Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2012

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.

August 29Edit

Article: Lopota Gorge hostage crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​14 people are reported killed in a clash between Georgian special forces and an unknown armed group. (Post)
News source(s): RFE/RL

 --Niemti (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

August 31Edit

Philippine earthquake and tsunami panicEdit

Article: 2012 Philippines earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A magnitude 7.6 earthuake has stricken off the Philippine coast killing one, triggering a tsunami alert. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters India, Zee News, NDTV

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The tremor caused widespread panic in Eastern Visayas, where many inhabitants exited their homes. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Localised tectonic activity. Few casualties. Tsunami alert rapidly cancelled. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not notable.Egeymi (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That, i dont agree with. It is notable. The earthquake caused widespread panic across the Pacific. People fled. How can you not call that significant...!? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Because I try to emphasize its global effect, not personal one. I think we should be neutral in regard to the events even such events happen near us. On the other hand, instead of being angry at me you might put your support vote here. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
But he already !voted as he's the nominator. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You are right, I noticed late. However, the nom may refer to the rules of DO NOT, stating "Do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
He didn't do that, but you did. -- tariqabjotu 15:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
How did I do that? Can you please show me my accusation of nominating this blurb? Very odd. I just put my vote, then the nom wrote smth. Then I tried to justify my vote, although there is no rule asking the justification of votes.Egeymi (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You said "Because I try to emphasize its global effect, not personal one," implying that Anirudh found the event notable because of personal effect. -- tariqabjotu 16:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not really mean it. I am sorry if my words are understood in this way. But, it was not an accusation. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning support A very powerful earthquake. The effects section talks about destroyed bridges, but that's citing CSM, which is citing a text message. If the quake caused significant damage, I would support. We're not a death ticker after all, so "not enough deaths" is a pretty weak oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP98 (talkcontribs) 12:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. A powerful earthquake, while not many have died, the impact is still large. Weak because it didn't make headlines (or at least I didn't see it there on CNN, BBC and AJE). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh is about the best that can be said. If there is sufficient reader interest I am for it, but checkviews isn't supporting that. It may actually have saved net lives, given the people who weren't killed in crimes and car accidents that were avoided because people were otherwise occupied. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - something new, a powerful earthquake which has had an impact on the region. --Activism1234 00:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

August 30Edit

16th Summit of the Non-Aligned MovementEdit

Articles: 16th Summit of the Non Aligned Movement (talk, history) and Non-Aligned Movement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Heads of state meet at the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran, Iran, on 30 and 31 August. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg[1], Nation [2]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Consisting of 120 member states, and 21 observer countries which represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and contain 55% of the world population, it is the most important gathering of the Developing Countries. It is the international framework for South-South cooperation. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- See original nom. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - we already discussed this below... --Activism1234 03:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment that time (26 August) some of the supporters told the issue is premature and proposed waiting until the main summit starts(30 August). So I wrote there I will renominate it at the end of August. Unfortunately, I could not find those discussions. I think it deserves to discuss again.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see at the end of the debate we concluded to wait until the main part of the event starts and the article become more complete. This was my last comment:Due to the fact that the main days of summits are 30 and 31 August and the major decisions will made at that time, the subject is per-mature now. Therefor I accept that it is not a good decision to put the article on the main page before 30th.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
--Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning support. Interactions between these countries at this sort of level are significant, particularly given the number of major oil producers and in the context of the Syria situation. The lack of direct EU and US representation, as well as their stances towards Iran, will have an obvious effect on the level of coverage, so the inevitable "the New York Times are doing this, the BBC are doing that" arguments should be given less weight than they usually warrant. —WFC— 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment* The issue has covered well by English media of south Asia very well. I we consider people of India as English speakers, then it has a lot of significance.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
India has historically been a leading figure of the NAM. The Times of India doesn't display it on the first main section of its website, only as a link below in "world" and only 1 article. --Activism1234 05:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose until someone can tell me anything that's actually happened of any significance. Hot Stop 05:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Speeches and rhetoric. Natural for Persians to be excited over the summit, but as of now, pretty much just that. --Activism1234 05:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because the event is significant from the view of Middle East politics: it includes important diplomacy on the Syrian civil war, Nuclear proliferation (including the Iranian Nuclear Program and sanctions against Iran), Palestinian statehood and UN reform.Bless sins (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - It includes rhetoric on some of that. The latter one, for example, is primarly Iran's supreme leader blasting the U.N. as "undemocratic" and a defunct relic of the past that is "bullied" and controlled by the West, although serves as a great example of the glaring POV issues in the article by certain editors. Another example - for Palestinian statehood, there isn't any diplomacy on that - just Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas saying again that they're not delaying their statehood bid. Syrian civil war - comments by Egyptian President Morsi supporting the opposition. Etc... Rhetoric and speeches isn't diplomacy, saying otherwise is misleading. --Activism1234 06:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose That a junket was held is not news. If something actually newsworthy came of it that should be mentioned. Until then, huge oppose. μηδείς (talk) 06:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - expanding on Medeis and Hot Stop. There are many meetings and summits with world leaders, ranging from the environment to weapons control, and some of them even have more delegates than this one, but we don't post them all. Yes, world leaders meet. This is a regular summit regularly held. Minimal news coverage on top headlines - see BBC, Reuters, etc. Even on leading countries of the NAM, such as India (historically known for its leadership of the NAM) it's not getting much coverage (see Times of India). The IAEA report on Iran that Iran has doubled its centrifuges at Fordow has been getting more coverage on these websites. Although not a requirement for posting, I think it's useful when assessing the importance of this summit. There's also glaring POV issues in this article that don't make it suitable for the front page, and attempts to create neutrality just get changed by a few editors with a bias in an attempt to minimize anything that can be perceived as criticism of the Iranian government, even in a speech by the United Nations Secretary General. I noticed yesterday a conspiracy theory being reported as a fact ("Iran condemned the Western world's equipping of Israel with nuclear weapons" was one thing that remained on the page for a while). Iranian-government owned references are used throughout the article to change sentences or use as reference - problematic when you consider that Iran has censored its media outlets to be biased on reporting the NAM. As long as these editors will keep on doing this, the problem won't be remedied. Nothing major has come out of this, other than a few speeches and a photo-op. A lot of speeches, but that's rhetoric. We can condemn people or rhetoric all we want, but it's still just words, and previous nominations regarding rhetoric on other topics such as Syria were rejected for this. --Activism1234 07:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment You were an active editor of the article and we improved the article with cooperation. I agree that Iran's media censor some criticism but we refered to non-Iranian media as the resource in every case which could be controversial. So please write your ideas in the talk page of the article, if you think it is not neutral.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Hot Stop, Medeis, and Activism1234, and there has been no significant outcome of the discussions at the summit. So, its closing statement will cover just known stances and approach.Egeymi (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even NAM countries doesn't consider this as important. I don't think that this will be able to make to ITN for the next some years, because Cold War II and Unification of Soviet Union will be red links till then, I guess. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I do not agree this is merely another run-of-the-mill international summit meeting. I also find it particularly important to present this forum at a time when other international forums are unanimously giving support to the western-orchestrated campaign against to government of Syria. __meco (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing substantial yielded at the summit. Nor was expected from it. Also, no major agenda discussed widely in mainstream media. The group, as claimed, is losing its appeal.Regards, theTigerKing  17:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - run of the mill.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Opposed to all summits, marches, protests, riots, conferences, and all other sorts of press releases and street theater, etc., unless a major substantive breakthrough which itself is newsworthy occurs. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not convinced by the significance of the meeting or its decision making. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Cholera outbreak in Sierra LeoneEdit

Article: 2012 Sierra Leonian cholera outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​an outbreak of cholera in Sierra Leone kills 327 people, its worst cholera outbreak in 15 years, causing the government to declare a national emergency. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, Times, AFP, BBC

