. WikifanBe nice 02:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a major attack; Syria crisis is much bigger, so is the Anna Hazara-issue. Polozooza (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose ditto. Attacks with more casualties happens every other day. JimSukwutput 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • terrorist attack does not happen every day.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • sure - but there are bigger ones happening all the time. The attacks in Turkey from the PKK are not on the Main Page either, nor are the Israeli counter attacks in Gaza in which five Palestinians where killed. The attack(s) simply are not major enough. To include these and not others reaks like POV-pushing. Polozooza (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
POV-pushing? Please explain. Attacks happen all the time, but none on this scale. There is an on-going war between Turkey and the Kurds but this attack occurred independent of an actual war, rather - a minority within the Palestinian Authority launched an attack on Israeli civilians in a pre-meditated manner. More similar to the attacks in Europe or USA (which are always featured in the main page, including bomb plots.). This was not an ordinary fire-fights between soldiers and militants. So your comparison is dubious at best. WikifanBe nice 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that a minority within the PA launched the attack. Your insistence on this particular unproven claim, and the article's lack of reliable sources, are probably what Polozooza refers to as POV-pushing (in addition to the fact that this is a much smaller incident compared to, say, the roadside bomb in Afghanistan that killed 24 civilians yesterday). JimSukwutput 05:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm switching my vote to Strong Oppose in light of Wikifan's relentless POV-pushing, both in this nomination and in the article. This nomination probably wouldn't have passed anyway, and it certainly shouldn't pass now that it has been used as a political platform for some user in open violation of Wikipedia standards on reliability and neutrality. JimSukwutput 05:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What standards? What policies? Please be exact in your accusations. Relentless POV-pushing? That is a mouthful. Ever heard of No Personal Attacks?
  • Comment: BBC and other sources are reporting that Israel has begun fighting back with airstrikes in Gaza. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - series of attacks in Israel followed by retaliatory airstrikes on Gaza, I'd say this incident is of wide interest. Propose the updated blurb:
Israel performs air strikes in the Gaza Strip, following an earlier series of attacks in southern Israel. The death toll itself isn't really significant but I'd say the event is. Swarm u | t 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose What makes this any different from any other similar story in that part of the world out of probably hundreds over the past 20 years? HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Because its a widespread coordinated attack. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Reasons for oppose are absurd. This incident is unique because it is one of the first major attacks carried out directly from the Gaza Strip into Israel. The coordination between the Palestinian movements was unlike any other seen in the last several years. The death toll is totally irrelevant and quite honestly rather offensive editors would cite that as a reason for dismal. The idea that more dead bodies = more relevance is absurd. The notability is what counts, and this event is receiving huge recognition - including from the United Nations. This is definitely more notable than the winner of a Golf Tour which is on the main page. Get on this quickly admins. I would change the blurb though, something like "A series of coordinated attacks by Palestinian militants killed seven Israelis and wounded more than 30 in southern Israel." WikifanBe nice 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • What reliable sources are saying that the militants were Palestinian, as opposed to, say, Egyptian? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is an RS from the article. Editors shouldn't comment here until they read the actual wikipedia article. WikifanBe nice 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
And which part of the news article supports the claim? All I see is that the Israeli government thinks the attackers were Palestinian. I'm sorry but we don't parrot the views of the Israeli government as reliable around here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Like I said, read the article.

As an admin you should understand the importance of assuming good faith and not infer editors who cite verifiable sources as "parroting the views of the israeli government." Israeli army engaged in an open fire fight with Palestinian militants. Israel is just as reliable as NATO/USA/Canada and reliable sources routinely accept their claims as evidence. And in any case the blurb does not mention Palestinians. WikifanBe nice 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your suggested blurb reads "Palestinian militants". No reliable sources appear to me to be reporting as such. If we move outside Israeli borders, everyone, even Fox News, seems to be steering well clear of attributing responsibility, as they (and we) should in the case of a serious crime. You, on the other hand, are reporting the views of Israeli government sources as fact. Until those views are accepted by independent sources as correct, it is improper to report them as fact. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Jerusalem Post is an RS. I'm merely citing the journalism done by reliable sources. You are suggesting there is an absence of evidence when the burden of proof is well defined. If it suits you the blurb could be changed to "gunman" or "militants. [The LA times says the militants were dressed in Egyptian military uniform but Egypt denies any role. All verifiable sources point to Palestinian role. WikifanBe nice 19:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Substitute "all" for "none" and you've got in one. BBC, AFP, LA Times, FOX News -- none are putting their hands up and attributing the attacks to Palestinians. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no on-going dispute over who perpetrator this attack. No sources suggest anyone other than Palestinians committed these acts. Israel’s response to the terror attacks from the Sinai Peninsula came swiftly Thursday evening when the Israel Air Force bombed the southern Gaza Strip, killing the leadership of the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), who had orchestrated the attacks. this complaint is thus trivial. WikifanBe nice 20:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, the Jerusalem Post doesn't take precedence over unanimous reliable international sources when it comes to the main page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for what? the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Those "international sources" you cite do not support your claims that there is some conflict about who committed these acts. Most of these organizations rely on general newswires anyway and "parrot" other news organization. The problem with these "international sources" is they are slow to pick up information while Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (both RSs) are more likely to update news as it arrives. And like I said before, the blurb doesn't have to say "Palestinian." If this act was not committed by Palestinians as you infer it would make it even more notable. Right now we are arguing from a lightening rod. Editors who have entered "oppose" failed to provide proof to support their opposition other than their own opinions. WikifanBe nice 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Sorry, I still can't get out of my head the view that this is just another of many conflicts based on Israel's artificial borders. That some simply say it is important just suggests to me that they have a particular interest in this area, thus making it POV. How about you look down the page to something you have no interest in, like the NZ storms, and give it some thought, rather than just concentrating on your favourite country and only pushing item for that area? HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No reason not to post both. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you strike your above comment. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The notability of this event is well established. Accusing editors of "POV-pushing" without a shred of evidence is upsetting, especially considering the restrictive nature of ARBPIA. The only editors who are making it their "POV" are those who automatically reject events in Israel simply because they involve Israel. WikifanBe nice 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Pushing for (self) censorship is one of the classic tactics of pro-Israeli debaters. ALL military events are upsetting matters for those with personal interest, but we don't post most of them. And what the heck is ARPBIA? That you use insider jargon proves your particular and probably insular interest, and hence probable POV position on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is ARBPIA. I really don't understand the merits of your comments. Are you suggesting there is some sort of shake down going on here? This is a notable event, established by verifiable sources, and the only arguable dispute is whether or not the perpetrators were Palestinian which is irrelevant as far as whether the event is notable enough to be featured. Your "complaints" consist attacking other editors and assuming bad faith. Try reading the article maybe? Reactionary editing and ones' opinion becoming part of an editing philosophy is precisely why ARBPIA exists. WikifanBe nice 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't think you have understood my comments at all. You are looking for POV in my posts, where none exists. I shall surrender now to the common bullying that occurs on these topics. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd support this ordinarily, but the article uses right-wing Israeli sources almost exclusively. This manifests itself in the article's unquestioning support of the Israeli government position that the people killed by Israel after the attacks were the "perpretrators" of the attacks. As I said above, international sources are not taking that link for granted. I'm not confident that this article is either neutral or accurate. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
"Right-wing Israeli sources." Please explain. The above oppose appears to be a nice blurb of SOAP. This isn't a forum to spread your views of the Israeli government. WikifanBe nice 21:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. 2/3 of the references are mainstream Israeli news sources, the other 1/3 are international. Mainstream news sources generally lean right or left, that certainly doesn't mean they're unreliable. Swarm u | t 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the inference? That Israeli news sources are inferior to non-Israeli sources? Uh? WikifanBe nice 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
When its a matter involving Palestine they are hardly neutral. Just like you wouldn't trust the Japanese media with something that might be critical of Japan. Or to give an example closer to this event I presume you wouldn't be happy to take the word of Al Jazeera at face value - even though clearly they are a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. Jerusalem Post is a certified RS. Are we not going to trust American news sources that involve Al Qaeda because the US military is busy bombing Al Qaeda hideouts? AJ is an RS (unfortunately IMHO) so they are to be trusted as any other source. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, not truthiness. If a known RS happens to be biased well that's not our problem to deal with. Any complaints should be deferred to RSN. Beyond that it's just editor conjecture. WikifanBe nice 22:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
To maintain neutrality we have to give due weight to the different sources. If only Israeli sources are making a claim and international sources are avoiding it, then we shouldn't be making it on the front page. If we're going to follow Al Jazeera's line for example then we wouldn't be posting this at all and would be posting Israel's retaliation instead. Reliable sources must be balanced against each other. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
To give a recent example where US sources were probably bias I wouldn't take the word of CNN over the US downgrade at face value - especially if international sources were holding off on a claim. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
You can be as principled as you want, but I doubt too many people are going to be willing to post an article with such a lack of diversity of sources, especially when the topic is related to Israel vs. the Arab world, and especially when those sources are from one of those two areas. -- tariqabjotu 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't understand. This isn't about principals - but policy. A reliable source is a reliable source. Less than half of the sources are from Israeli, and many of the Israeli sources like this one is a re-broadcast of Reuters. News is news, it is totally bigoted to say one source is unreliable because of its place of origin. If editors are making contributions based on that philosophy then something dramatic needs to happen to reverse those kinds of thoughts from infecting edits. The only reason Israeli sources made up most of the citations (when this was proposed) was because the event happened in Israel. When shootings happen in the US (such as ft hood - which made the main page), domestic media catches on quickly while media in other nations take a bit longer. Same goes for the incident in Norway where European media caught on more quickly than US. But it doesn't matter - an RS is an RS. Then again I kind of understand this mentality considering Golf and some Indian guy not leaving his jail cell is considered more worthy of feature-status than this. WikifanBe nice 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
No, about 60% percent of the sources are Israeli. As of now. Right now. As of 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 23:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Tangential to this topic, but some media outlets are excellent sources for football results, but very dangerous on sensitive political matters, so yes, it's quite valid to judge a source's impartiality in relation to a particular topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is absurd. A reliable source is a reliable source. Its place of origin is irrelevant in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. Most editors should know this and an admin heavily involved in the editing topic area should know this. There are currently 41 refs as of this edit - 25 sources are Israeli. Of those 25, 3 are re-directs or mixtures of foreign media. So roughly half the sources are 100% Israeli news. The four or five Israeli cites that quote US/German/UN officials can probably be found in American newspapers. Anyways, this complaint is trivial (and probably bigoted) and still doesn't provide a reasonable excuse why this event is not notable enough to be featured. WikifanBe nice 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, if your aim is to make a point about Israel/Israeli sources, okay, but that's not going to get the item on the Main Page any faster. If all the content can be found elsewhere, why don't you just get it from elsewhere? -- tariqabjotu 00:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, what is the problem with Israeli newspapers? Seriously? No one here has provide a shred of proof to suggest these sources are somehow inferior to other newspapers. Please be explicit. What exactly is so sinister about the Jerusalem Post? What Wikipedia policy supports the above philosophy? WikifanBe nice 02:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense that newspapers of a particular nation are going to be more favorable to their own nation in their coverage. Reliability on Wikipedia is not defined equally in every context; in sensitive political events, we need a higher standard of reliability. If the Israeli newspapers' reporting on this event are perfectly reliable and neutral, why can't you find any international source to back it up? Let me remind you that press freedom in Israel is one of the worst in developed countries, according to Reporters Without Borders.
(edit) In addition, not even your "reliable sources" back up the claims that you are making, here or in the article. Your source claims that a leader of the PRC was killed in a retaliatory attack. You then inferred that the PRC was responsible for the initial attacks. That is completely original research. That's not even what the Israeli government is claiming, and in no way is the Israeli government a reliable source. JimSukwutput 05:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about common sense, but verifiability. WE as editors don't get to decide what is reality, this isn't a blog or a forum. And why do you put "reliable sources" in quotation? What sources do you question exactly? The issue of whether or not these attacks were committed by Palestinians is really a trivial issue of whether this should be a featured story.
  • All sources have pointed fingers at Popular Resistance Committee, and none have denied it - other than the PRC and Hamas themselves. I really don't understand your complaints here, are you suggesting Israeli sources are inferior to European or American news? Plenty of international cites are in the actual article, assuming you read it - which I sincerely doubt considering your puzzling claims here. If you have a problem with specific sources take it up at RSN noticeboard. But right now your criticisms border on bigotry, not policy.
  • Reasons for support are solid and right now have yet to be challenged. Oppose revolves around A) Dislike of Israeli sources (even though article contains a diversity of sources at the moment) B) Opposition to the belief that Palestinians were behind this attack, which is irrelevant to whether or not this incident deserves to be featured. So more challenges?
  • And this manic obsession over Israeli sources compromising reliability (I guess that's the inference right), need I remind everyone here that the #1 featured story on Wikipedia Anna Hazare agrees to leave his jail cell is backed by over 50% citations from the nation in which the featured story is taking place - India. And India's press freedom is rated 36 places behind Israel. Not that RWB is an RS. Double standards much? I didn't see any complaints during that article's proposal. In other news, It seems the conflict in Israel has mutated to even greater proporations - 1 and 2. And before you write off the sources because they happen to come from an Israeli newspaper - though internationally published - check the byline. Notice the REUTERS signature? Do you see it? Honestly, the reasons for opposition are underwhelming at best and not grounded in policy. And now that we know even more about the story, it is time a third party needs weighs in here, look at the facts. Precedents have been set and it is time this event gets featured. Assuming it is featured, the blurb of course needs a serious, serious rewrite. I wrote a short proposal above if anyone wants to take a look. I'm sure others more experienced in this area of wikipedia can think of something more balanced. WikifanBe nice 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this long tirade. Let me just point out that, as countless other users have mentioned, your source does not claim that the PRC was responsible; it claims that the Prime Minister of Israel made this particular claim, but that PRC had denied involvement. The rest was what you inferred from your sources. What I don't get is why you would spend hours writing up long angry responses accusing numerous other users of bigotry (i.e. anti-Semitism) and ignorance when the complaint is so simple and obvious. If you have a source that says PRC was responsible, rather than saying that the PM of Israel claims that they are responsible, then mention it. If you don't, then your claim is unsubstantiated. Your continual refusal to acknowledge this problem - as well as your misleading comments about the actual content of your sources - raise serious doubts about your honesty. To be frank, I was considering a switch to support, now that the deeper significance of the attacks is more obvious. But your POV-pushing in the article is making any such support impossible. I strongly suggest that you move away from the article and let other users clean up the POV mess you left behind. There is no way that this nomination is going to succeed otherwise. JimSukwutput 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Like I said before, please explain this "POV-pushing." The article is solid at the moment, if you think I have violated any policies please be more explicit. And as far as whether or not the attack was committed by Palestinians is irrelevant. Your beef with excessive Israeli sources has been responded to (no challenge yet), your claim that Palestinians may not have done this has been responded to (the article does not say, "PRC is responsible, end of story), the reference to Reporters Without Borders was exposed as dubious because a current featured article relies on a majority of Hindu cites and that story isn't get half the international press this one is. So other "POV-pushing" and attacking me as an editor, start focusing on the article. Perhaps someone here should re-file an ITN if that is possible, with a better blurb? WikifanBe nice 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I said earlier that I surrendered to the bullies here. I will just make this observation. In truth, Wikimedia's ban on POV pushing should effectively prevent us ever discussing an event involving Israel. Many of you, on both sides but particularly Israel's, simply cannot help yourselves. I know you can write millions of words on this, thinking you can justify this based on past persecutions, etc, but it's still POV. Please note that I am no longer commenting on this event (I HAVE given up on that), but on the style and quality of discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the posting of this as its a coordinated attack and appears to be significant. Oppose any mention of Palestinians in the blurb as its unclear whether they were involved - the BBC don't directly link it. Even Sky haven't linked it as more than the word of the Israelis, and they give nearly equal weight to Hamas' denial of involvement and they are usually pretty happy to jump on news quickly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's a tense part of the world, just the sort of thing our readers will be looking for. Articles in good shape. I don't understand the ref problem, a large amount of Israeli sources for a Israeli story? I'm not seeing the problem, though I agree with Eraserhead1 about not naming Palestinians unless it's a lot more clear who's guilty. RxS (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing of great significance here. It's just another round of battles and skirmishes in the perpetual war between Arabs and Israelis almost since the beginning of time. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment' The article seems problematic for NPOV, with 57 "reference" links of which 25 are to the right-wing Jerusalem Post. The Post stories seem to back 100% the Israeli government position that these attacks are a useful justification to bomb Palestinians. If this is an international news story worthy to be featured on the Main Page, the article pointed to should be based on NPOV international news sources. Sharktopus talk 21:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Its important to recognise that a lot of people have significant issues with the way the Israeli government behaves with regards to these events - and even if you don't agree with that POV if you want to post stories like this you do have to respect their opinions. Overall I really don't think it should be that difficult to switch out the Israeli references and replace them with more neutral international sources - its not as if there's a massive shortage of coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment In the retaliation attack on Gaza, six people where killed (among them a child). This retaliation attack does not have an article of it's own, let alone that it would ever be mentioned on the Main Page. Then why mention this attack and not the second one? In the recent Afghan bombing, over twenty innocent people where killed. In a mosque in Pakistan, six people died and on a Belgian pop festival, three people where killed. We simply cannot include all these events on the Main Page, and I see no reason why this particular attack should be. I could write an article on the August 2011 Gaza Airstrike but it probably would be deleted, let alone that it would even be considered for the In The News section. Polozooza (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from creating other articles. As far as bombings go in Pakistan/Afghanistan, I'm not an expert but that is not a sufficient reason to deny this story a platform. Lest we forget foiled bomb plots, terrorist attacks in Norway, and a whole load of other incidents have been featured with a fraction of the excessive outrage here. Body count is irrelevant. The fact is these events mark a huge change in the Israeli-Arab war, and is not just another "incident" as we see weekly in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Also, at least according to the article, Israel targeted the homes of the PRC, killing the leaders. The son (child) who happened to be in the same building was also killed, this is in the article and is part of the event. Editors need to actually read the article before commenting here. Sources should not be an issue because the India story relies more than 50% on Hindu-based news sites, and Indian media is ranked 30+ places behind Israel. So that clearly wasn't an issue. In this article, all the refs are an RS. Editors who think there is a problem with a specific source, go to the top of the article and click on "discussion" and open up a new section. WikifanBe nice 23:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that an article about Israel's retaliatory strike is likely to be deleted if created. More likely that it will be merged to this one as being undoubtedly linked, as Israel has called it 'retaliation'. So I feel a section about it would be perfectly valid. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
However, we are under no obligation to follow the Israeli government's narrative in this incident. Almost all attacks like this, whether by the government or by terrorists, are "retaliatory" in some way. I'm pretty sure a lot of Islamic terrorists regard their attacks as "retaliation" for some past incident with the West. Besides, in this case there is no evidence that the PRC was actually responsible - for all we know, the Israeli government may be using the attacks as an opportunity to eliminate the PRC leadership, which is not something that they haven't done before. So I don't think it's obvious that the Israeli government's attacks should somehow take up a section within the article. There is no reason why retaliation by the government is somehow more "legitimate" than retaliation by the terrorists, and in any case the claim that it is a retaliation is very much in dispute. JimSukwutput 05:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh? Jim, check yourself here - no SOAPING. Unless an RS draws a moral equivalence between Gaza attacks and Israel's response such rhetoric doesn't belong here. Anyways, I think the "air raids" articles was a complete fork and certainly belong in the main page. IT didn't have the correct template. This makes no sense at all. We never create forks about America/NATO/British response to attacks/terrorism, not only on their home country, but in on-going operations. That is POV-pushing Jim. The air raid article needs to go. WikifanBe nice 21:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no WP:SOAPING in my comments. I simply said that the Israeli government and Hamas have differing claims about what happened and it makes no sense to assume that either side is correct. That is NPOV, the core of Wikipedia's principles. Your tirades about "moral equivalence" is exactly what is at fault here. At Wikipedia, we do not judge whichever side has the higher moral ground. I find it utterly incomprehensible that you would accuse me of POV-pushing right after calling me an anti-Semite for expressing the simple opinion that it is not our responsibility to take a particular side in a conflict. JimSukwutput 08:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
"I'm pretty sure a lot of Islamic terrorists regard their attacks as "retaliation" for some past incident with the West. Besides, in this case there is no evidence that the PRC was actually responsible - for all we know, the Israeli government may be using the attacks as an opportunity to eliminate the PRC leadership, which is not something that they haven't done before." = SOAP. Where did I call you an antisemite? WikifanBe nice 11:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't a political opinion, that was a statement of several very relevant historical facts. Frankly, if you regard the statement of historical facts as SOAP, you really shouldn't be accusing others of pushing a particular POV. Have I said on which "side" of the conflict I stand? No. And let me just say - to satisfy your curiosity - that I'd consider myself to be on the "Israeli side" a lot more than on the "Palestinian side". But that is irrelevant. If you actually wish to enter a discussion about my personal opinions, you could do so by privately contacting me; here I do not let my personal political opinions get in the way of reality, even if reality seem to support the ideology of another "side". Your obsession with classifying every user based on "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" POV is exactly the problem here. I know at least one other user here who is very much a supporter of the Israeli state, but you treated him as a "pro-Palestinian" simply because he disagreed with you on some specific (and pretty irrelevant) point, then proceeded to accuse him of anti-Israel bigotry. That is simply unacceptable behavior. You're not blatantly breaking any rule, but you are pushing a not-so-subtly concealed political agenda and insulting a lot of well-meaning contributors in the process. JimSukwutput 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Lol what? I have not classified any users of being "pro-Palestinian" or "pro-Israel." Stop making stuff up. WikifanBe nice 02:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SyriaEdit