Article needs updating

 --Activism1234 20:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, cited as the worst outbreak in the last 15 years.Egeymi (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Shocking figures. ComputerJA (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment the outbreak should be moved to the notable outbreaks subsection, instead of under history. Is there enough for this to spawn its own article? -- (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I had originally suggested this as notable, though i think a seperate 2012 Sierra Leonian cholera outbreak akin to 2010-2011 Haitian cholera outbreak would be more suited as its NOTNEWS to the cholera page.
Update was rather poor and misplaced.Lihaas (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
2010–2011 Haiti cholera outbreak is a really great article, but I don't see this article getting that long, although it could definitely if editors paid attention on the media for this, but I don't know if this an issue that it can happen again with. Feel free to move it into a new article, I won't oppose though. --Activism1234 03:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I have created 2012 Sierra Leonian cholera outbreak. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Activism1234 17:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Article is short, but has no major quality issues and covers existing scholarship adequately. This is being covered by the news sources, said sources consider it significant, so I don't see why we shouldn't either. --Jayron32 17:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support bad news having a state of emergency but notable. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Like others I am a bit concerned by the stub article, but I see work is continuing on it. Let's consider marking it ready and posting in light of the consensus. Jusdafax 18:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 19:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb incorrect A cholera outbreak in Sierra Leone is declared a national emergency following the deaths of more than 300 people. Incorrect use of English, highlighted by bolder part. It could be: A cholera outbreak in Sierra Leone causes a national emergency to be declared following the death of atleast 300 people.Regards, theTigerKing  03:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Hurricane Isaac/Issac (2012)Edit

Article: Hurricane Isaac (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 36 people are feared dead after Hurricane Isaac strikes the Gulf Coast of the United States, Lesser Antilles, Gulf of Mexico, Greater Antilles and The Bahamas. (Post)
News source(s): Making top headlines around the world for a few days now. The article is replete with enough, upto date and reliable sources.

Nominator's comments: Making headlines around the world. Loss of life, thousands affected and the economic damage. Regards, theTigerKing  15:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: Previously nominated by — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:18, 27 August 2012 here. Please vote there and not here, if needed.Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not see it. Thanks :)Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with this blurb and based on this information. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nearly all of the deaths happened last week when the storm hit Haiti (i.e. before the last, failed nomination). If they weren't important enough then, they're not important enough now. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a failed nomination. Just it was put on hold. Also, federal emergency declared in the US today. Weather analysts announced today that the effect from Isaac would be more pronounced than Katrina in the US.Regards, theTigerKing  17:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
A federal declaration of emergency is a political no-brainer two months before a general election and in the wake of Katrina. And who cares what the weather analysts say if Isaac pales to Katrina's death and property toll?--Chaser (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: It meets all of the requirements for an ITN item: It's a good, updated article and it has clearly been making news all over. --Jayron32 17:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, we've got one editor's POV on the storm, but not an ITN-criteria rationale as to why a good article at the top of the news should be rejected. We have an overwhelming majority of waits and supports from the previous nomination--and the "wait" period is now over. I don't know the mechanics of how the dup noms should be handled, but this article should go up without delay. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I think "wait" votes meant "wait until it happens". But it never did. Formerip (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Ask the million or so people who are without power today, or the hundreds of thousands whose homes and property are damaged, if it didn't happen. ANd that's just the U.S. The dead people in the Carribean and those whose homes were damaged there also would be surprised that the Hurricane didn't happen. --Jayron32 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. We can post this if we also post when it snows in the UK this December. Formerip (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
When it does, nominate it, and we'll probably post it. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 22:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready - I marked it as ready based on the # of support votes in the nomination below, as well as here. --Activism1234 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Readiness and support !votes are totally different issues: this comment makes no sense. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Posting. Someone upload the photo, please. --Tone 18:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Picture added. --Jayron32 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment: Less than 2½ hours between nomination and posting on a challenged nomination seems undue haste on a non-news ticker. I'll just put on record that I find the rapid posting after US impact, and the previous silence after its more deadly impact on the Caribbean islands an indictment on the systemic bias in this project. And that is without the comparison between monsoons and hurricanes. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It wasn't 2 1/2 hours after posting. This is a mis-done second nomination. See below; the posting was done based on the prior support of the previous nomination. Though I understand and agree with your point that the damage to the Carribean should have been sufficient to post this, this venue is unlikely to generate the change you wish to see. May I suggest that the discussion happens at WT:ITN instead of here, because complaining one-by-one on each example of systemic bias is a futile exercise, doubly so for an item that you seem to think should have been posted earlier. The points you raise are important, but this venue will ensure that nothing at all will be done about them. Best to carefully consider how to frame the problem, and the correct location to have the discussion, in such a way that it will affect the change you seek. --Jayron32 19:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It was rapidly posted after it faded into a tropical depression in the US, and there was consensus to post it, not because it simply reached the US. Claims of Bias on ITN drive me crazy. If it's newsworthy, and the consensus says post it (which there was consensus to post this), then it gets posted. If more newsworthy events come out of the US then other countries, and consensus says "post it", then they get posted. If it was the UK instead of the US that has more headlines in the media, they would get posted, just the same. ITN is not bias, it's the way news works. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 22:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Nah, this is just a plain bad post. The previous vote was clearly in favour of "wait, we do not post media predictions of Armageddon", rather than "wait and then post as soon as it passes more-or-less without incident". Plus the blurb is far too concise. We need to list the individual towns and, if possible, locations of upended garbage pails. Formerip (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The consensus on the first nomination was clearly "Wait and see how much damage it does". At least 36 people are dead, Haiti was hit bad, flooding is widespread in the Caribbean, and it left 900,000 people without power and $1.5 billion in damages in the US alone. That seems to be consensus enough for posting. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You're objections were noted above. Continued snide remarks are also unlikely to generate change; the only conceivable result of them is to piss people off. Sometimes, people don't agree with you. Belittling them with remarks like this doesn't bring those that disagree onto your side. --Jayron32 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not correct. Bad posts tend to get pulled if there are enough snide comments. You're right that I won't be able to do it on my own, of course. Formerip (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The previous nomination did muddy the waters a bit. However, I do think we we look at the discussion below we can see a swing in consensus as storm upgraded to hurricane and the damage became a bit more clear. The current blurb does reflect its impact on the whole Caribbean region. Currently ITN has a bus crash in China with a similar death toll, riots in Kenya, a sports event in the UK, and the death of the first person to walk on the moon. I don't think the current state of ITN is a high water mark of systemic bias, though certainly the fact that this storm eventually hit the US did help this nomination along.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Did an editor just say that said editor makes snide comments in order that ITN nominations won't get posted, rather than simple vote with reason explained?? Not sure how much this should be tolerated here... But that's pretty sad. --Activism1234 20:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Feared dead"? That doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you have an alternate wording? --Jayron32 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't mind the wording, but maybe "presumed dead" would be better for MZMcBride? --Activism1234 20:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
        I agree 'feared dead' is an inappropriate wording. presumed sounds better.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd also go with "presumed." Jusdafax 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - per those that observed that this item was proposed days ago. I was an early supporter of the previous proposal, though with reservations about the previous blurb. Agree with Jayron32 that WT:ITN is the place for those with issues to go, and that this ITN blurb is worthy of the front page per ITN's intended function. In my view, those accusing others of "bias" and making virtually every ITN nomination a drawn-out battle have gradually reached the point of serious disruption of ITN. We either solve this festering issue inside our ITN community, or we will have to call for other eyes. I for one am about out of patience, but still hopeful that we won't have to appear like a bunch of squabbling children to the wider community. Jusdafax 20:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated oppose a small storm at the height of hurricane season. Tragically people die in almost every storm in Haiti, and though we're not a death counter, the number was relatively small. See no reason to pull now that it's up, but it really should have not gone up. Same as monsoon rain deaths. PS: It hit us here in south florida too, how come we don't get a mention in the blurb? --IP98 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Replace "feared" with "suspected". "Feared" carries too much emotional baggage. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 08:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New World DiscoveredEdit

Article: Kepler-47 (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA's Kepler spaceship discovers a pair of planets orbiting two suns in Kepler-47 - the first multiple planet arrangement in such a star system. (Post)
News source(s): International Business Times, [3], [4]