Article: Timeline of the 2011 Syrian uprising#August (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Syria says that its usage of military force against protesters has stopped, according to the United Nations.
News source(s): BBC, CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: As far as I can see, not yet updated, but this seems a fairly significant development. As we can't be sure as to the veracity of the claims, we should attribute this claim to the United Nations (as per BBC and CNN). Strange Passerby (talkcont) 04:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't work "Syria says it has" into that without it sounding awkward. In other news, the U.S. is ready to announce sanctions on Assad [40]. Marcus Qwertyus 09:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Without even clicking on the CNN video, I can see from the still frame the subheadline "activists argue snipers still active". Also, it just seems like common sense that we might not want to simply rely on the Syrian president's word. Great news, but I don't think we should post until this has been independently confirmed. Swarm u | t 17:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • And today, news headline say that they killed 10 people after opening fire on tens of thousands. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

August 17Edit


Protanguilla palauEdit

Article: Protanguilla (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The eel Protanguilla palau, the only known member of its family, is discovered off the coast of Palau.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14547942

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Discovery of a new 'living fossil', possibly the blurb could mention this too. JMiall 12:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Not a huge deal, but it's something. The article needs a little pumping up I think. But work the term living fossil into the blurb and people will look. Not really how we should be choosing text but shrug. RxS (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, living fossils are interesting. Thue | talk 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Support, definitely an interesting piece of news, very nice science story too. The kind of thing that should really be ITNR. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 04:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I support this, but not with the article in the shape it's in. It needs a good bit of work before it's ready. RxS (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Try asking the article's WikiProject for help. That's how the Polycotylus stub became a post-worthy news item. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Not ready, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu 22:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

August 16Edit


Asmaa MahfouzEdit

Article: Asmaa Mahfouz#January 2011 uprising in Egypt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Egyptian activist Asmaa Mahfouz is charged with inciting violence in series of arrests of activists done by the SCAF.
News source(s): (Al-Ahram) (Almasry Alyoum) (Associated Press) (Washington Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: If the article is not good enough, we can use this Timeline_of_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution_under_Supreme_Council_of_the_Armed_Forces#August or this Human_rights_in_Egypt_under_the_Supreme_Council_of_the_Armed_Forces#Military_trials The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Support: As nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

She has only been charged, not convicted. In addition, the update is currently very short. SpencerT♦C 01:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: This is an important development in SCAF's attitude towards democracy activists, signaling increasing intolerance towards their actions. --Sherif9282 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we generally post convictions, but not charges. Swarm u | t 02:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Not updated. Article has orange tags. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Anna Hazare detainedEdit

Article: 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement#August protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Indian social activist Anna Hazare and more than 1,500 supporters are arrested in Delhi prior to beginning a hunger strike against corruption.
News source(s): BBC News, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times of India special coverage

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Currently making headlines throughout South Asia. Nominated without prejudice toward outcome. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong Support: Was going to nominate this, but will settle for the credit for updating. :P. Anyways, I will change the blurb, adding info, should be [Ready] (if has gained sufficient consensus) in 30 minutes. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Changed blurb. A whole section of article has been updated with refs. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Issue seems to have fizzled out now, as he is all set to be released. Lynch7 15:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm...maybe not...since Anna has refused to come out of jail as I write! :D Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but wait for more developments so we can properly formulate a blurb. Looks like this is going to get bigger than a few thousand arrests. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support: Anna Hazare refused to come out of Tihar jail until the government agrees for an unconditional permission to hold protests at JP Park. And the page has like a ton of info regarding this. Its a major twist in the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Any other comments here? The story seems to be continuing and we're behind. I'm thinking about posting if there are no objections. The blurb needs a little editing, maybe to reflect that he's refusing to leave jail. RxS (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Well updated article on an interesting subject. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons mentioned above. JimSukwutput 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Hazare is a high-profile person. Thue | talk 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Article updated massively. And we have had content on the front page for 9 days. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Posted RxS (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on these developments, this story is going to need a quick update: Indian social activist Anna Hazare is released from jail after Delhi police allowed a 15-day hunger strike against corruption. Or something to that effect. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Updated, feel free to tweak. RxS (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
He was released long ago. He just chose to go out today! This should be corrected soon; posting on Errors too. Lynch7 04:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

August 15Edit


[Posted] Google to acquire Motorola MobilityEdit

Article: Google#Acquisitions and partnerships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Google announces its acquisition of Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion.