 --Activism1234 01:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Not the first binary star system (we have actually found three-star systems) and not the first system with multiple exoplanets. So this is really just another one of those abstract and unnecessary "firsts". EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You have not touched on the point being made. This is the first system in which the two suns are close and the planets orbit about the paired stars rather than the stars being far apart with the planets only orbiting around one of the suns. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, it's a binary binary, or two planets orbiting around the center of mass of two stars. That's really not that impressive of a first considering the scant distance between the stars. In fact, it's no more impressive than Kepler-16b, which was a DYK.--Chaser (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing one way or the other on posting, I just thought the issue should be made clear. If they determine the Kessel run can be made in fewer than 12 parsecs from that system, I will support. μηδείς (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. For the record, I oppose posting.--Chaser (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While this is very interesting, it doesn't seem like news to me. It's one of those fascinating snippets I appreciate reading about but its landmark-ness is really just a case of being the first of a very specific type of arrangement; would we then post the first three-planet–two-star arrangement, etc? A good DYK hook could easily be gained instead, as a new article is obviously a viable option. GRAPPLE X 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have to stop treating these discoveries with unbridled reverence. As Grapple X suggests, this could be bumped to DYK, which is less high profile but more suited to these minor bits of trivial interest. Not sure ITN suits this kind of thing to be honest. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Much more suitable to DYK. Fascinating though exoplanets are, their discovery just isn't headline news any more. Perhaps if one is found to have signs of life on it some day? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

China Coal Mine ExplosionEdit

Article: Xiaojiawan coal mine disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Forty-one miners are killed and five are still trapped in a coal mine explosion in China. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9

Article needs updating
Death toll up to 26. [5] Beagel (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
37 is killed, 10 is still missing. [6] Beagel (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
41 is killed, five is still missing. [7] Beagel (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but it needs a map. --IP98 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not very experienced with adding pictures (in this case a map) to articles but I did find one which may be a good picture for the article. The picture I think would be good for the article is: Andise1 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I am added the infobox for mine, including location map (showing location in China) Beagel (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but change "still are" to "remain" --Xavexgoem (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is borderline but it will have no longterm importance, no great article that needs featuring, and little reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mexican elections: Enrique Peña NietoEdit

In the next few days, Mexico's electoral court will confirm the victory of Enrique Peña Nieto. They have until September 6, 2012 but they might confirm it earlier (probably Thursday or Friday of this week). [8]

Article: Enrique Peña Nieto (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After the contested 2012 presidential elections, the Mexican electoral court confirms that Enrique Peña Nieto is the president-elect of Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): [9]

Nominator's comments: It is not official yet, but let's be ready. I'm not sure if the vote-buying allegations should be included in the blurb. It can POV pushing, and especially because nothing has been confirmed by the Tribunal. BTW, feel free to fix the blurb. ComputerJA (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: moved to Aug 30 to avoid confusing the bot. Oppose a ridiculously early nomination which anticipates the outcome. If it can be anticipated so definitively that doesn't really say much for the notability of the nomination: it's a simple formality. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC).
    • Correct. I'm not trying to get an early nomination. I just want to point out that the Tribunal's decision is coming up. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when confirmed - it wasn't a few votes in dispute, it was alleged that 5 million votes were stolen. This should confirm once and for all who the president of Mexico is. --Activism1234 01:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

*Support, notable, since the election appeal of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was rejected by the highest election court.Egeymi (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Mexico declares that Enrique Peña Nieto is the winner of the presidential elections. This is ready to be posted. ComputerJA (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some mention of the nation-wide anti-imposition protests is important. No need to mention vote-buying or other allegations, but it's important that the election results aren't isolated to Mexican bureaucracy. Not sure how to fit this in, though (I have the flu and my brain is mush). Xavexgoem (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    I agree. It's a difficult one. Feel free to come up with your own; I'm neutral for including the protests. BTW, the anti-imposition movement is led (although not entirely) by the Yo Soy 132. Hope you get better. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    The Mexican electoral court confirms that Enrique Peña Nieto is the president-elect of Mexico in the 2012 presidential elections after nation-wide protests led by Mexican movement Yo Soy 132.? That might be a little undue (also: YoSoy132 hasn't been edited to reflect post-election protests), so also: The Mexican electoral court confirms that Enrique Peña Nieto is the president-elect of Mexico in the 2012 presidential elections after nation-wide anti-fraud protests. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    Well, I think it has undue weight. What's your opinion on "The Mexican electoral court confirms that Enrique Peña Nieto is the president-elect of Mexico in the 2012 presidential elections after the opposition contested the results"? Damn, I wish I was better at this -.- haha ComputerJA (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    Why not just add "contested" in "the 2012 presidential elections"? Xavexgoem (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah. That sounds good. Feel free to make the change. Thank you! ComputerJA (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: Was the original announcement of the winner posted? –HTD 02:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it wasn't official then. I don't think it's official now, either, but it's more official than previously :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I wasn't asking on its level of "officialness". I'm asking whether or not it was posted. –HTD 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
        • And my first word was "no". Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Should have used a semicolon
No, it was not posted. It was yet another, 'wait until the story is irrelevant vote. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Officially he is the President-elect of Mexico.[10][11][12]. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted I modified the blurb a bit. Any comments about that would probably best go to WP:ERRORS or my talk page.--Chaser (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

August 29Edit


Article: Leistungsschutzrecht (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Cabinet of Germany decides on Leistungsschutzrecht. (Post)
News source(s): Spiegel Online - Netzwelt

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Could have potential influence on the web and Wikipedia in particular. ---- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlkctb) 08:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Very difficult to oppose or support on substance of a story with no English language sources provided, and an article that is scarcely a stub, so no choice but to tentatively oppose on basis of little or no news coverage (on neither technology nor Europe section of BBC news site). Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Even as a German speaker, I'm finding it hard to judge the significance of this. And 'significant to Wikipedia itself' is very different to 'significant to ITN'. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I sincerely hope that the blurb, if posted, will be significantly more descriptive.--WaltCip (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Blurb is too vague, isn't making rounds on the web/media as far as I can tell, just seems like another bill in a country, regardless of whether it will affect us here. --Activism1234 18:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Until now there's only a cabinet draft. Wait until, if ever, the Bundestag passes this law. --bender235 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted]Summer Paralympics opening ceremonyEdit

Article: 2012 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2012 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony takes place in London, UK (Post)
News source(s):

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: I expect I have got this all wrong as I don't really understand how to do this. Can the Paralympics opening ceremony be added to ITN please in two hours' time please? It is part of the second largest sporting event in the world. The opening ceremony starts at 8.30pm UK time. -- (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I did check, on the 29th entries, and there was nothing. What was I to think? I have spent the day bringing the article up to scratch so that it is good enough to be featured in ITN. I don't just nominate, I do. (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You only checked one days entries though. Sometimes entries are posted a few days before they are going to happen on ITN (such as the 2012 London Paralympics) which is why I suggest for the future to check each days nominations (or look at the top where it lists the nominations for the past few days and see if an event has already been nominated about the event you were planning to nominate).Andise1 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Theoretically there's a place for nominating future events (nobody uses it though). LukeSurl t c 22:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • comment - I marked the nomination about the Paralympics below as "ready" because it was nominated first.
Posting (I'll mark this one as posted as it's on the top). --Tone 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you please mark both nominations as posted? Andise1 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  Done --Activism1234 23:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Summer Paralympics stickyEdit

We seemed to have consensus to post a stick as with the Olympics. The chronology page is there (though can we get someone to whitlink the ticketmaster link that wont enable it to show up?)Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • oppose sticky. No such consensus was reached. It is (and should be) very rare that we have a sticky for a sports event.-- (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As sad as it is, I don't see the Paralympics getting as much coverage as the Olympics, and that includes on Wikipedia. I'm all for posting the opening and closing ceremonies, and any exciting records or events at the Paralympics, but not a sticky. --Activism1234 02:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As mentioned above, no consensus was made for a sticky for the Paralympics. There is/was a discussion in the original first nomination about a sticky. If you read the discussion you will see that a few people oppose a sticky with their reasons for why they think a sticky is not neccessary. Andise1 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the world's second largest sporting event so, unless stickies are reserved only for the Olympics, this should get one. Also, we need to take a worldwide view. My impression is that the Paralympics have a particularly low profile in the US, where most events are not even being broadcast live. But in the UK (OK, we are hosting them, fair point) they are getting blanket coverage. Formerip (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It's only getting a high profile in the UK because it's being hosted there. It's not just in the US that it gets a low profile. It gets about an our a day of coverage on Russian tv during the middle of the day (i.e. filler time) and low profile headlines. On the French paper Lequipe there is some coverage but much less than the US Open and there's a poll with a question 'Will you follow the Paralympic games in London" and 63 percent answered 'No'. The UK isn't a 'worldwide view'. To say the Paralympics are garnering the worldwide interest of the Olympic games or the World Cup is a severe lack of a worldwide view.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Never trust online polls, buy if 37% of French people are following the paralmypics, that doesn't sound too bad. I doubt that many are following the Syrian Civil War or the obituary columns. In terms of media coverage, we may not really know until things get going, but the Paralympics are the main news right now in Australia (link may be time-sensitve) and German Wikipedia seems to think they are important enough for a sticky. Formerip (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree online polls are dodgy, but I'll point out that the poll doesn't indicate that 37 percent of its readers are following the games (let alone french people in general). There are a number of options besides 'no'. Actually French wikipedia also has a sticky. However, it also has a sticky for the US Open while German Wikipedia has a sticky for Hurricane Issac. All of this evidence is adding up to the fact that on English Wikipedia the Paralympics are worthy of a mention but not worthy of a sticky, which we reserve for vary rare cases.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with FormerIP. The USA is unusual in giving such a low profile to this event. I understand that NBC is limiting its coverage to a single highlights show after it's all over. This is not the pattern generally - here in Europe, it's a very prominent event. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we use sticky links for Olympics and for FIFA World Cup (arguably the two biggest sport events in the world). And I believe this is enough regarding sport events. Besides, we're running Syria sticky at the moment already and it's not a good idea to have more than one at a time. --Tone 12:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least until there is some sense of the purpose and timeliness of this sticky. I doubt that there is the will and interest to maintain a timely, encyclopaedic, prose driven update on every event. At least two world rcords were broken on the first morning of competition (I don't trust the flagwavers on BBC news to bring our attention to potential other records acheived by non-GB (sic) athletes), but they are not mentioned anywhere that would be suitable for a sticky link. Kevin McE (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Second Indian court rulingEdit

'Article: 2002 Gujarat violence (talk, history)
​An Indian court convicts 32 people, including former state minister Maya Kodnani and the Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi, for their roles in the 2002 Gujarat riots. (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo, Washington Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: As explained in the sources, the case has major political implications. It is also India's highest-profile conviction in a case, and acknowledges for the first time the role of a politician in inciting Hindu mobs. The Gujarat riots killed over 1000 people. --Activism1234 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Question - any idea why the template is messing around with us?? --Activism1234 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
note 2 sentences is not a sufficient update.
Also NPOV the title of the convictee and removed trivia frm blurbLihaas (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
What exactly was POV in the blurb? Can you please discuss this before changing it? I just took it from the article and paraphrased it... The current wording "Bajrang Deal" is not good - most people don't know what that is, and it's a red link... I'll update the article more, that's not an issue. --Activism1234 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Just th eminor point of the ":Hindu nationalist" leader, which is more accurate as his actual title of whi he leads. Hindu Nationalist is vague, which is also why content should not be taken straight off the media reports. He is he leader of the BD which is wikilinked.Lihaas (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I expanded the passage, it's longer than 5 lines now. --Activism1234 01:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • weak support looks interesting, but I don't know much about it EdwardLane (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
hmm I tried tweaking the blurb (adding the comma before the 'and') but that made it look like it might have been 33 people - but leaving the comma out I had to reread the sentence to grasp the meaning. So something needs reworking there. Perhaps the order of the people need swapping round.EdwardLane (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian court rulingEdit

Article: 2008 Mumbai attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: India's Supreme Court upholds the death sentence for Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunamn responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. (Post)
News source(s): Times of India, NDTV, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I made this nomination considering that we posted something similar for Breivik, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks were also extremely horrific - over 200 killed (not to compare terrorist attacks, but that's more than Breivik), and over 300 injured. Unlike Norway, however, this is a matter of life and death for Kasab - not just jail. --Activism1234 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Question: did we report Kasab's conviction? If so, I would oppose this on the grounds that we don't need to chronicle every legal action that ends in "the status quo remains". NW (Talk) 05:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • In February 2011, the most recent court verdict, we did not post anything about it. The only Indian court-related post was "An Indian court convicts thirty-one people of perpetrating the 2002 Godhra train burning, which led to rioting in Gujarat."
    • We did, however, post a ruling from a lower court in May 2010 about it, but that was over two years ago and was not the highest court (this Supreme Court ruling means there can't be any more appeals I believe, it's certain). --Activism1234 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd say wait till he is actually executed (if at all). There are no more appeals, but he can make a mercy petition to the president who may then conveniently just sit on it for several years. The joke that's been doing the rounds in India was that Microsoft should name their next OS after Kasab or Afzal Guru (they will never hang). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Breivik post was the actual sentence. This proposal is simply that the sentence already handed down was upheld. If it was overturned or changed in some other significant way then I would have supported. As it is, there is no change. --RA (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The supreme court in its ruling has said that it is the most significant of the rarest of the rare of case that has come before it since India became republic in 1950. The upholding of the sentencing is a significant event in the life of "26/11" attacks. The victims were not only Indians, but Americans and Israelis. So there would be international scrutiny to it. Let's not comment on when he would be executed or that the article should be considered only when he is executed. But yes, the response has been positive on his execution from across the political spectrum. The only option left for him is the presidential mercy, if he asks one, the response of which would be highly negative for the "butcher", considering the gravity of the attacks. So, we all can hope for the best. And, it is making headlines around the world.Regards, theTigerKing  15:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, notable since the verdict (a dilemma for "modern" world) is being discussed and the attack was very shocking.Egeymi (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Addition, "Kasab" means "butcher" in Turkic languages. An odd coincidence.Egeymi (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - it's a busy day for Indian courts. A state minister was just convicted for murder in one of India's worst religious riots in 2002, when 2,500 people, mostly Muslims, were hacked, beaten, or burned to death. Sourcs - Yahoo, Washington Post. Does anyone feel we should merge this with the blurb? Or leave the blurb, and open a new ITN nomination (or do neither)? --Activism1234 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That doesn't impresses me much. Its not in fact a much big news in India, so forget about world. As of the death sentence uphold, I will be neutral on this as the sentence was given yeeeears ago, but it was not executed due to vote-bank politics. I believe that this can be a major news once the sentence is executed, but just a simple uphold is not worthy of coming on ITN. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, Kasab's case was going through the whole judicial process and reached the SC only now. It's Afzal whose execution has been okayed twice by the SC and not carried out yet. As for the Gujarat riots decision - it is unrelated and should not be clubbed. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you recommend a new ITN nomination, or like Vibhijain, do you think it shouldn't be nominated at all? Thanks. --Activism1234 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
what is going on here? WHy is the same user commenting twice on this thread from/with 2 different signatures. Isnt their a rule gainst using 2 caccounts this way? There certainly should be?Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you please clarify who you're referring to? It's impossible to know who you think is abusing two accounts... For all I know, you can be thinking I'm using two different accounts here. --Activism1234 01:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Activism1234 here. Lihaas, what and who are you talking about? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no WP policy on the use of two caccounts.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Upholding a death sentence" = status quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • support This is a final decision, one that would certainly have plenty of support had the vote gone left. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The convict is now likely to appeal for a presidential pardon. I think we should only post once a final decision is made. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This does not appear to change anything. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you want to get overly simplistic, isn't the story here basically, "Nothing happened"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ukrainian high court rulingEdit