Nominator's comments: Usually I'm against posting the every acquisition and partnership, but this seems to be a huge one and it's already in the final phase as announced. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. I was just about to oppose this on the grounds of a $12.5 million acquisition being pretty small in the grand scheme of things. But then I had a look at the article and the references. Apparently the takeover cost $12.5 billion, which is obviously much more significant. You will probably want to rectify this in your proposed blurb (also no space required between the "$" and "12.5"). Jenks24 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    You're right. It costs billions. Thanks for the remark.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. $12 billion is a lot of money. The mobile marked is very important, and this a major shift inside that marked. Thue | talk 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's the patent war to end all wars. Marcus Qwertyus 14:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Probably Google's response to losing the auction for Nortel patents last month; both part of an ongoing war. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons listed above. This is a minority topic too. JimSukwutput 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support $12 billon is a lot of money. Article is updated. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: we've posted Microsoft's $8.5 billion acquisition of Skype, and this seems more important given the price tag. DHN (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Marking ready according to consensus and well-referenced update. We are almost 2 days overdue for a new item. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted RxS (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand winter stormEdit

This seems like a potential ITN story, if we have a legit article. Heaviest snowfalls in over 30 years and major disruption seems highly notable. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 09:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. If someone writes a decent article on this then I would probably support. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Once a decent article is created. We have a terrible bias against our English Speakers in the southern Hemisphere. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the news report I saw this yesterday evening about the storm, it is pretty insignificant. Heaviest snow in cities in only a decade according to the report seen this morning, presuming details haven't changed as the provided article is from yesterday. Disruptions always occur because of weather events even if its just monthly strong windy day, doesn't justify for wiki ITN. Will reconsider my position on the issue if it worsens but so far its just the occasional snow. YuMaNuMa (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • A report in today's Straits Times, based off an AFP report, says that snow was reported in Auckland for the first time in 80 years. That's vastly different from what you're claiming. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
      • In that case, I will add support when an article is written or updated and we nothing is posted up and the ITN candidate page gets that red notification. In my opinion, it's just a rare event and nothing more, no serious death or accident occur as a subsequent result of the snow storm, a few car crashes and flight delays are expected. (I might be a bit bias and jealous that it never snows in Sydney:( ) YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Rare things happen all the time. They become important if there is some factor behind them, such as climate change. But right now this seems like a mere geographical anomaly. JimSukwutput 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? The very fact that it's rare means it doesn't "happen all the time" and is notable. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
      • No. The idea is that things that seem rare in a particular context actually happen pretty frequently. Think about the number of "rare coincidences" that you encounter all the time. It's a common cognitive bias. JimSukwutput 02:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • They have weather records that can point to something being objectively rare, and this is one of those times. This isn't a case of one of us thinking, wow I haven't see this much snow in a long time and as such isn't a case of any bias. RxS (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
          • No, the bias you're talking about is one in which people underestimate the probability of something rare happening. The bias I'm talking about is one in which people tend to focus on events that are rare (objectively) in a particular context. For example, people find it fascinating that long strings of heads or tails often form when a die is thrown 100 times. They know that the probability of such a string happening on its own is very low. But what they don't realize is that a lot of similar strings can happen in such a trial, so that the probability of one of many rare events happening is not so rare. JimSukwutput 07:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Sorry, that's nonsensical. Even if I accept your twist on rare being not rare, a long enough string of heads would be notable in itself. A 50 year snow storm (string of tails) is rare, even if 50 year snow storms happen every 50 years (a long trial). The fact that they do happen every 50 years is rare even though it's expected. RxS (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
              • You're not comprehending my comment. Read it again.
              • Let me give you a numerical example. The probability of getting six heads in a row with six throws is around 1.5%. The probability of getting at least one run of six heads in a row with 100 throws is around 54%. I'll spare you the math, but you get the general idea. Events that seem rare in a particular context are often not so rare when seen in a more general context. JimSukwutput 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
                • No, I got it. It just doesn't make any sense and isn't relevant to this topic. The context here is New Zealand, the event is snow. It hasn't snowed this much in over half a century. No math involved. End of story. RxS (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It snowed at sea level at Dargaville. That's closer to the equator than Bermagui, on Australia's east coast, where nobody would dream of it snowing. Also, closer to the equator than Santa Cruz, California, and all of Europe! HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support snow is very unusual in that place.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • So basically, it snowed at a place that's roughly analogous to the California-Mexico border but on the other side of the Equator? I'm not seeing how that's terribly notable. NW (Talk) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I wonder if we would hesitate to post a one in 50 year Arctic blast that caused roads, schools and airports to close and cut power to thousands of homes if it took place in southern California. I'm inclined to think we wouldn't (hesitate). Swarm u | t 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is definitely a place of the loudest and most numerous voices at times. NZ is a small country, properly still recovering from these storms. (Hard to post when your power's off and you're outside cleaning up.) Most of the northern hemisphere masses simply haven't been affected. But it's still big news in an objective sense. We really need a better way of doing this. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Support seems a perfectly notable set of storms that have done large amounts of damage to New Zealand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Until there is an article on the storms, the !votes are moot because no assessment can be made on the sources. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per my above comment and HiLo. Swarm u | t 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Darkest known planetEdit

Article: TrES-2b (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers determine TrES-2b to be the darkest known planet, reflecting less than 1% of sunlight it receives.
News source(s): [41], [42], [43]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This news seems to be a couple three days old, but given that it seems to be a slow news day and given that it still seems to be picking up quite a bit of mention (per [44]), I figure I might as well put this up for discussion. I marked it as a minority topic since I don't recall seeing that many astronomy stories on ITN normally, but if it doesn't qualify then feel free to change that. Ks0stm (TCG) 08:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • No comment about the merit of this particular item, but astrologyastronomy is not defined as a minority topic. JimSukwutput 08:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You meant astronomy, I hope (just double checking)? I would actually be quite amused if I ever got the chance to nominate an astrology item. =P Ks0stm (TCG) 08:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, stupid mistake of mine. JimSukwutput 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not an astronomer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but "sunlight" doesn't seem correct in this context. Surely "sunlight" implies light from the Sun, yet what I gather from the article is that it reflects less than 1% of the light that hits it from it's own star, no? So it should really be "starlight", but if that sounds off (or is incorrect) surely using simply "light" would be fine? Aside from that, an interesting topic and I would lean towards supporting. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this "degree of reflectivity" something that is standardly calculated and recorded? Will there have been another planet that scientists agreed was the darkest before this discovery? How often has this record been transferred? If the answers are "yes", "yes" and "on average, at least two years between surpassings", I would support: if not, I would oppose as there seems to be a danger of scientists seeking to popularise their findings by tarting up "this is a particularly dark planet" as "its a record!!!" Kevin McE (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Sould be "least reflective" as being a far better indication of its actual attribute. A planet far from a star may be "darker" in the sense of lumens/sq.m. for sure. Meanwhile, with so few such planets having been so measured, isn't it a tad overreaching to assert it s "major news"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The correct term is actually albedo and I don't see why we should skirt around using it - that is what hyperlinks are for, particularly since we can give some clue as to its meaning in context. 1%, (or 0.01 on the standard scale) is very dark - for context coal is frequently quoted as reflecting around 10%. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose. It has a low albedo. So what? It's actually pretty rare for this to be measurable for an exoplanet, and yes that is a surprisingly low value. But really, I don't see why this is particularly exciting news, or any kind of research breakthrough (and I'm an astronomer myself). Modest Genius talk 16:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - It's an interesting discovery. Not a major scientific breakthrough but I don't think it needs to be, especially because ITN is so slow. Swarm u | t 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. It's interesting but not quite on the level we need for ITN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Content has been sitting on the front page for 9 days - this isn't remotely acceptable by any reasonable standard. Marking [Ready] as the update looks decent enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Nice consensus... post-post opposing for this insignificant discovery. The darkest of 573 exoplanets found to date? So what? There are trillions more where those came from, and you can be absolutely certain that we will find darker ones. I refrained from initially commenting because I knew this would not go up. Funny how badly I was wrong. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
More like the darkest out of the half a dozen or so that have actually had their albedos measured. The very first measurement of an exoplanet albedo was in 2009 [45] <shrug> Modest Genius talk 01:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL point 4. ITN was very stale, so Tariq decided to be bold. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Point 4 of WP:CRYSTAL applies very vaguely here. I think it was targeted for more general scientific theories and hypotheses prone to being thumped. Not for these "records". By the way, the Hazare blurb was a better pick (and it was posted before this), and all of the other additions Tariq made to ITN (death of Kapoor and PGA championship winner) were perfectly viable options as well. So, "stale" isn't really an excuse for this nomination. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Eric. While you're more than entitled to your opinion, the best advice I can give is not to get emotional over ITN postings you don't agree with. In the grand scheme of the world, Wikipedia ITN postings are a trivial, utterly insignificant thing. Everything that gets posted will be gone in just a few days anyway. Just relax. Swarm u | t 02:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but would you be so kind as to retract that statement? No one is getting emotional here (and I've re-read my comments... I really don't see where I am perceived to have gotten "emotional"), and I don't think I needed you to remind me of the insignificance of this section (ITN is a fun hobby of mine, but it's just that... a hobby). Am I not allowed to contest, with valid arguments, a posting that had no consensus? Why not? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if I pegged you wrong, your comments just read as emotionally charged to me. Swarm u | t 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AP1000Edit

The the first new generation nuclear reactor to receive the approval of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Considering all of the counter-nuclear movements that have been happening recently, this is an important step forward for nuclear energy. 76.119.237.18 (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Positive news about nuclear power are rare here. GreyHood Talk 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems to be a significant technological breakthrough, from my limited understanding of what the media is saying. JimSukwutput 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. China is actually ahead. They've started building the first AP1000 station, although its approval was before the Fukushima events. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - agree with Grey and Jim. Swarm u | t 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the suggested blurb?
The first new generation nuclear reactor receives the approval of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I'm not crazy about that, any suggestions? RxS (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe The first Generation III+ nuclear reactor design receives approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission? C628 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to lean toward an oppose for now pending further developments. According to The New York Times, the NRC completed an evaluation stating that the Westinghouse AP1000's safety and energy designs met federal requirements. A formal hearing and construction approval process will take place at the end of the year. According to BusinessWeek, the new plant rules would be published in Federal Register in January at the earliest. "The reactor design would be considered formally approved once those rules have been published for 30 days." With regards to notability, the AP1000 article states that this would be the first nuclear power plant project license since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident (confirmed in the attributed source). —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • As am I. According to an industry source, this is the "Final Safety Evaluation Report," which isn't the same as final approval; "now the amended design moves into the final rulemaking stage for granting of Design Certification." Presumably the design certification is the last word on the matter. C628 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose NRC comment on a new design is not really notable. The article linked in the section header makes pretty clear this is not truly a new design either as couple of these are being built now in China. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

August 14Edit


[Posted] Shammi Kapoor diesEdit

Article: Shammi Kapoor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Legendary Indian actor, Shammi Kapoor dies at the age of 79

Article needs updating

 --Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support One of the finest actors starring in films of the largest film industry in the world should be automatically significant. And another thing is that India is well underrepresented in the ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More properly belongs at Recent deaths. The article is largely uncited and is not at the quality that I would expect for posting the death of someone who had largely been out of the public's eye in recent years. NW (Talk) 19:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Multiple lifetime achievement awards. There is no doubt that an actor of similar stature (or a fraction of the stature) in the second biggest film industry in the world would be posted. Featured in BBC television broadcasts this morning, still 2nd most shared story several hours later. Kevin McE (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support iconic bollywood actor.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Old age death from natural causes → recent deaths. Swarm u | t 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
more than 80% of deaths we post here are due to old age... that rule is beyond useless and almost never followed. He was an icon. Support -- Ashish-g55 04:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Swarm. It is not a rule and it is not useless. Death from natural causes are often expected (for months if not years) and hence are not newsworthy. JimSukwutput 04:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
ok... do u want me to go back and pull out the old deaths we have posted over past years? Just to prove a point here are some from last month.
- Jack Kevorkian, an assisted suicide activist, physician, and convicted murderer, dies at the age of 83.
- Indian painter M. F. Husain dies in London at the age of 96.
- Actor Peter Falk, best known for playing the detective Columbo, dies aged 83.
need more? that is just july... or want me to look for even older people? Ironically he was youngest of them all. Age can not possibly be the issue here. The man was one of the most famous bollywood actors of all time. -- Ashish-g55 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
But those are all extremely significant people. Obviously some natural deaths are significant, just that most aren't. Compare the pageviews that Kapoor has been getting for the last few weeks (500-900 per day) and those that Jack Kevorkian has been getting before his death in June (2000-3000 per day). JimSukwutput 06:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but suggesting that Peter Falk was a more significant actor than Kapoor is systemic bias in the extreme. Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
all opposes here were for him being old. i just showed that we clearly dont care about that. Now suddenly the examples i gave are of extremely significant people... as i said those were only from month ago. And IMHO none of them are as significant as Kapoor but i didnt make that comparison before on purpose because i didnt wanna go into that debate. i agree with Kevin above. -- Ashish-g55 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Ashishg55, I'm hesitant to put words into anyone's mouth, but if I recall correctly you've stated that you feel the bar for deaths has been lowered too much in recent years (please correct me if I'm wrong), which I would agree with. I don't think we would be bound by precedents of posting Peter Falk (or Leslie Nielsen to give another example).--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree, the fact that systematic bias has caused us to post deaths we shouldn't have in the past is not a legitimate reason to post this. Swarm u | t 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
there are 2 ways to fight systemic bias... either post less or post more of other kind. I just dont like the fact that neither approaches are working. Since the other kinds get opposed and yet we have a influx of systemic biased items that keep going through. I dont like deaths on ITN which has already been mentioned but comparatively this seemed more important than others...either way i think its too late now. -- Ashish-g55 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll strike my oppose. While I wouldn't have supported posting the other deaths either, I will admit that I do not know enough about this particular actor's significance, and I don't want to play a part in any systemic bias on ITN if there is any. JimSukwutput 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Very notable actor in his days, deserves to go on ITN. Lynch7 12:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The update is too short. And before we start counting references and sentences, it should say something more than 'he died'. As to the nomination's notability, he appears to be a highly notable actor. I do feel that we've been posting too many notable actors' deaths recently, so I'm unsure.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You are quite correct. I am usually first one to oppose most deaths since as you know i feel like we post too many. The bar now is lower than ever... But i just could not agree with the old age opposes since we post way too many of those and this one seemed more significant than normal -- Ashish-g55 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 PGA ChampionshipEdit

Article: Keegan Bradley (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Keegan Bradley wins the 2011 PGA Championship.

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, though redundant because of ITNR. However, unless the tournament article gets expanded significantly with prose, the update will have to be made at the winner's article, whichever it is. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • None of the articles are really ready at the moment (apart from the obvious fact that the event isn't over yet). Hopefully they'll be updated. RxS (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of article depth. The nomination states that without a major prose update to the tournament article, the player's article will be used instead. Dufner currently has a two-shot lead, and his relatively brief article has only one inline citation. Even taking into account the general refs, nothing he did before 2007 is sourced in any way. —WFCTFL notices 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support due the the oppose being satisfied now that the event and requisite article is now fully updated. It is ready!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The prose at the PGA article remains unreferenced. Keegan Bradley would be a better target article at this point. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Then, go with it!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Even that has only one reference for the updated element. That is not usually enough. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC).
Support Keegan Bradley looks OK now--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 14:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support article looks sufficient to post, now. Swarm u | t 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

August 13Edit


Creation of aid force in SomaliaEdit

Article: 2011 Horn of Africa famine (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Prime Minister of Somalia, Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, announces the creation of a special force to protect the convoys delivering aid in the affected region.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the first huge step by the authorities in Somalia to secure the distribution of aid, and it should clear the way and fasten the delivery for the people dwelling the affected region. On the other hand it also could put the story on top again, after the sticky was taken off. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Neutral I was the main updater of the article through its three successful nominations on ITN and I would love to see this posted again. But I have doubts about the significance of this particular event. It's a 300-man force (as of now), which is peanuts compared to the 9,000 African Union forces and government forces in the capital alone. I can think of plenty of events that occurred last week which IMO has equal or greater significance.
Besides, Tariq took off the article from the sticky because it hasn't been updated frequently for the last week, and I tend to agree with that decision. This article hasn't changed much since it was stickied. I would like to work on that, but I haven't had the time to invest in it.
Anyway, article has been updated by another user, so changing the tag. JimSukwutput 00:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning support - per above. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 10:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. In the past, the Somalian government has also announced the creation of eighteen administrative regions and that a national census would be taken in each... In fact, a week ago it announced that al-Shabab had been defeated. Nightw 12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not going to express an opinion on the merits of the item itself but that blurb needs work to eliminate the Easter egg link. We're generally laxer than normal about that here on ITN, but "creation of a special force" gives absolutely no clue that it is going to link to 2011 Horn of Africa famine. That should be fixed simply for the sake of clarity. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

England becomes highest ranked test teamEdit

Articles: ICC Test Championship (talk, history) and Indian cricket team in England in 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: England defeat India to become the most highly ranked team in Test cricket for the first time.
News source(s): [46] [47] [48] [49]

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: England are just about to beat India, which will make them the top-ranked Test cricket team for the first time. India have been the top ranked team since 2009; only three teams (Australia, South Africa, India) have lead the rankings since they were introduced in 2003. Modest Genius talk 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • support Definitely newsworthy. The first time the inventor of the world's 2nd most popular sport reaches it's pinnacle. Torqueing (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy and very well covered in media. Second most popular sport in the world. --Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The rankings are only 8 years old. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There are unofficial back-dated versions which show that England hasn't been top since 1980 (and even then only for a few months). Modest Genius talk 16:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can't see us putting up any item about a change in FIFA rankings, so I see no reason to put this up either. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per passerbys FIFA comparison that are accurate.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Such rankings are co-incidental to the games: there is no tournament that generates this ranking. We made no mention of India reaching top of the rankings a couple of years ago, and I suspect that there will not be the same enthusiasm for proposing that we flag up England's drop when it happens. Netherlands will be replacing Spain on the top of FIFA's rankings on 24th of this month, but that shouldn't go up either. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless we agree to put this on ITN every time a new team tops the rankings, in which case we should also do it for soccer and other major sports as well. Sorry, I'm a cricket fan, but I think this would set a bad precedent. Jenks24 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The cricket rankings came into prominence only after India became No.1; before that, no one even cared about them. Lynch7 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, before that it was just a given that the Aussies would be at the top :) Jenks24 (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin McE. would oppose similar nomination regarding change in rankings for any sport.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In the absence of a test match tournament, the cricket rankings are the only official way to identify who are the best at the long form of the game. FIFA do have a tournament for identifying who are best at the eleven-a-side form of the game and therefore their rankings system is not so significant.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an artificial construct, based on arbitrary measures. Test cricket is and has always been a test of real cricketing ability between two teams in a particular country at a particular time. These rankings are fun for the fans to talk about, but aren't really part of Test cricket. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had the pleasure of being there to see it happen, but it really isn't of international note. I'd love it to be ITN but this isn't that much of a deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given by other users opposing. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 10:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is obviously not going to gain consensus. But I'd just like to point out that this is rather different to e.g. the FIFA rankings, for one very big reason: in football, the rankings just determine seedings for the major tournaments; the champion is decided by the tournaments themselves (e.g. the World Cup). In Test cricket, there is no such tournament, the rankings themselves are the championship. The top-ranked team is the current champion. They even receive a trophy. Oh well. Modest Genius talk 13:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to point that out to the uninformed, but Test Cricket is possibly the most traditional sport around, and it survived without these rankings for way past its first century of existence. Traditional fans don't get excited about these rankings. To me they are a bit of a gimmick. Not important at all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: as per reasons given by Modest Genius immediately above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per MG. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

August 12Edit


[Posted] Saint Petersburg DamEdit

Article: Saint Petersburg Dam (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 25 kilometer long barrier (pictured), aimed to protect Saint Petersburg from catastrophic flooding, is completed in the Gulf of Finland.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is one of the largest flood protection facilities in the world, and perhaps largest of its type. It also the last part of the Saint Petersburg Ring Road. The dam is expected to deal with ill-famous floods in Saint Petersburg, which are almost as renown as the city's white nights, waterways and bridges. The floods inspired The Bronze Horseman by Alexander Pushkin, the most famous poem about the former capital of Russia. And now all this flooding should end. GreyHood Talk 19:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment - this is also minority topic (economy and technology) and we have two nicely illustrated articles. Jim Sukwutput asked for something more long-term significant. Here it is. GreyHood Talk 19:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Misnomer? This is not really a dam but a flood barrier, such as the ones the Netherlands uses. Russian sources call it the "Saint Petersburg flood protection system", with locals unofficially dubbing it "the dam". The article is not ready yet, in my opinion; the expansion related to the opening is one line and is not from a secondary source. There are a number of Manual of Style issues with the text as well. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the blurb so as to avoid unofficial terms, and updated the article a bit more. As for the stylistic problems, could you please specify them or perhaps fix them yourself as a native speaker? GreyHood Talk 20:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Are there any figures for the total cost of the project? I think that's generally a good estimate of its significance. JimSukwutput 01:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Major infrastructure story, we don't get a lot of those. I've expanded the bit about the dam and it's opening; the article isn't perfect, but I think it's in reasonable shape. C628 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - infastructure related items are not common on ITN. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 11:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. As has already been said, major infrastructure story. Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. One of the largest flood barriers in the world is worth mentioning.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. This seems to get enough support, especially for a minority topic which requires lower level of consensus. Could someone mark it [Ready] (I'm not entitled to do so) or just post it right away? GreyHood Talk 18:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Marked ready, as the article has progressed a lot, but it would have been nice to have a little more on the opening. I know how hard that can be for something like this, though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Major engineering project, quite similar to the famous Afsluitdijk in the Netherlands, the foremost dam of the Zuiderzee Works, still considered one of the "engineering wonders" of the modern world. --hydrox (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted though I linked the target article directly, sounded odd the way it was suggested. RxS (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 Summer UniversiadeEdit