Article: Yulia Tymoshenko (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Ukrainian high court rejects an appeal by jailed ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, straining Ukraine's ties with Western nations. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, [Wall Street Journal], Reuters, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We're talking about a prime minister in court here, not the most common thing in the world. This is the high court, so I presume it's the final verdict in the case. Also, the case itself has led to an international response, as it has strained relations with the West. The case was high-profile, and attended by President Aleksander Kwasniewski and former president of the European Parliament Patrick Cox. --Activism1234 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Support when the verdict comes through, but I am not a big fan of the current blurb. Could definitely be worded better somehow, I just don't know how. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Definitely, I'm going to reword based it on whatever the verdict is, it's just temporary for now. --Activism1234 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Support if overturned because that would be a hugely significant turn of events. Support if original conviction is let stand because it is an internationally controversial case. --RA (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
note we posted her sentencing to prison. This would be the appeal.Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
oppose;; as the first comment after the result, its just an appeal that was rejected. NOthing to look at here. Its not even near the top of the news.Lihaas (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't need a nomination to be top news to post it, that's not what ITN is for. I think that it's plenty to see - a prime minister in court, the final verdict in a case, and the political implications that have followed and will followed, so I wouldn't exactly say there's "nothing" to see here... Feel free to oppose it, as Crispmuncher did below (although not sure what pro-Western POV pushing he's seeing here...) but it'd be wrong to say there's nothing to see. --Activism1234 01:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
It is "nothing" here as the case already yielded a result and an unprecedented jailing. This is a rejection of appeal.Lihaas (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is simply a confirmation of the status quo and has been noted, we've already posted it once. It's not the kind of story that warrants multiple mentions IMHO. Most of the time similar cases would be thrown out on those very grounds. We need to be especially careful about this since it has been portrayed as an East vs. West thing: pro-Western POV pushing is still POV pushing. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose - This seems not to change anything. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat assassination inquiryEdit

Article: Death of Yasser Arafat (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A murder inquiry is opened into the 2004 death in France of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. (Post)
News source(s): [13]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Seems like pretty big news. True, it's "only" a murder enquiry being opened, but what comparable figure on the world stage has been bestowed that particular honour in recent times? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

  • Oppose If it's concluded that he was assassinated, I'd reconsider, but an inquiry is insufficient for me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's just an inquiry, it's not even known whose suspected of killing him (some Palestinians have blamed Israel, some Palestinians have blamed other Palestinians), and it either way contradicts the official French medical report about his death (died of a massive hemmorhage). The murder inquiry comes in the wake of allegations that he was poisoned by polonium, based on clothing that his wife left around for 8 years and decided one day to test, and abnormally high levels of polonium came back, although some people have pointed out that they should've been very tiny had he been poisoned 8 years ago. But I digress, it's a murder inquiry due to the possibility of a murder, but that possibility is very unclear and the result can very likely turn up to be nothing, so not for ITN in my opinion. --Activism1234 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
That all sounds really intriguing and potentially good content for the article - but isn't it the exact opposite of a good "oppose" vote? Formerip (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I explained the oppose part in the beginning and after the "But I digress" :) Pretty much same as Muboshgu, except with the part I included as more reasons why I don't find it that notable or important. --Activism1234 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be saying you oppose it because there are lots of ins and outs and controversy and different views people might take and it's impossible to know what actually happened. But shouldn't all that add up to "interesting" rather than "oppose"? Formerip (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No I would've supported posting the allegation that he was poisoned by polonium when it was released a few months ago due to that "interesting" stuff (not sure whether it was posted or not, I wasn't around on ITN). But the police inquiry, which was expected at the time as well, isn't that notable to me, doesn't change any facts on the ground, and doesn't change the theory. The result, on the other hand, may be interesting, but the inquiry itself I don't recommend posting. --Activism1234 01:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw, on the side, the appropriate article would be Death of Yasser Arafat (yes, there are tons of rumors and theories on how he died, other than the official medical record!) --Activism1234 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait for the outcome of the inquiry; if the conclusion is that he was assassinated, then support. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Zaldax; wait until the outcome and then consider its merits doktorb wordsdeeds 04:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Who is conducting the investigation? Is Yassassination the only PLOsibility? Are they looking into whether he might have committed Jewicide? μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm so tempted to make a joke about PLOnium... --Activism1234 04:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only because I am sick and tired of people voting wait to mean they will oppose it even when it is finally resolved. I happen to hope 'they' killed the bastard, but will admit it is news, even if they didn't. Let me make merself perfectly clear: even if the investigation is against our wishes, the investigation itself is notable. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This could quite easily come to nothing. And I find the tone of some of the 'support' votes to be distasteful, to say the least. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
At lease some of those support votes seem to have taken your concern into account by never having been posted. Formerip (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
All right. Let's be specific and say that I don't like Medeis' introduction of political vitriol and the charming term 'Jewicide' into this discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to hat or delete the joke. I am not sure what political vitriol you are referring to--especially since I have supported the nomination. I still think this should go up. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

August 28Edit

Romney nominatedEdit

Articles: Mitt Romney (talk, history) and Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: Republicans formally nominate Mitt Romney and running-mate Paul Ryan at the Republican National Convention as the Republican presidential nominee. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, Yahoo Yahoo, CBS News, ABC

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Obviously not unexpected, but still a symbolic and important move, enough to gain the #1 headline on various outlets. --Activism1234 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose I know we usually post these, but I can't see why. We don't post the nominations for any other country. Romney is a foregone conclusion. He's already announced his running mate, and has been running for president for weeks. This whole process is little more than a pageant and a formality. --IP98 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I would support if it was actually contested, and we were going into the convention without a presumptive nominee (or in this case Rominee). --IP98 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if it is just now official, everyone in the U.S. should already know by now that Romney is the republican candidate. Posting this would just confuse people. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I cannot recall us ever posting a nomination like this. Despite what Ron Paul supporters have claimed, Romney has been the de facto candidate since May and there is no reason to post this. --PlasmaTwa2 00:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be as anticlimactic as posting the Electoral College results when they are certified at the end of December. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mere formality, that he would become the nominee has been known for months, this changes nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kinda "meh" worthy for most people due to it being highly expected. Not contentious enough of a nomination (presidential, not ITN) for my support. Ks0stm (TCGE) 01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The correct verb in this context is "rominated". Formerip (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • ?? I'm unfamiliar with that word, and can't find it on Google. Can you please explain? Thanks. --Activism1234 01:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
If he'd been yassassinated after he'd been rominated it would be worth an ITN Obamination. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a yassassination in his case. It would be first degree romnicide. Formerip (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Only if the yassassination was more notable than the Salvador Shake.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It was some kind of joke. Forgive me, I'm British. Formerip (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nominations are rarely so important enough that they are front page news within the context of ITN. doktorb wordsdeeds 02:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with arguments that if this selection was a much closer contest, the news item would be notable, but we've known it was going to be Romney for at least a month. Formality, non-news. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - obvious this won't be posted. In meantime, y'all (I'm not Southern) might wanna take a look down below at Kenya riots, where a request for votes has been officially administered, and has a serious chance of being posted. Happy votin. --Activism1234 02:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Some person is nominated by some party in some country to stand in some election." Unless there is something unusual about one of those "somes", it doesn't count. This example illustrates the different between ITN on an encyclopaedia and the headlines on newspapers. Just because an event is headlines news, does not automatically mean we should put it on our front page. (And conversely, we can show things on our front page that are not headline news.) --RA (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As if anyone cares. This is the non-news event of the year. "Yawn City. New Hampshire". Sigh... (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't record your sighs. I don't record my farts. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A predictable event that's purely internal to a political party. We don't report other candidacies; we shouldn't report this. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Kenya RiotsEdit

Article: Aboud Rogo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 2,000Kenyans riot and protest following the killing of Muslim cleric Aboud Rogo, causing the government to order an investigation. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, The Telegraph, Sky News, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Hundreds of protestors, two days of violence, looting, pandemonium in Kenya's capital, and some have been killed. --Activism1234 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, notable since it seems to continue and also, per nom.Egeymi (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
oppose riots that involved no fatalities or anything are not notable. Theres also no article, please cite an article when nominating Activism1234, not just anything thats in the news. [14]Lihaas (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to find an article and post that here. I wanted to check that it'd be good with a few editors first, based on the votes here, as I am a busy person. Also, there were fatalities involved...... --Activism1234 23:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We have Aboud Rogo, the "radical" cleric who was killed. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I'll take a look, Egeymi notified me about that before but didn't get a chance. Also, if you feel that radical should be in quotes, by all means go ahead, I based this nomination on the Portal Current Events. --Activism1234 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I've updated the article significantly. --Activism1234 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but the article is still a little too short. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok I'll expand it some more (infobox, more info, etc), and let you know when I'm done. --Activism1234 00:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
How is it now? I added a few sections and other passages, and more refs. --Activism1234 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks great! Now we need some supports from others. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The article has been updated very well, it's not a subject I know much about (or a story getting much coverage here beyond the World Service), but it looks as though Wikipedia has done its job effectively enough to put this on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 03:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd much rather post bus accidents, which actually are news, than riots by the usual suspects. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've posted a bus accident a few hours ago and yet you don't seem to be happy with it. Please clarify your reasoning or I will have to disregard your comments. You can't expect busy admins to decypher them. And as for "usual suspects", are you suggesting that such riots are common in Kenya? You may be right, but can you provide a source for your claim? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It seems rather clear; I like this nomination even less than the bus accident one. As for the usual suspects, I have no like for printing news items about publicity seekers, whether they are politicians or protestors, unless something else is notable. I don't think the murder of a midlevel thug and advocate himself of violence is newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A riot involving two thousand people is clearly notable. Additionally, the subject is interesting and suitable for ITN on an encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Occupy Nairobi is nothing more than a self generated bother. --IP98 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • According to our article, the riots occurred in Mombasa, not Nairobi. Did you actually read it? --BorgQueen (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Marked readyLihaas (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted I left off the part about the investigation, as that's not mentioned in the article. I couldn't even figure out what was being investigated (the killing or the riots). -- tariqabjotu 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm interesting, it was in the article before, but I don't mind if it's left out, the protests are still significant. --Activism1234 20:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Posted article contentionEdit

Why the article has been posted when the no of supports outweigh no of oppositions just by one (Not considering Lihaas vote, if it is considered then they are equal)?Regards, theTigerKing  16:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a vote count. Admin's have to evaluate arguments placed to determine consensus. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
What is this? THe user is allowed to vengeance monger here "not counintg my enemies vote"? Are you serious? Lihaas (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Pull, Tiger King, is what you should be voting. Wikipedia admins are second to none in their magisterial arrogance, the College of Cardinals included. Yes, it's "not votes", it's the mystērium custōdum that determines what gets censored and what gets promoted. Can you say "self-perpetuating oligarchy"? μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Colombia-Farc talksEdit

Articles: FARC (talk, history) and Juan Manuel Santos (talk, history)
Blurb: Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos announces the commencement of peace talks with the rebel group FARC. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Yahoo, Al Jazeera, France 24, Christian Science Monitor, Telegraph

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Very significant world event in a contentious conflict. I'm posting it now, becuase peace talks can take weeks, months, even years, in case anyone says we should wait until the talks are over, and the fact that they're holding talks to begin with is significant. --Activism1234 04:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just updated the FARC article about this a little while ago, considered nominating here, but by precedence these things wait for resolution to get posted. Also FARC havent indicated acceptance. The ref i added siad that during the talks the army would still maintain its position, so its seemingly tenuosu at the momentLihaas (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
FARC has accepted. See BBC and France 24. It could take weeks, months, or even years until a final peace treaty is hammered out, but the fact that they've agreed to hold them is, at least to me, significant, which is why I nominated it now. --Activism1234 04:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, dint see that yet. Should be interesting. We could have a separate article on the talks (As it is that page is a little disorganised) and DYK it. Id still wait on the posting though. One should also add it to Santos' page as its a big event in his goals for personal legacy. Unlieke Uribe, he wanted the "peace at all costs"
BTW- ive tweaked the blurb as suchLihaas (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Marked as ready...only pending consensus.Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't thinks this is ready at all. No one has even voted for it yet (feel free to cast the first vote). After some votes, we can decide whether the tag belongs. --Activism1234 05:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Ready is based on the article not the support. I already said "pending consensus"Lihaas (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, when the article is ready you mark it as updated. [Ready] is for consensus hence it says above "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves.". Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I learn new stuff everyday. Sorry about that Lihaas! Anyone may feel free to put it back in, I can't do it myself because I nominated it and I think that's another rule. --Activism1234 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
No: [Ready] refers to the update status of the article: consensus is a different judgement that an admin makes. But these tabs are entirely arbitrary, were introduced with no discussion, and are added and deleted at whim, so should probably be ignored anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely passes notability test; it got widespread coverage too. ComputerJA (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly notable, clearly news worthy, and clearly of suitable for an ITN section of an encyclopedia. Obvious sort of ITN. --RA (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I think this is only borderline worthy, but it looks ready and the box at the top of the page is red. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning oppose, it is just a beginning. What will be the results? I think its conclusions, if any, are much notable.Egeymi (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Corrie verdictEdit

Article: Rachel Corrie (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Israeli court rules that the Israel Defense Forces and the Ministry of Defense were not responsible for the death of Rachel Corrie in the Gaza Strip in 2003. (Post)

Article updated
  • Support. Interesting story on a heated conflict. I've already read about this in BBC yesterday and AJE have a video about it in their main page. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait See what the ruling is. It may be a non-matter, thus just a news blip. It may be something bigger too, but I don't think we can assure it would be either way the ruling could go. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Given the verdict puts the fault on her, while there may be longer-range ramifications, there's no major short-term aspects here (a decision against the nations would have been something significant). --MASEM (t) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until verdict - Wait until what the verdict is, then update, and I'll cast a vote based on surprise factor/notability/coverage. --Activism1234 03:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
ons of verdicts each day in controversial issues? Where? As high-profile?Lihaas (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't necessarily agree about that, but I'm changing my vote. --Activism1234 06:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Update - Court has ruled against Corrie, citing combatant activies exception and Corrie placed herself in a dangerous area intentionally. See here. (As I've said before, I'll get sleep, then decide on a vote). I updated the template to include the decision and that the article was updated. Hope it helps. --Activism1234 06:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've revised the blurb again. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it should explain the court's ruling - current wording seems to me too POV (not to accuse you of one, you're a great and neutral admin, but remember this is a contentious topic and some editors will construe it this way), as court's ruling pertains exactly to that and is a very different account than simply trying to block a demolition. After all, we're posting the court's ruling here - NOT her actual death. --Activism1234 07:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, feel free to revert it then. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • How about: "An Israeli court rules that Israel was not responsible for the death of American activist Rachel Corrie in the Gaza Strip in 2003."? --BorgQueen (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the suggestion, I feel that's the best way to maintain NPOV in this area, and I hope others will agree with your suggestion. Anyways, sleep time - good night! --Activism1234 07:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
bloomberg said the rulign was "unintentional" (basically the same that there was no responsibility), lets use that wording. Or better yet, can we get the original first hand wording (and translated from hebrew), though at this level i imagine tehre are official translations.Lihaas (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Important milestone in an internationally famous protest death. Corrie article and reworked blurb are fine. Good ITN material. Jusdafax 07:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support, very important reaction of the related country. Whatever the media coverage, WP should emphasize it.Egeymi (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • FYI, the second quotation mark is missing in the blurb or the first one should be deleted.Egeymi (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
note reworded blurb to be accurae. the state was nt a litigant in the case.Lihaas (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I tweaked it again, just to spell out in full "MoD" as many people not realize what it's referring to at first. --Activism1234 15:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this event has received enough coverage to appear on ITN. 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's top news on BBC, RT, CNN and AJE. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Well it's not on Reuters, AFP, The LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Fox News, Times of London, Xinhua, etc. Let's chalk it up to stupid person does stupid thing, government not responsible. Hot Stop 12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • It's also front page on France 24, guardian, Reuters (US edition), New York Times, Sky News, The Telegraph, SBS and The Independent. You have the right to maintain your opinion of course. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • "Front page" does not equate to being an ITN item. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I never said that, I was responding to the oppose (not that I don't think it's an important factor to determine posting in ITN). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
              • Because it's not featured in *some* news outlets means we shouldn't include it? No, that's not how it works here...seriously.--Τασουλα (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: had it gone the other way things would have been different. Tragic as the original incident may have been this is simply an official confirmation that the forces were not responsible, as had been maintained by the Israeli government. In that respect this is the absence of a development. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Support Asssuming this is the final determination. This was a huge international news story. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- agree with Medeis in regards to some of these votes, looking back at it (I originally opposed) it did receive very high media coverage, and regardless of if there is an appeal this is a crucial verdict in the story and an important one at that Don't be a sheep. --Activism1234 17:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The legal process is not over yet if there is an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court which they are planning to do. Chefallen (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Samsung .v. Apple has recourse to appeal and thats posted..Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This story is very important and seems to have received quite a lot of coverage across a number of outlets. I respect Chripmuncher's view that this is the 'absence of a development', though I'm convinced that it's just on the right side of important to be put onto the front page. That said, it is something of a 'time sensitive' story, by which I mean any further delay in posting might do for it quicker than any oppose votes. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting How every single one of the waits went to opposes once she was found liable. Are we to assume that those saying "wait" for the supreme court appeal will support when that verdict is upheld? Why do I doubt that? Once again what is inherently notable becomes fodder for the memory hole once the court decides some way we do not like. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support after US pressure, Israel gave entry visas to four ISM witnesses so that they could testify. However it refused entry permission to the Palestinian physician from Gaza who had examined Corrie's wounds on the scene. They investigated themselves and found themselves not guilty. Still getting press in The Guardian, The Australian and Time. --IP98 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You're an expert in law now? Remember, Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox to complain against a court's own democratic decision, explained in detail in a 62 page report that I doubt you read (if you did, you'd probably realize their testimony would've had little impact anyway)... Just saying. --Activism1234 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • It was right there at the top of the section and I thought it was interesting. That fact that it's still making news means this story is not only relevant, but has generated more coverage than a Chinese traffic accident. --IP98 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking as [Ready] - Suggest we post, as the opposes are unconvincing. This is an internationally reported story with a fine article and blurb that is of interest to a wide readership at Wikipedia-en. While POV statements on both sides somewhat cloud the issues presented, I believe that we have reasonable consensus to post this as an ITN item. Jusdafax 21:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 27Edit