Not ITNR currently, though I believe it should become once. 148 participating countries, 306 events in 22 (or 27) sports, about 13,000 athletes. Perhaps it is the largest Universiade so far. At least in China and Russia there will be extensive live broadcasts coverage on main sporting TV channels. GreyHood Talk 07:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment for reviewers: the Universiade is organized by the International University Sports Federation and not the International Olympic Committee. It is receiving round-the-clock coverage on Shenzen Television which I get through my satellite provider. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is not Olympics, but I suppose this might be more popular than Paralympics and a number of other ITNR events. GreyHood Talk 08:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Support per above. Actually it's a very popular event with decent media coverage and large number of participants from all over the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose A long long way away from being top level in most sports. Inexpensive hours of filled TV schedules do not equate to notability. Kevin McE (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not only about being top level in most sports, though there are Olympic and World Champions among the athletes. It's a big multi-sport event, and the sheer numbers of participating nations, events and athletes are quite impressive. GreyHood Talk 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Kevin McE. No way is this more popular than other ITNR sporting events. Jenks24 (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It's way. There are still few quite anecdotic sports on WP:ITN/R. GreyHood Talk 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. They broadcast the opening ceremony right now, it's quite impressive, almost as Olympics. I think the Chineese will rise the level and popularity of Universiades significantly. GreyHood Talk 12:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support notable event for university athletes. Worldwide news coverage. Universiade gets more and more media attention. Just look at the stubs till 2007 Summer Universiade (1394 times in the last 30 days.) and then at 2009 Summer Universiade and 2011 Summer Universiade (15867 times watched in the last 30 days.)--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin McE. I don't see the long-term significance of this. Sports can be popular, yes, but so are reality TV shows. In my opinion ITN has already given more than enough attention to sports-related items by posting all the top competitions of each sport. I can't imagine how much space it would take to post all the top competitions for each specific demographic. JimSukwutput 13:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • ITN is too slow again these days and you worry about posting too much. Meh. And there weren't too much sport items lately, anyway. GreyHood Talk 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree that ITN is too slow, but these are not the kind of items we need more of. I don't think in a few years that anybody in the world will be reading articles of sports competitions of today, or things like train accidents or shipwrecks. It's the scientific advances, political upheavals and economic progress that people will care about. JimSukwutput 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Enough. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 07:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
        • You are not a sport fan, then. We can't prohibit all sport from ITN and of course your argument doesn't work in particular against this Universiade. The significance of the event is quite obvious - I'm wathching the opening ceremony right now, and Chinese already beat many recent Olympic opening ceremonies in scale and grandeur. This is a major step in Universiade movement and a major showcase for China. GreyHood Talk 14:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Of course my argument applies, because this is a sports item. I'm not saying we should prohibit all sport items, merely that I personally don't find many of them significant enough relative to other types of items. And this is one of those sports items that doesn't pass my criteria. Judging from the responses in this thread, many users feel the same way. And no, I don't give a damn whether this is a "major showcase for China". The China you're referring to is the Chinese Communist Party and their chauvinistic followers. I'm Chinese and I'm ashamed of the fact that my government is spending billions of dollars on grand stadiums while millions starve. JimSukwutput 01:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Don't like to turn this page into a forum, but still I should say that building all those grand stadiums gives jobs to millions of people and helps developing infrastructure and industry. And if you start giving billions directly to those starving millions, you'll just get huge inflation and no economic growth, and even more starvation in the long run. This is how economy works. GreyHood Talk 10:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
              • Forgive me for my WP:SOAPBOX remark. But since you've responded, let me just direct you to Broken window fallacy. JimSukwutput 10:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
                • This would be more in place in a discussion about London rioting. GreyHood Talk 10:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • Nope, in both cases you have spent money to achieve no practical result. That is never the best solution, because you always have better alternatives. Income transfer to the poor, for example, would boost consumer demand and stimulate the economy as well as construction, and it'd actually help someone. Not saying that it's the best solution, but it's a lot better than taking money from the population and building stadiums. And your comment on inflation is irrelevant; we're already assuming that we have a certain amount of money available. The inflation caused is same in either case. JimSukwutput 12:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • Income transfer should be preceded by extending real economy and infrastructure first. In order to spent the money and not to get inflation you need to have more goods and services in the economy, and more means to produce those goods and services. Sporting infrastructure provides those new services (sport makes money), and huge construction projects help industry to develop better than small non-integrated demand. In the case of Universiade, there is also international prestige, reputation, more education, international integration and business opportunities. GreyHood Talk 12:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • Look, your reasoning is way, way off. Inflation occurs mainly when there is a growth of the money supply. It has little/nothing to do with how or where you spend the money. I'm not gonna tutor you on high school economics here, so grab a textbook and keep reading. JimSukwutput 23:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. Really, guys, shame if it won't be posted. This one surely beats most other events we post in budget, viewership, numbers of events and athletes. Many records for a Universisade, major political significance for China. GreyHood Talk 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's strange that it's getting very little coverage across the pond... Yet many of our athletes are participating. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's possible that this is because the Universiades aren't designated as Olympic events proper. Compare this to coverage of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, which had younger participants and I believe was smaller in scale and had fewer events. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 17:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • In some countries it gets huge coverage (China is a host and a very promising team alongside Russia). And while even some one-nation sports are ITNR, it would be strange to see this huge event not posted due to low coverage in Atlantic region. GreyHood Talk 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Just noting that it also has low coverage in the AUS/NZ region as well. Jenks24 (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Nor in Southeast Asia. Seems to be really localised to countries that glorify their sportsmen and who have a decent shout at doing well. (/generalisation) Strange Passerby (talkcont) 09:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Kevin McE.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support still a minority topic that I believe is important enough. It's in fact the 'world university games'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support seems to be well worthy of posting a sport event outside Europe/United States/Australia. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support major, international event in sports, and I'll just say that these unhelpful, extended discussions that are starting to happen for some reason are entirely unhelful. Swarm u | t 04:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I am boldly marking this item as ready. In my opinion, most of the opposes border on "I just don't like it". —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In that case I'll revert, as there is a long established principle that the sports events we give space to here are those that represent the highest level of competition, and that this event, in the vast majority of events, falls far short of that. Multiplicity of low level events does not equate to a high level event.
BBC.com: no hits this year; Guardian.co.uk: 1 hit for 2009. Kevin McE (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't only post what gets covered by the Western media. How about bringing some non-Western sources to the table? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems like this has been reasonably addressed above however. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While I respect your decision to revert, I object to your characterizing my action as being closed minded in the edit summary; but building my argument on that sentence will make this off topic. Consensus can change and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I am not understanding what you classify as "low level events" because, barring a few exception, they are all Olympic sports, even if the event is not managed by the IOC. The Universiades are the top level for its age group, just like the Youth Olympics are the top for its age group. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 10:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No, the Universiades are not restricted to a particular age group. It is restricted for university athletes, and the vast majority of the people in the world don't get to attend university. (And on the other hand, it is possible for a 30-year-old man to attend university and join the Universiade, although I'm not sure if there are restrictions against that) JimSukwutput 10:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Just because a sport is an Olympic sport, it does not mean that every event in that sport is a high level event: football (soccer) is an Olympic event, but the Ridgeon's Eastern Counties League match I watched yesterday is a "low level event". I suspect that the vast majority of competitors, and even of medallists, will not be people who compete in the upper echelons of their event at international level. Even those few top class sportspeople that fit into the subset eligible for this event are likely to have more important sporting goals this year. Sports events are ITNworthy on the basis of their being the top event of their sport, not because lots of people are gathered (or we would have things like Scout jamborees (3 times as many participants as the Universiade), nor by TV coverage (or we would have Big Brother).
As to non-Western sources: Afrik News has one paragraph, which is a press release from the Chinese Ministry of foreign affairs about two people at the opening ceremony; Asia Times has a reference to "the stir created by the North Korean cheerleaders at the Taegu Universiade in 2003" on the 2nd page of an article, and that's it; Al Arabiya reports no results; CANANEWS likewise draws a blank; NTN24 mentions it in passing in relation to Evo Morales seeking trade deals on a visit, and did post a 6 line Reuters announcement of the start; Balkan Insight has several articles about the 2009 edition in Belgrade, but nothing about the 2011 event; [50] had one mention of the 2009 event, but nothing on this. Underwhelming in the extreme.
But if you can demonstrate that the specialist press for at least half of the events place this on the front page as serious competition in that sport, I will withdraw my objection. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pimentel vs. Zubiri electoral protestEdit

This is the first successful electoral protest in the Philippine Senate since 1952, that followed the first resignation in the Senate where the senator did not immediately assume another office. So this is pretty much unprecedented. –HTD 03:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per nominator. JimSukwutput 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article name is oddly formatted, especially with all words being capitalized. I'd recommend moving it to simply Pimentel III v. Zubiri, or something similar, which is usually the format for court cases. A copy of a resolution from the Senate Electoral Tribunal uses these names as the "protestant" and the "protestee". —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems to me that this is essentially similar to the Phil Woolas case, although less substantial: that was not a mere resignation but a voiding of the election and barring of the candidate. I had to look up what we did then: [51] which was a clear consensus against. Precedent is not binding here but it is illustrative, particularly when this story appears less significant on account of the resignation, and that "minority" countries are if anything over-represented here.
    • Woolas did not resign, and even if he did, British MPs "resign" all the time; Zubiri did resign and that was unprecedented as that never happened before. Woolas' voided election was the first since 1997; Zubiri's voided victory was the first since 1952. Finally, Woolas' district (constituency) had 72,000 voters, Zubiri's and Pimentel's "district" had 43 million. So it's far and away not "less substantial". –HTD 09:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The fact he did not resign but was forced out is precisely my point: that makes it more notable, not less so, and he was the first parliamentarian to be ousted by an election court since 1911. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC).
        • So yeah, one is the first to be ousted since 1911, who has ~72,000 constituents, that led to the nth by-election, and the other is the first to resign in history, who has ~40 million constituents, that led to the first successful protest since 1952. Guess which is more notable. –HTD 17:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I understood your first comment, Crispmuncher. Are you saying that the Philippines is a "minority country"? JimSukwutput 02:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Here on on the English language Wikipedia, yes I am. What proportion of our audience come from the Philippines? Where is the mass media reporting of this? Our remit is to select articles that will be of interest to our users, not that in our opinion should be of interest. I've never understood how it is often the case here that a complete lack of notability counts for a story - people don't know enough about the candidate item to oppose so it gets posted no matter how intrinsically weak it is.
            • Fun fact: 1.5% of the viewers here are from the Philippines, more than Ireland and New Zealand combined. Dare I say there are more Irish and Kiwi stories combined in ITN. BBC News, Bloomberg, Straits Times, LOL even the Irish Independent reported this. –HTD 14:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
          • As for the size of the constituency, that strikes me as a complete irrelevance: the voting systems are different: Filipino senators are elected on a national basis. HTD argues the number of electors is the key element, but I would suggest it is a different number that is relevant. How many electors were left unrepresented in this case? A grand total of zero. How many were left unrepresented by the Woolas case? 77,000. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC).
            • Fun fact: No one knows how many were left unrepresented. Presumably the formula is the difference between those who voted for the two persons, although that's not easy as people voted for multiple candidates, also it can be argued that you won't find too many ballots that had their names as they came from the opposing coalitions. So the answer: definitely not zero. –HTD 14:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
            • The Philippines has more English speakers than the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand combined. That's a pretty good indicator of how many of our users come from the Philippines. And that is completely irrelevant anyhow - interest to our readers is not a criterion for ITN. We are not Wikinews.
            • As an aside, I don't appreciate the accusations of ignorance that you have made against HTD and I. I'm pretty sure you did not know that the Philippines had the 3rd-largest English-speaking population in the world when you wrote that it is a "minority country". But I'm not going to dismiss your entire rationale based on that particular lack of knowledge. Let us disagree without being disagreeable. JimSukwutput 04:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
              • He just successfully prevented this from being posted singlehandedly. I gotta give props to the Crispmuncher. *clap* *clap* –HTD 14:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
                • I reject any allegation of uncivil behaviour. HTD used figures in one way to make one point. I used figures in another way to make a contrasting point. Doing that is not uncivil (in this case it is not even particularly robust), it is simply the normal process of scrutiny. At no point did I allege ignorance, nor can I see even where it may be construed by implication, but if that has been the case I will be explicit that no such allegation was intended.
As for the number of unrepresented voters, people are still represented by their elected representative even if they voted for another candidate. In the Woolas case the was no MP after he was ousted until a by-election could be arranged (which typically takes at least six weeks). I admit I am no expert when it comes to Filipino politics but senators are elected on a national basis - i.e. even during the transitory period after the resignation, all the other senators still represented those millions of voters.
As for English speaking in the Philippines, I was not aware of those precise stats but was aware of them in broad-brush terms. It is still a detail: we do not refer to China as an English speaking country, despite the fact all children are taught English as a second language from the very start of their primary schooling.
One final point, and that is what is of interest to our readers lies at the very heart of ITN. From the lead of WP:ITN: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." ITN is not a news source and we do not covers stories simply because they are deemed "worthy". First and foremost ITN is a convenience to our readership to enable them to quickly find new content of relevance to news items they are interested in. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

August 11Edit


Breivik copycat killed in TallinnEdit

Article: Karen Drambjan (talk, history)
Blurb: Terror incident in Tallinn, Estonia ends as police kill lone gunman.
News source(s): Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Xinhua, Estonian Public Broadcasting

Article updated

 Petri Krohn (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Lone gunman and no major incident. I really don't see this as newsworthy enough to meet our criteria for posting. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 10:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak support. Primarily because of an unexpected place, Estonia. GreyHood Talk 10:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Failed terror accident. You'll be surprised by how many of those there are. Seems like this is getting some attention because of the recent Norway attack, but I see no connection except for the geography. JimSukwutput 14:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Gene therapy may cure chronic lymphocytic leukemiaEdit

Article: B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania report preliminary success in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia using gene therapy.
News source(s): WebMD, NPR, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Findings published in The New England Journal of Medicine with DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1103849 and in Science Translational Medicine with DOI 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002842. Nominated with no prejudice toward outcome. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's really great news but We need something more than preliminary results. Once the treatment has gotten through the necessary hoops to be approved then we will have something substantive and definitive to post. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose this is just a phase 1 trial. even if this was a successful treatment it could be decades before this would get approved.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support - First time "gene therapy [has been used] to successfully destroy cancer tumors in patients with advanced disease". Yes, this is just the preliminary result of a trial, but it's significant enough of a result to post. I know people think that there's going to be a suddenly-discovered 'cure for cancer™' that's going to suddenly appear in every hospital, but this is a significant achievement. They apparently cured two people who were dying of leukemia. We posted mere evidence of liquid water on mars a few days ago (it could be years before that is proven), I don't see why we can't post early discoveries in the medical field. Swarm u | t 22:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Pretty much what Swarm said. Not sure what's wrong with having preliminary results only. JimSukwutput 01:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  Updating... I will notify WikiProject Medicine to review my update for accuracy when I'm done. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Updated at B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia#Research directions. WikiProject Medicine has been notified as well. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. Swarm made a good final point, and I'm all for having more blurbs relating to medicine. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Support People will be interested in this, and will be looking for updated content in relation to this topic. RxS (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. Huge news. The blurb is not saying that a new treatment has been developed, which would be misleading; instead, it is saying that this research vector is showing potential in Phase 1 trials. I have no issues with a blurb that says that, even if in the long term this research is of limited use. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. I came over from WikiProject Medicine (first time here, thanks for invite), and I agree with wording and appropriateness as a news item. It's certainly very preliminary, but it is novel and the results reported are compelling for further research. Many WP News items dealing with science have similar attributes. -- Scray (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Adding ready. Good consensus, good update. JimSukwutput 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose as per Wikireader41. This is years away from an actual treatment: it doesn't matter how notable or laudable the goal, a stepping stone is still only one more step. As the NPR source points out "To be honest, the Penn researchers don't really know for sure why their approach allowed the modified T-cells to persist". Does that sound like something that may be rolled out next week?
Also, although I don't feel it particularly relevant here, I do not accept the WebMD link as a reference. When I accessed it, it attempted geolocation and redirection (to different sites) depending on what that determined (I tried multiple IPs when I saw what was going on). I cannot consider a citation unless it is absolutely clear what is being cited: in the absence of that the citation does not exist. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC).
Discoveries often occur in the most unexpected manners. The New England Journal of Medicine and Science Translational Medicine are not "some journal"; the former is the most influential journal of clinical medicine. I'm afraid I am not understanding the specific objection you raised with WebMD. It is generally considered a reputable source for medical content and has a board of certified physicians reviewing the content. It is also accredited by URAC. This story has also been covered by The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, U.S. News & World Report, and the Daily Mail to name a few. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The objection to WebMD is that I can't see for certain what is being cited. When I first looked at it it detected that I was in the UK and invited me to go to their UK site. I'm writing this on a corporate network so I struck the usual gateway (in Manchester, England) from the routing table on this machine: the net effect of that is that I appear to be based somewhere else - wherever the next gateway happens to be located (I'd have to look that up). I was directed to a third page. If I can see three pages depending on where I appear to be from, how can I evaluate the page you were looking at? Crispmuncher (talk) 07:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC).
I was not aware that the WebMD website does such a thing; my apologies. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] First evidence of live birth in plesiosaursEdit