[Posted]2012 Summer ParalympicsEdit

Article: 2012 Summer Paralympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2012 Summer Paralympics begin in London. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9

Article needs updating

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.
  • Support on 29 August - and I don't think there's a need for a sticky. Sadly, I don't see it getting as much coverage as the regular Olympics. --Activism1234 22:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Premature It is ITN/R, so only issues are timeliness and readiness. Post after Opening Ceremony, but the only obvious omission from the article at the moment is much about that ceremony. Oppose sticky: enthusiasm for it ran out very quickly during the Olympics, and by early in week 2 it was just a list of gold medallists (sterling work on it since though). Kevin McE (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    What happened to avoiding systematic bias? -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
What? Is this meant to be a contribution to the discussion? Kevin McE (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm highlighting the issue with throwing around the term "systematic bias". We all know that the Paralympics are covered to a lesser degree than the Olympics, and there's no reason for us to treat the events precisely the same in the interest of righting some wrong. The same applies with Tropical Storm Isaac vs. South Asian monsoons. -- tariqabjotu 00:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Sticky wouldn't have to be the same sort of page, though. It could be the main page for the event or any page that can be expected to get updated regularly. I'm not sure either way on a sticky, but the main purpose applies in the same way - without it we may get constant nominations for individual events, and world records are still ITNR. Formerip (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support on 29 August. The article starts off in good shape, and this is the sort of article where a quick update is a given. Neutral on a sticky – on the one hand I understand where Tariq is coming from, but on the other it is sadly a fact that the Paralympics receive significantly less global attention. —WFC— 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
support on first day of games (i believe thats 30). Opening ceremony can go up tomorrow. For the same reason as accessibility during the ongoing global games.
notwe Ive broken the stick link Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics from a redirect. However, it still needs some work and should be ready, hopefully, by tomorrow/day after.Lihaas (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support story and sticky - While the Paralympics get less coverage than the Olympics, this year's Paralympics are a bigger deal than ever before, and participants like Oscar Pistorius are likely to make the headlines. Let's go with it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support on 29 August, International. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 09:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb, Oppose Sticky Very notable sporting event, and ITN/R. Definitely notable to post this blurb when the Opening Ceremony is over. Unfortunately the Paralympics don't garner the attention that the Olympics gets, so I feel as though that the sticky would be fairly useless to post, since the main reason for the sticky is to combat Paralympic ITN blurbs from taking over ITN, but I don't see a lot of other ITN blurbs coming out of these games, except for the Closing ceremonies, and maybe something to do with Oscar Pistorius, since he has been getting a lot of media attention. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
New world records will be ITNR, though. If there's no sticky, then they're hard to oppose, even if there are a lot of them. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
That is false. INT/R suggests some criteria for high profile world records that could have been considered as ITN/R, and it would be hard to argue that any paralympic record is of such status, and how that imprecisely phrased entry is still at ITN/R when a discussion fvoured removal by a !vote of 7 to 1 is a testament to our failure to wrap up and act upon discussions. Kevin McE (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, yes, ITNR gives criteria not an automatic right, but I think you're wrong to say it would be hard to argue that paralympic records qualify. Particularly for aquatics and athletics events it may be, to the contrary, hard to argue for very long that they do not qualify as "an event such as aquatics or athletics". Formerip (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved: consensus acted upon and no longer ITN/R. People are welcome to propose specific results: I can't foresee any that I personally would support. Kevin McE (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. FWIW, DYK will have content about the Paralympics (generally, two hooks per each set of eight hooks) throughout the 11-day period of the Paralympics. Paralympics hooks have been running (at most, one at a time) for the last few days. --Orlady (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (but wait until actually opened) Support blurb and sticky akin to Olympics as an ideal event for ITN on an encyclopedia, but will oppose suggestions for record breaking times, etc. However, just like the Olympics, wait until the event is actually officially opened. --RA (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - please see above on 29th. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 19:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason as to why you nominated this event after it was already nominated by someone else? It appears you saw this nomination but still went and nominated this event again, instead of commenting on this nomination with your thoughts/suggestions. (I am not fully sure you saw this before you made your nomination, but seeing as you commented on this nomination suggesting users look at your nomination makes me believe you already saw this nomination before making your nomination of the same event). Andise1 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I am not related to the IP that nominated it above. I added the title but did not add the nomination. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years
Oh, I thought you may have been the same person. I see that you were the "updater" of the above nomination. Sorry about the confusion/mistake. Andise1 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I'm not the only updater. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 22:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready - The games have just begun, so I'm marking this as ready. --Activism1234 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The blurb should be updated to reflect the opening ceremony has occurred (or will finish hours after this comment :P). Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 22:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Posted. --Tone 22:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Isaac (Hurricane Isaac)Edit

Article: Tropical Storm Isaac (2012) (talk, history)
Blurb: Tropical Storm Isaac is expected to reach New Orleans one day short of the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. (Post)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:18, 27 August 2012