Article: Polycotylus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists uncover the first evidence of live birth among plesiosaurs.
News source(s): NPR, New Scientist, Science News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Findings published in Science with DOI 10.1126/science.1205689. Nominated with no prejudice toward outcome. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Given appropriate updates and the such. Good Science story. 21:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResidentAnthropologist (talkcontribs)
  • Comment. A whole lot of cool science words that somehow intrigued me. It'd be a great story to feature, but the Polycotylus article is, at present, nowhere near ready. I'll be more than happy to support once it's expanded a bit. Nightw 00:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I know it's not updated. I usually wait and see if community consensus warrants a substantial expansion instead of a one-line update since we are all WP:BUSY. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Updated by Smokeybjb in this diff. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Good method. Nightw 09:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Theoretical Support but the article is not ready for prime time. Still a little thin. RxS (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified to enlist some assistance. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - hopefully the article will be expanded soon, but nonetheless this is a interesting & notable news piece. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 09:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The article has been expanded since. Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good Post: I just wanted to commend the judgement shown in going ahead and posting this. As mentioned in the 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". The significance is huge, as till date, we (lay persons) thought that dinosaurs laid eggs. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Apple Inc. patent lawsuit victoryEdit

Article: Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (talk, history)
Blurb: Apple Inc. wins temporary injunction in patent lawsuit, blocking sale of the Galaxy Tab in the European Union (except Netherlands)
News source(s): ZDNet news item

Article updated

 --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, this is a potential game changer for technology companies around the world. YuMaNuMa (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support per YuMaNuMa. Should be a technology minority topic as well. JimSukwutput 10:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Added "minority = yes". --BorgQueen (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support, but Samsung_Galaxy_Tab#Europe needs more update. The minimum is five sentences and three references. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Weak support This is interesting and any prevention of a product outbreak in the European Union is a big deal, but I don't think that any Apple product is an elementary thing that imperils the life in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose This is an interim injunction only, pending the full hearing of the case. That knocks down its notability several notches and makes the proposed blurb misleading. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC).
Support and comment: Agree, its significant. But if its only an interim injunction as suggested above(I dont know), then I agree that the blurb should be qualified by the same. But it remains significant even if its an interim injunction - even if the injunction is vacated after a year or so, it would have already made a significant impact. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. The Galaxy Tab is the most competitive Android-based tablet in the market right now, even in Asia. The blurb needs to be tweaked as it is not yet a formal victory. It should mention that the injunction excludes the Netherlands (though this may not be necessary if the injunction gets extended there, which Apple will attempt). More from The Hindu: "A preliminary injunction is ordered only if the court believes you're likely to prevail in the main proceeding, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you will. In the event you lose the main proceeding, you're liable for damages." —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose this is interim only. lets not give Apple free publicity on the main page for their creative application of patent laws to maximize profits. if of course the final judgement is in their favor /against them then we can consider this.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support regardless of the final outcome on which most opposers seem to wait, the practical effects now are the Samsung cannot sell its new products in major markets until that final outcome comes - and only if they win. The complete shutdown of Samsung's products in the EU, Australia, etc. is a big deal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've modified the blurb to reflect the comments above; I have expanded the article. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. I'm not a huge fan of this blurb, but technology is (somehow) a minority topic, and we do have rules that encourage the posting of minority topics. There was also the matter that the most recent addition to T:ITN was 42 hours ago. NW (Talk)
  • Post-Post-Support Reading over the articles around the net this could have wide spread implications in the EU The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Man, this lawsuit is worse than the lawsuit against the sale of red sole shoes. Actually, considering this one passed, it might be worse. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Concern over the image. I am not certain that the image of the Samsung is definitely in the clear with regard to copyright, I have raised that concern at Commons. I would think that the image should be removed. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the image, it's a fairly obvious copyright violation, and should be deleted by a Commons sysop shortly. Courcelles 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

August 10Edit


[Posted] Data from the space probe PAMELA suggests that a belt of Antimatter surrounds the EarthEdit

Article: Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists analyzing data from the research satellite PAMELA confirm the existence of an antimatter belt surrounding the Earth.
News source(s): http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390638,00.asp

Article needs updating

 Multiple sources, article not updated but if I get a chance and no one beats me to it I'll give it a shot. Can't beat anti-matter to draw attention. RxS (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Support after suitable update. Fairly interesting discovery. JimSukwutput 08:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support per above. GreyHood Talk 09:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Important discovery. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Fascinating. Swarm u | t 17:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I updated the article, that and the update already performed should be fine. RxS (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I marked this as ready so it doesn't drop off the page w/o a look. RxS (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support as interesting and relevant news. Mamyles (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirming ready after I did a general cleanup of the updated content. I also modified the blurb. Note that while the journal article itself is 3 weeks old, the news coverage is quite recent. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - this is an interesting and notable piece which qualifies for ITN. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Class action lawsuit against Paxfire for hijacking web searchesEdit

Article: Paxfire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Class action lawsuit in the US against Paxfire and ISPs for hijacking web searches
News source(s): http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking-users-search-queries.html
Article updated
  • oppose the filing of a lawsuit isn't notable enough. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a very, very interesting allegation, but right now it's still just an allegation. As usual, I think we should wait until it's over. JimSukwutput 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly of interest to our readers, it's a real thing regardless of the outcome. ITN is here to provide updated content of interest to our readers, I think this fits. RxS (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "it's a real thing regardless of the outcome"? JimSukwutput 03:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Doesn't appear to be a frivolous lawsuit, the redirect searches are real. RxS (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yea, but keep in mind that lawsuits are often written to be deliberately exaggerating (and this is perfectly fine behavior - that's why you have a defense). While the controversy is real, we don't know which part of the exact allegations are true. I don't see why we can't wait until the result is known - by then we will have a better article as well, hopefully. JimSukwutput 08:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Other than the fact I have no idea who or what a "Paxfire" is (I was hoping it was Jeremy with his hair set alight to be honest) I think waiting until if and when this turns into anything. Oppose. — Joseph Fox 07:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose lawsuits are cheap, a few million are filed each year in the USA alone. Wait till something (if anything) comes of it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Philip Levine named as next Poet Laureate of the United StatesEdit

Article: Philip Levine (poet) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The New York Times announces that Philip Levine will be named the 18th United States Poet Laureate.
News source(s): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/books/philip-levine-is-to-be-us-poet-laureate.html?hp

Article needs updating
  • Support - news is pretty slow, nice story & minority topic. The article is not updated, though. Swarm u | t 04:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support when updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose No update yet. And I'm not sure if this is a minority topic - it's related to culture, but it's a basically a government-funded post and has nothing to do with cultural production. JimSukwutput 07:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry-- are you actually suggesting that a poet in an official role to "raise the national consciousness to a greater appreciation of the reading and writing of poetry" does not fall under the scope of "culture"? This, gents, is the epitome of a cultural minority topic. Swarm u | t 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly a culture item. The award is for an actual artist; it's not the appointment of a government official.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
You have clearly misunderstood the term poet laureate. This is not an award. It is an appointed post. JimSukwutput 12:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not an award per se but the appointees are all actual poets and being appointed is recognition of their work.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
You have to have some background in poetry to get appointed, of course. Just as we expect those who work at the Federal Reserve to have backgrounds in finance and economics. And in both cases you are appointed to work in a particular position, not to get an award. These are completely different things. JimSukwutput 12:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I believe the appointment of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was posted...--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This debate about significance is curiously similar to the larger cultural debate about the purpose and utility of this post in the first place. A previous appointee stated that the job responsibilities are "to act as a poetic radiator, radiating a love of poetry over as many miles as possible." Billy Collins, laureate from 2001-2003 stated that "the poet laureate was expected to devote his tenure to explaining to others what it is exactly that the poet laureate does." So even the laureate is unclear about the cultural or governmental significance of the post. User:Quauhnahuac 16:44, 1- August 2011 (UTC)
Johnsemlak: I'm not saying that this shouldn't be posted because it's a government post. I'm just telling you that it should be treated as such, and not as an award. That makes the significance of this event entirely different. Whether it increases your view of its significance or decreases it is none of my business, but I think it's important that people who are discussing the nomination at least know what it's about. There is no point holding onto your mistake - we're here to get the best nomination to the main page, not to prove that we're right or wrong about something. May I suggest you acknowledge your mistake and indicate why you continue to support the nomination or why you no longer do so? JimSukwutput 22:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

() Your argument seems backwards to me. A poet being appointed to this specific government post is at least as, if not more significant than a poet being awarded a physical prize. It's not a vague, insignificant government post that a poet just happens to be filling, it's arguably one of the most culturally significant government posts there are. And furthermore, we're not talking about some guy with "some background in poetry", as you so nicely downplay it, we're talking about an already notable poet. Swarm u | t 02:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have said nothing which indicated that it being a government post should be any less significant than it being an award. I was simply pointing out to Johnsemlak that, contrary to what he believes, this is not an award. In fact, I have not said anything about the significance of this nomination. The only objection I raised above was there being no update, and some doubts about whether this exactly constitutes a minority topic (which has nothing to do with its actual significance). Furthermore, I said nothing about the particular notability of this person, merely that the post is not appointed on the basis of exceptional excellence in poetry and hence does not constitute a recognition of exceptional excellence (a Pulitzer Prize, which this person in fact has, would be more appropriate in this regard). Read my comments and please do not engage in strawman arguments.
But since you have stated your arguments here, it may be appropriate for me to respond to them, even if they were stated against arguments that I never made. First, you claim that this is "one of the most culturally significant government posts there are". I'd like to know whether this was your personal opinion or whether you have found conclusive evidence supporting this claim. From what I can read in the article (and that is the source of most of my knowledge about this topic), the post seems to involve merely a $35,000 stipend and the appointed person seems required only to give a few lectures and so on. I simply do not see how this is the scale of the multi-million departments like the National Endowment of the Arts or the National Endowment of the Humanities. And, by precedent, not even those are significant enough, considering that we've never posted anything about those two departments on ITN.
As for answering whether a government post or a specific award is more significant, I can only ask which government post and which specific award. Surely you do not believe that all government posts are at least more significant than winning any award, even the Pulitzer Prize, for example? I do not see the point of your argument. JimSukwutput 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You claimed that this is a govt. post, not an award. My counter is that the significance of this govt. post is comparable to that of a significant award. It's that simple. See also: WP:TLDR. Swarm u | t 17:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom is an ITNR item; this seems comparable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who? Wait til he gets something meaningful, like the Nobel Peace Prize. Or accomplishes something objectively significant, like winning the Nathan's Franks contest with 100 hotdogs. μηδείς (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Please do not tell me that record eating falls under WP:ITNR. I don't think my sensibilities could take it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
    • xD, thank you for the laugh, Medeis. Swarm u | t 02:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on grounds of minority topic and similar rationale used by Johnsemlak.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Being a minority topic is not a reason for support (or oppose). The designation simply means that admins may post the item with a lower level of consensus necessary. But we still need to measure the actual significance of the event as well as the quality of the update (of which there is none). JimSukwutput 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Er, no, "minority topics" are significant topics that are not regularly posted. Supporting because something is a minority topic is perfectly reasonable. Swarm u | t 02:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"To improve the balance of the section, the consensus to post such items should require a weaker than for other more general items. Articles must still be updated to the generally required standard." The criteria is still the same, simply that the level of consensus required is lower. Go to the policy's talk page if you disagree with that. JimSukwutput 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Jim, "minority topics" are, by definition, significant. Yes, they require a lower consensus, but saying "Support - minority topic" is virtually the same as saying, "Support- significant minority topic" (which you surely wouldn't complain about). Please don't nitpick every supporter like this, it's unhelpful. Swarm u | t 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, pending an update. There are a number of unreferenced material, which may be resolved with the sources in the External links section. He looks notable enough, having won a Pulitzer Prize. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 14:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a cultural topic. Article needs work though. RxS (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support given update. I would assume that if the UK's version is ITNR as Johnsemlak says then this would also be notable enough to post, and in my opinion it qualifies as a minority topic. (I mean really, how many poet/poetry related stories have we ever posted to ITN?) Ks0stm (TCG) 20:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comparisons with the British position are not necessarily valid - the roles are substantially different. Reading up on this it appears the US role is essentially an academic job: unlike the British position it does not actually involve writing poetry. The more valid comparison is probably to something like the Astronomer Royal in that they have essentially similar duties, albeit in completely different disciplines. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC).
  • I'd like to reaffirm this point here. From what I've read in the article it appears that the U.S. position is kind of an imitation of the U.K. position, but with a greater emphasis on awareness-raising than the actual creation or reading of poetry. I don't see a great difference between this post than the many, many other posts that the U.S. government has that are related to cultural awareness.
  • I also doubt that having a related item on ITNR makes this the equivalent of an ITNR. If it really is so, why was it not on ITNR in the first place? JimSukwutput 22:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the stated rationale for the UK PL was pretty silly: they get a nominal salary and hundreds of bottles of liquor [52]. The discussion about the proposed update (ctrl-F "and Scottish") was fairly limited, but focused mostly on her being the first female, first Scottish, and first gay poet laureate. I'd say neither should be ITNR unless a more compelling rationale on the rationales discussed before (no comment on this discussion).--Chaser2 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. After seeing that discussion I don't see any rationale for posting either of them, never mind making it ITNR. JimSukwutput 00:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. As per our article, "Currently, the laureate receives a $35,000 annual stipend... The Library keeps to a minimum the specific duties in order to afford incumbents maximum freedom to work on their own projects while at the Library." So even if the Poet Laureate is technically a W-2 employee of the LoC, there are hardly any actual duties attached - so it is more like a Ford Foundation fellowship or Fulbright Award (but with a much higher visibility) than a "job". -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
First someone supports this on the basis that it is an award. Then I point out it is more of a government post, and someone then supports it on the basis that a "government post is at least more significant than an award". And now someone points out again that it is not really a government post, but an award, and supports it again on that basis. Forgive me guys, but what is the actual significance of this, regardless of whether it is a government post or an award? We have tens of thousands of government posts appointed and tens of thousands of awards every year, and the vast majority of them are not significant enough for ITN. Why this? JimSukwutput 03:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
From what I'm gathering, the significance is that this is an immense honor (call it award, if you so desire) for the poet appointed to an official government position, that being the official poet of the United States (Library of Congress only?). Although this logic probably won't be appreciated, for me, being 18 with only a high school level education so far, the fact that I still recognize many of the names of poets appointed to the post from ~1958-1986 (and I'm not exactly the poetry reading type) signifies that the post isn't awarded to just anyone and carries a high level of significance above and beyond what a post like Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives or United States Senate Librarian (two other specialized government posts that I have much less familiarity with) might, for example, but on par with Chairman of the Federal Reserve (a post I'm about as familiar with as Poet Laureate) might be. It's probably not anyone else's thought process, but it works for me. Ks0stm (TCG) 05:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's a problem with your thought process though. What do we care about on ITN? The significance of an award (let's pretend this is an award for the moment), not the notability of the person who gets the award. It is true that almost all of the poet laureates in the U.S. have been very famous people. However, is it because of the title that they became famous, or were they famous before they became poet laureates? It seems that there is very strong evidence for the latter. So while the awards are often given to very notable people, that does not make the award any more significant itself.
Let me just raise an obvious example of an award that is not significant enough to be on ITN - an honorary degree from Harvard. All the honorary degrees from Harvard have been given to extremely notably people, but we don't feature them because these people are significant for other reasons. We ought to focus on the source of their fame, not a representation of it. JimSukwutput 08:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Being named poet laureate is, in a sense at least, an award. Your fixation on this term isn't really helpful, because even if you don't want to look at it as an award, the appointment's significance is comparable to that of a major award. You're arguing that this simply isn't significant, but the media coverage tends to disagree. Swarm u | t 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It's not often that there is a chance to have a poetry-related item in ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - very much a minority topic. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 09:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

August 9Edit


Update to London riots itemEdit

This item needs to be updated in some form, and preferably without mention of a specific day. How about something along the lines of:

But any kind of update would be nice. --Dorsal Axe 01:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

    • It's been updated to include London and England. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

August 8Edit


DJIA/S&P dropEdit

Article: List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Dow Jones Industrial Average drops more than 600 points, making it the sixth largest drop in its history.
Article needs updating

 Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support obviously, though it would be nice to have a separate article on the event. Also it would be nice to reflect the fact there were massive lossess on other markets as well. GreyHood Talk 21:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. Would also favour including Friday's drop, and/or the large crash in all the Asian markets. These are what makes the continued fall even more notable. JimSukwutput 22:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Support the stock markets continually going down is a big story in its own right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment the article isn't updated. It needs 5 sentences and 3 references on this event - and it probably needs generally fleshing out a bit more too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking a worldwide stock market crash of such significance might deserve an article of its own, along the lines of Black Monday (1987) or Friday the 13th mini-crash. But I have this suspicion that the stock markets will gradually recover over the next two weeks, so in the long-term I'm not sure of the notability of this. JimSukwutput 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
While supportive of posting something, I Oppose the current blurb, markets across the globe fell, to single out just the US ones is wrong. Mtking (edits) 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There should definitely be something though, perhaps incorporating "Stock markets around the world fall." I believe some of the European stock markets are now in bear market territory (20% drop from highs), not sure how we could have all of that though. Hello32020 (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see what you had before the bold. How about "Stock markets around the world fall, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average having its sixth largest drop in its history." Maybe the point drop could be included, but it's not completely necessary. Hello32020 (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I find the point drop more interesting than the ranking. Especially considering that all of the top 5 occurred in 2000s, with four of them in 2008. JimSukwutput 00:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Just gonna say support, since I haven't already, for either a revised global story or merely the proposed Dow one. Bad markets in Asia tonight as well, this should be ITN. Hello32020 (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This is rather misleading; the key figure is the percentage drop, not the point drop. The Wall Street Crash of 1929, correctly described in the article as "the most devastating stock market crash in the history of the United States", does not appear in the top 20 by point drops, for the simple reason that the index was a much lower number at the time. If used, the blurb should specify that that it is the sixth largest daily point loss in its history (a percentage fall blurb would be more interesting, but this doesn't even appear in the top twenty). Warofdreams talk 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
A little stale now I'm afraid. RxS (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I fail to comprehend how we can fail to post anything about a three-day-long worldwide stock market crash that has wiped out more than $10 trillion worth of stocks. JimSukwutput 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it's more recent than at least half of the items up there now. Better late than never. Nightw 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the market gained 2/3 of it's losses today so it's not the same situation as it was yesterday. If it changed to more global focus that might work. Events are overtaking this blurb though. RxS (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Just a suggestion that we do better with titles than this one. The acronyms aren't obvious to me. Maybe they are to insiders to the financial system in the USA, but don't expect our whole audience to be of that background. Something in plain English please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider myself a financial insider, but the acronyms seemed normal to me. That being said, I think spelling out Dow Jones would have been better. The S&P 500 is always referred to as "S&P", though; I don't think a lot of people even realize that stands for Standard & Poor's. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
But you are an American. A majority of our readers (including me) are not. We should aim for the global market. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I take serious offense to this. That I'm American is completely irrelevant, and I don't appreciate the not-so-subtle implication that my nationality makes me insolar. As your original post noted, it's more a measure of familiarity with the topic than nationality; why you decided to change your tune is beyond me. I'm sure anyone with a modest knowledge of stock markets, regardless of where they live, would be able to identify DJIA as referring to Dow Jones, especially when placed alongside "S&P". Nevertheless, as I said, I was willing to accept that my understanding is not necessarily everyone's, so putting "Dow Jones" in the header would have been better. But spelling out "S&P" [500] as "Standard & Poor's" would actually add confusion, because like with, for example, NASA, more people are familiar with the acronym than what it stands for. But, as you said, you are not familiar with the topic, so rather than meaningfully responding to that assertion, all you can do is shout American bias. Classy. -- tariqabjotu 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for interrupting, but from what I see here what HiLo48 was trying to say was simply that non-American users would be less familiar with the acronyms. He's admitting that non-Americans like himself tend to be ignorant about an American topic and hence need a simpler header, which is quite a humble statement if you'd ask me. I don't see any implication that there was an American bias. That would be impossible anyway, given that this is an American topic after all.
As another non-American I would agree with HiLo48 in this specific point. The acronym DJIA is not regularly used by international (or even domestic) media and thus we should not expect all users to understand it. The S&P is fine though, for the same reasons you outlined. JimSukwutput 11:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
DJIA has never been in the blurb. Can't understand the opposition on using S&P, and using U.S. biaz as a reason. Heard of S&P ASX 200? What if FTSE 100 or BSE SENSEX or NASDAQ would be featured? We'd spell those out too? LOL –HTD 11:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
You know what's far worse than US-centrism, which is a big problem for Wikipedia but of which this was but a very minor example? It's the paranoid aggression shown by some Americans when there is any suggestion that it even occurs. I wasn't trying to be critical here. Just highlighting that as a non-American I didn't understand the acronyms, and that, as an American, Tariqabjotu was far more likely to. Nothing controversial there. Sorry about the confusion. As an Australian I wouldn't be silly enough to use a purely Australian acronym here and expect others to understand it. I try very hard to always globalise my posts. I wonder if some Americans even think about the possibility that things they know well aren't familiar to the whole world? (And please note my use of the word "some". I'm certainly not targeting all Americans.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
HiLo, I'm not going to continue to argue this point with you. Fine, maybe you didn't mean all Americans, but, as your past history shows, you tend to unnecessarily attribute remarks to nationality, and almost exclusively when the person is American. You did the same here, which is especially confusing when my comment basically agreed with the crux of your point: spell out acronyms, like DJIA, that are not widely known or used. As you were warned in the linked thread, your anti-American crusade is not welcome here. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said, paranoid aggression, and I don't apologise for that comment in your case. Do not accuse now based on your unproven allegations of past misdeeds. Look to yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to hear erstwhile communists justifying their comments by appeals to "markets". I have to oppose this nomination as too late, and irrelevant, since it doesn't make GWB look bad. But thanks for the laughs to be had reading the thread. μηδείς (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Already stale; down 600 up 400 down again 300....the volatility may be news (or its causes may be), but 600 point slide 2 days old is stale by now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose definitely stale now. Swarm u | t 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 London riotsEdit

Article: 2011 London riots (talk, history)
Blurb: Ongoing riots have been carried out in North London as buildings have been set ablaze by 500 rioters.
Article updated

 Jaguar (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Here we go again; I just like to point out that the article is in much better shape, has much more sources, and the story has unfolded. I know a previous discussion about this article had already been discussed but I think that another nomination of the article would be best. Thanks! Jaguar (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's on WP:ITN/R. I removed that parameter. Nightw 10:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Support per Jaguar. GreyHood Talk 10:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
why are there 2 noms for same item 2 days apart. please dont use ITN/C as a forum where you bump topics... -- Ashish-g55 11:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I hate already explained why. Please look at the second nomination as you would find that we agreed it would be best to renominate it. Jaguar (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: are riots "carried out"? seems an odd way to describe it. violet/riga [talk] 11:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like there's an effort to make today's events seem as significant as Saturday's when it clearly isn't. Take for example the brief sentence on August 6 "Twenty-six officers were injured", compared to the level of detail on August 8 "6 fire engines tackled blaze at a Foot Locker shoe shop in Brixton" or "3 police officers in were taken to hospital after being hit by a fast-moving vehicle in the Chingford Mount, Waltham Forest, at 00.45 on August 8. The officers had started making arrests after a shop was in the process of being looted by youths."
  • Look at the 1981 Brixton riot for a comparison. Sample: "within five days around 1,000 people were stopped and searched, and 100 arrested..." They didn't break down every arrest into time, exact location, and cause. If we match the brevity of the current article with that, we might get two sentences for August 8. I'm not sure if that's the right thing to do, but I'm pretty sure the level of detail here is excessive. I don't see these hours and minutes or background details significant enough in the long-run, and we should be writing and nominating articles that are fit for the long-run. The rest belongs to Wikinews. Though I must say I'm glad that for once we have an article that seems over-updated.
  • Now, as for this nomination itself, I've already Opposed in the discussion below as I felt this event closely fails the significance criterion and I'll do so again. I don't find this re-nomination appropriate, especially since you made both nominations 1 and the discussion below is still ongoing. Having the article updated is not a reason to start a nomination anew - that's what you're supposed to do before the nomination. And more developments unfold in a story all the time. But I'll leave it to an admin to judge whether this re-nomination is appropriate. JimSukwutput 12:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You said you would change your vote if the riots continue next day. Next day have come, and the riots continue. GreyHood Talk 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I didn't think a case of thievery and a few cases of arson constitutes a riot. But alright, since the time I've commented the situation seems to have significantly worsened, so I have no objections to posting this. My issues with the article still exist, however, and I would urge you to look into them. JimSukwutput 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I was thinking about "unrest" rather than "riots" at the moment, but as far as I know it is shouting louder to be added to ITN, but I am stumped. --Marianian(talk) 12:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't even say "unrest". The section for August 8 contains one case of arson, one case of thievery, one case of vandalism, and smashed windows. Not much different from what happens in any other inner city in a bad day. JimSukwutput 13:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I did. Thanks to HJ Mitchell this renomination became possible. Jaguar (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose sure the articles in better shape. Doesn't make significant enough. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, major civil unrest now being reported across several districts in London. Many parts of London are now no go areas either by rioters or police cordoning off areas. This is now more than just routine trouble. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, the ongoing nature and the fact that it has spread relatively widely across London takes this to a level of significance that wasn't there two days ago. —WFCTFL notices 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the event has unfolded and is clearly much more significant than it was before - its one of the most serious riots since World War 2 in London and there have now been three days of rioting and the Mayor has cut short his holiday to return to the city. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support story has continued for some time, international news coverage is picking up, article is in decent shape. Swarm u | t 18:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Marking [Ready] we are way overdue anyhow. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support news has it violence has escalated in the evening. Article is OK. Major, continuing rioting in an anglophone capital is generally notable for the en-wiki readership. --hydrox (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is the biggest story in the UK, possibly in Europe, right now. Never mind the (perfectly decent) guided busway. Sorry, Jim Sukwutput, but this is really unusual for London, a major world city. We have deliberately-set fires in several separate areas, huge police presence, major transport disruption, and an apparent copycat incident in Birmingham. Needs a better blurb, though. Something like "Riots continue in several areas of London, including arson and looting.". AlexTiefling (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with Alex's wording. North London is too specific; Croydon and Brixton are two of the worst areas now. —WFCTFL notices 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is potentially one of the most significant UK news stories this year. Second AlexTiefling's wording.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Could this be reworded somewhat? I don't like the use of "third night" especially. It sounds as though Wikipedia is a news site and makes it seem as though we will have to update it again every night at which it continues. I don't like the use of "public" either as the vast majority of public are highly opposed to the disorder; just "disorder" or "rioting and looting" would be a far better choice of words. Jolly Ω Janner 23:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Public disorder refers to disorder that affects the public. I think the description is fine.JimSukwutput 23:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the headline should read London and other parts of the United Kingdom given that civil disobedience has extended to Birmingham. London is not the only city in the UK affected by this pandemic of senseless violence guys --Thanks, Hadseys 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I do think the blurb (and article title) needs to be changed to reflect that this has now spread outside of London, though due to the speed at which things are developing it might be best to wait until later in the day?. --wintonian talk 01:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] São Tomé and Príncipe presidential electionEdit

Article: São Tomé and Príncipe presidential election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Manuel Pinto da Costa is elected president of São Tomé and Príncipe.
News source(s): Reuters, Wall Street Journal, China Radio International
Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 Nightw 10:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Any objections? Nightw 19:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Article looks okay and the election seems fair. Marking minority, as democratic elections in sub-Saharan Africa are rarely posted. --hydrox (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Technically it doesn't meet minority requirements. But being ITNR it doesnt matter. As an aside the election article seems fine but Manuel Pinto da Costa isn't. I'm pulling the ready tag because of it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, overlooked that one! Okay, his article is updated. Nightw 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
seems sufficient. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Twenty-four hours later...... Nightw 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support, even though it's redundant, but I just wanted to note that we can also use Pinto da Costa's picture. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 23:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Posted I actually looked at this several hours ago (i.e. around six hours ago) and thought that the update wasn't sufficient, as it doesn't talk much about this part of the election and the results. But, the timer is red and there was, somehow, a substantial update over the past couple days. So, posted. -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

New Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government-in-ExileEdit

Article: Lobsang Sangay (talk, history)
Blurb: Lobsang Sangay takes office as the new Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile.
News source(s): The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Agence France-Presse

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I'm ready to update this as we get consensus (the process of which, I am aware, might be contentious). This is not an ITNR topic because the Tibetan Government-in-Exile isn't an actual recognized national government. The last change in the position occurred in 2001, and Lobsang Sangay is taking over political duties from the 14th Dalai Lama. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Unrecognized government-in-exile, claiming a territory with 6 million people, electing a symbolic prime minister with about 40,000 ballots cast...This just doesn't pass the significance test, even though it is an important topic to me personally. The actual election was four months ago, by the way. JimSukwutput 03:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The position is likely to rise above its symbolic status in a movement traditionally dominated by religious figures. The Dalai Lama relinquished his political duties in May, and Lobsang Sangay will be the first Tibetan head of government who has never set foot on Tibet. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Conditional Support: Yes, in light of the Dalai Lama relinquishing his political role, this assumes importance. However, updates required and I feel the section to be in bold should be Kalon Tripa. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - fairly notable, has been reported well in the news media, and considering the Dalai Lama's relinquishing of his political role and the fact that Lobsang Sangay will be the first Tibetan head of government who has never been in Tibet, it's good enough to qualify for ITN. Also, this may not be a recognized national government, but it is a well known government-in-exile. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 06:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose we would never post the election of any other state which de-facto controls no territory and which has never been de-jure recognised by a single government. I fail to see why we should post this. Even if the Dalai Lama got his way he'd only be the provincial leader anyway - we don't even post the mayors for the world's great cities - let alone provincial leaders. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only reason why the CTA/TGIE is noteworthy is because of its connection to the Dalai Lama, who heads a cult of personality that outsizes his movement. If what Chocolate Horlicks says is true and Mr. Sangay is without the political leadership of the Dalai Lama, then the CTA has lost whatever political leverage (and significance) it had before, because the Chinese government doesn't recognize the CTA and will only hold talks with the Dalai Lama himself. Quigley (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

August 7Edit


European Central Bank printing money to save Italy and Spain from defaultEdit

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/07/us-ecb-bonds-idUSTRE7762RQ20110807 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/a-self-fulfilling-euro-crisis-wonkish/ http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2011/html/pr110807.en.html
Article: European sovereign debt crisis (but not at all updated, and really needs an "Italy" section under "Spread beyond Greece")

This is a big deal, as Italy and Spain were having trouble selling their bonds. So now the ECB will simply buy their bonds, and of course the central bank can print as much money as it needs. If Italy and Spain had defaulted, then it would have meant huge consequences for the Euro. This extraordinary action seems to be in reaction to the US rating downgrade, which is expected to make markets very volatile tomorrow monday. Thue | talk 22:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support after suitable update. Very significant move. Minority topic as well. JimSukwutput 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This could be tied to the rating downgrade ITN - Support if the article is updated & a good "hook" can be written. --Errant (chat!) 00:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any source supporting this story. There is a hell of a difference between a central bank buying assets out of its reserves, and quantitative easing where new money is created. There's plenty of articles in support of the former but nothing in support of the latter. Crispmuncher (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC).
Perhaps you are right. I am not an expert, the "printing money" formulation was just my best understanding. Thue | talk 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as WP:HOAX. ECB does not print or disseminate currency, but authorizes Eurozone national banks to do so. There is no evidence in any source I can find that ECB was authorizing the printing of any more currency than usual. --hydrox (talk) 13:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
A number of people has said that the ECB should print money [54]. Though I agree per Crispmuncher that that has not happened yet. Thue | talk 15:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support For the non-economists, the term "printing money" refers to a systemic expansion of the money supply by a central bank. In a monetarist economic system such an expansion can occur in various ways, including, Seigniorage (such as the physical production of notes and coins), lowering the Official Cash Rate (lowering the over-night interest paid/charged by the central bank to those banks who deposit with it), or through the purchase of government bonds (which is the system used by the U.S. Federal Reserve to expand the money supply in the United States). The decision by the European Central Bank to begin purchasing the government bonds of Spain and Italy, thereby expanding the money supply in those two countries, does fall within the definition of "printing money". Please, if you do not know anything about economics (looking at those who posted above) do not comment about relatively complicated economic issues. Deterence Talk 02:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Longest guided busway opensEdit

The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway, the longest guided busway in the world, opens after years of delays. Bob talk 09:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. Seems interesting, and minority topic. GreyHood Talk 12:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Pls be reminded that ITN is meant to showcase articles in Wikipedia well updated with materials related to current events. The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway article has not been edited since June 23rd, so it does not qualify (yet). --PFHLai (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Support when suitably updated. Very interesting and novel topic. --hydrox (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, yes I meant to update the article this morning, but have only just managed to take some photographs of it "in action". The article has now been updated to reflect that it opened today, and the section on the handover/opening has also been highlighted. Various other bits have been amended. Thanks, Bob talk 17:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the updating. I believe the story is ITN-worthy, but in support of the one-liner to go on MainPage, the sentence in the article saying "the longest guided busway in the world" needs footnotes and recent references -- 2009 is too old, as there may be longer guided busways built elsewhere in the past 2 years. A 2009 ref saying "it will be" cannot be used in 2011 as a source to support a sentence that says/implies "it currently is". Also, please post at Portal:Current events, too. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I was going to add two recent sources, but I conflicted with Bob who added a completely different two. There's certainly no shortage. Swarm u | t 19:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflict Swarm - hope they weren't better sources! Thanks for the suggestions, PFHLai, I have clarified the claim with two recent articles which state that it is; the BBC article also confirms this. I have added a mention on the Portal:Current Events as well. Thanks. Bob talk 19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, Bob. Glad to see this on MainPage. Thank you for your wikicontribution. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on the grounds of being an impressive infrastructure project built outside of China if nothing else. Here's a current BBC link for it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support interesting topic, excellent article to showcase. Swarm u | t 19:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Good quality, interesting topic. JimSukwutput 19:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The whole article is pretty decent and I don't know what else you can say about the opening. Marking [Ready]. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Typhoon MuifaEdit

Article: Typhoon Muifa (2011) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Strong tropical storm approaches China's eastern coast, outing power, leaving one person missing.

Article updated

 --Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait until aftermath is foreseeable or accounted for - South-east China is currently in its yearly typhoon season. A typhoon is inevitable and 1 or 2 does end up making landfall in mainland China. Evacuations of hundreds of thousands in China are not uncommon due to their obvious large population. Not that I am a psychic but typhoons like these do occur yearly and unfortunately deaths in the dozens are common. (Will edit my standpoint after the typhoon is over) YuMaNuMa (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

  • A storm happened. A storm approached land. Power was cut. Wow, what big news.</sarcasm> Oppose. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, could we do a different angle? ITN tends to like posting records, and I think this (found after a quick GNews search) could be pretty newsworthy. Record rainfall? Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, along the lines of what YuMaNuMa said. JimSukwutput 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait per YuMaNuMa. Swarm u | t 19:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Protest in IsraelEdit

Article: 2011 Israeli housing protests#August 6th protest rallies (talk, history)
Blurb: ​400,000 people demonstrated across Israel, demanding an economic change.

Article updated
  • Support As Nom. - yesterday 400,000 people protested in israel against the economic policy of the government, 320,000 of them in tel aviv-- Someone35 (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - escalation of protests.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • This article was on ITN only a few days ago. For a return to ITN with the proposed hook above, pls enrich and expand the 2011 Israeli housing protests#August 6th protest rallies section. Currently, there is a mere 2-sentence paragraph. If there is nothing new to read, this is no point showing this article on MainPage again. --PFHLai (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A large crowd of people in a small country. GreyHood Talk 12:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose What PFHLai said - we posted this before and the update as of now is insignificant. And the blurb certainly needs to be changed. "Economic revolution"? JimSukwutput 12:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong, it hasn't been posted before, it is a new and much larger rally. And if you have a better idea for a blurb please post it, I'm not good in writing blurbs-- Someone35 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I changed it to "economic change" for now, although I have no idea if that is actually true. The article does not say anything about the protestors' demands. JimSukwutput 14:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The link to the 2011 Israeli housing protests article was removed from ITN on July 31st. --PFHLai (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the OP is missing the point. The article has been on ITN recently. The rally may be a new and much larger rally that hasn't been posted before but it's a moot point as long as the article, which has been posted before, only has a 2 sentence paragraph on the rally Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It is the largest protest ever in Israel, more than 6% of Israel's population protested there and it is definitely a significant event. I added the information I know about the rally in that page. Also it is not the same rally that was on July 30th-- Someone35 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
As several people have said several times, that's all irrelevant. Even with your newer additions, the article is still seriously lacking in updates and the article was featured a few days ago. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Not the same rally, but the same event. I think this rally would be notable enough if this article hasn't been on there before. But right now 90% of the article is the exact same one we put up there a while ago. We generally don't try to post multiple developments of the same event, even if those developments on their own might have been posted. The reason is that the significance of these closely related events tend to be closely overlapping. Imagine: One 400,000 rally in Britain might be notable on its own, and another 300,000 rally in France might be notable on its own, but if these rallies were both in Britain, the significance is much less than the combined individual significance of the two events. JimSukwutput 16:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone35, please post the news item on Portal:Current events (along with newslinks). You may attract the attention of other Wikipedians interested in current events to help you expand this article, or start a new article about this "largest protest ever in Israel" soon. (It's a requirement to post there before coming to ITN, anyway.) Without a substantially updated article or a new article about this, we don't have a candidate for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Per Someone35, BabbaQ and Greyhood -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the above supporters. Swarm u | t 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Update significant enough. Support enough as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The update is four short sentences. That's below the bare minimum. It doesn't even have the right figure - it says 400,000 when both of the sources cited for that figure says 300,000 (I believe one of them was updated from 400,000 to 300,000 after it was published). I'm not strongly opposed to posting something about this, but what we have right now is a 95% replica of the article that just went off ITN a few days ago, with the remaining 5% consisting of mostly incorrect information. Simply not ready. JimSukwutput 21:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Removed. Your argument before was a good one anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
        • I corrected the figures. But I'll leave an expansion of that section to the nominator or whoever else wants to see this nomination succeed. JimSukwutput 21:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
"obvious" oppose this time, just posted it a few days ago and nothings changed. off-topic remarks redacted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)/small>Lihaas (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a 2/3 majority and more than 5 posts, why isn't it in the news already?-- Someone35 (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 6Edit