  • Strong oppose and speedy close- Good faith nomination, but this is a useless peace of trivia. Close this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now The current blurb does not show the importance/significance of Tropical Storm Isaac. If Tropical Storm Isaac does a large amount of damage to New Orleans or any state then I will reconsider my thoughts. Also, the current blurb is very US centric, with no mention of the areas that Tropical Storm Isaac has already gone through (Cuba, Haiti, etc.) Andise1 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait Let's see what the impact of the storm is. If it has anywhere close to Katrina's impact, it's a definite post. If it's significantly less, it could still be worth posting. If it fizzles out, then it doesn't belong in ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose until there is any significant damage/fatalities. The coincidence of being near Katrina is somewhat POV (it's hurricane season, I'm sure we can find lots of comparable events but that doesn't make the strike any more newsworthy.) --MASEM (t) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Using the WP:ATHLETE mentality, Tropical Storm Isaac has not played at the highest level of his sport (Hurricane). Pretty sure we don't post hurricanes unless they are potential retired names. -- (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think there have been tropical storms before at ITN; it's not so much if its a hurricane or tropical storm, but the amount of damage and human fatalities that it causes. I can't immediately tell if this was an ITN, but last year's Tropical Storm Arlene (2011) never got to a hurricane but did 100s of millions of dollars of damage and deaths along Mexico's coast. At the same time, just being a hurricane doesn't assure ITN-ness, if it just gets up to speed then veres away from land with no landfall, simply making some nice surfing waves for beachgoers. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait - see what happens during the hurricane, any deaths, damage, how bad it is, etc. Then change the blurb to match that, and I'll cast a vote. --Activism1234 22:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It will disappear to the archive in <2 hours, but a nomination below was rejected with "It shouldn't be trivialised, but basically the blurb could be re-written as It's monsoon season in India and Pakistan, just like it is this time every year. If there's a major landslide or something that passes the look-at-all-these-dead-people-how-can-we-not-post-that test, then maybe that incident should be posted." Replace monsoon with hurricane, and India-Pakistan with Caribbean-Gulf, and we have exactly the same thing. Let's see how that stands up to our resolve to avoid systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support if the blurb is re-written to reflect it's Caribbean impact. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait - The anniversary itself isn't the story. Isaac may well prove to be a story in its own right. Let's give it 24 hours and see what happens. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait - as per many above, especially AlexTiefling. Re-nominate with new blurb if major news story emerges. LukeSurl t c 12:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me add my voice to those saying to wait. The story, if there is one, will need to be about this storm, and the blurb will need to stand on its own based on what this storm does. Coincidental connection to the same date and place of Katrina is not the story here, and if it is the story, that isn't enough to hang an ITN item on. --Jayron32 14:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait and See I would say hold off on this until after it has faded out, so that we have all the facts straight before posting it. Otherwise, we will just have to keep updating it and updating it. I would support posting it at that time, especially if the death count rises, which unfortunately looks like it will be the case. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 18:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment As of 0442 here in the UK, so whatever time that is in Louisiana, Isaac is a slow moving hurricane approaching 80mph moving at 8mph towards the west/northwest of New Orleans. There's nothing yet to suggest it will cause the sort of damage or deaths which would satisfy our criteria for front page inclusion doktorb wordsdeeds 03:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not the wind that's the only issue. Heavy Rain has a chance of flooding New Orleans. Massive flooding in a city below sea level will either cause deaths and/or displace thousands of people. Either of these scenarios would make this postable, in my opinion. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Very good point well made. I'd find it difficult to oppose if there's devastation by flooding doktorb wordsdeeds 08:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Front page news for days now and the damage is growing in the same region heavily hit seven years ago, according to the New York Times ( ..."calamitous flooding in many areas.") [15]. Good ITN material. Blurb will need a re-do. Jusdafax 20:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • But we're still not looking at massive damage. (Though there's indirect effects like the offshore wells being shut down, for example). It certainly doesn't look like it will be the impact of Katrina, in part to its path as well as better preparations. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb update - blurb needs to be changed to reflect the damage of Hurricane Isaac and where it hit. --Activism1234 00:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I said wait earlier, now I support. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Making top headlines around the world. 36 to 39 people are dead as of now. Hundreds and thousands affected by it. But, blurb needs to be updated.Regards, theTigerKing  16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


Article: Taliban insurgency (talk, history)
Blurb: ​17 civilians who attended a party, along with 10 Afghan soldier in a separate incident, are killed by the Taliban, while an Afghan soldier kills 2 NATO soldiers. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Business Week, Washington Post, The Guardian

Article needs updating

 --Activism1234 20:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment- "Brutally" and "for attending a party" are strongly POV. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I used that wording because reports suggested they were either beheaded or were killed by stabbing their throats, not because of any POV. But I changed it now, should be better. --Activism1234 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • C: The first bit you pointed out Bzweebl goes without saying, but the second part is what a large array of sources are reporting as being the truth. Most certainly could be re-worded, however. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There have been 42 "green on blue" killings this year: no apparent reason to post these ones rather than all the others. The "party" story is a rather sensationalist presentation of an uncertain story: it is also suggested that they were local government workers, and therefore at political enmity with the Taliban. Opposed parties in a war kill each other is not , sadly, remarkable, but is open to propaganda manipulation. Although the sources given above are "reliable sources", they have this information very much third hand from anonymous "local officials" who are scarcely disinterested parties. All we can really say is that there are reports of such deaths Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Weak because I thought it would be too much for my edit history to contain Taliban: support. This does seem like a significant story. However, are we sure that we have clear certain facts about it? Formerip (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that we should wait a bit before posting it just to ascertain that the story is 100% correct. The refs above are all reliable references, but Al Jazeera seems to be saying another possible version, whereby Taliban commanders had a feud over 2 girls at the party and thus killed all the rest over them... However, anyone who is fine with both versions or opposes both version can feel free to add their vote here in the meantime. --Activism1234 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This does have some significance in it, but we should wait for a consensus amongst sources over what happened. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is important enough to justify a front page inclusion. The details are horrific but without the POV implied in that sentence, there's more than just a footnote about this many people dying in such circumstances. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I can't support or oppose anything as I have no article to judge. Could we get an article or an update to peruse before we decide if this is main page appropriate? --Jayron32 23:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Updated article. Also changed blurb a bit. --Activism1234 23:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - I updated the blurb to include another attack by the Taliban today. I feel it could use some tweaking though, if anyone feels the same I'm open to suggestions. --Activism1234 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Ugh. WP:PROSELINE much? No one has dropped a cleanup tag on it yet, but there's any number that could apply that would keep it off the main page. It looks like the news is good and the update is there, but I can't in good conscience yet support an article that ugly. If you could give it a rudimentary clean-up I would feel much more comfortable giving this my full support. After all, this ITN stuff is supposed to be supporting the mission of the encyclopedia in making better articles. ITN stuff doesn't have to be FA or even GA quality, but that article is pretty sketchy... --Jayron32 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I know I don't like it either. An alternative would be to create a new article just for these three attacks today, which I'd do if I get enough support here (even just 2 people supporting). I've begun working on the Taliban Insurgency article in the meantime, and I'll give an update soon. --Activism1234 00:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I've given the page a bit of an overhaul in terms of aesthetics, prose, date format, references, etc. Hopefully it's better now. There are similar articles on Wikipedia that are lists - proseline is an essay, not a policy. Any other editors can feel free to edit it as well. --Activism1234 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You cant put your own nomination as ready, i suppose its COI that way in needing a second pair of eyes. But raead the instructions on the top, nominators cant mark their own nominations as eready.Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks didn't know about that. --Activism1234 05:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. The blurb was about one story, then it was about, two then about three. Why not throw in Meanwhile, Tropical Storm Isaac is expected to reach New Orleans? Blurbs are not really meant to give a roundup of tragic but routine deaths in a warzone. Formerip (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the latter part and just focusing on what the Taliban did. --Activism1234 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait Only post if it gets to significant strength/damage. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is awful. But, soldiers, insurgents and civilians are being killed every day. How are we to determine which lives lost should appear on ITN (and so by implication, which should not)? I don't know. --RA (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

El Salvador quakeEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: El Salvador is struck by a strong, magnitude 7.3 earthquake and a magnitude 5.4 aftershock, triggering tsunami warnings for the coasts of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama and Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, Fox News, Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: 7.3..? WOW.. well that seems a little bit too strong. It hasnt claimed any lives yet but more reports are to come. And forgive me if the blurb is way too long. I guess it needs some work. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless the tsunamis occur and actually cause damage. Per the ABC news article, "There were no immediate reports of damages or injuries" (as well as other reports), so if it was just the quake, we'd not report it. Same if there are actual tsunamis but do no damage. Heck, I'm watching TS Isaac which is said to be ready to hit the US coast down there for an ITN item, but as yet its only caused a few deaths (4?) and minimal damage so it's not yet ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait as per Masem. The tsunami warnings element in particular is news tickerish: we'll know whether they amount to anything in a few hours, so why post potentially spurious warnings now? In either event this strikes me as speculative until the full significance of the event can be assessed. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

August 26Edit

Indian protestsEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​Police forcefully suppress protests by hundreds of Indians against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh following a coal scandal in India. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4,

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Hundreds protesting against PM due to scandal, protests forcefully quelled . --Activism1234 15:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, this has been the top national news in India since the CAG published the report on its findings. This is the article: Coal Mining Scam, but it needs major updating. Its 9.30 pm here now ... I'll try and do the updates tomorrow morning. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, some of the articles in the nom and the deaths are regarding the Assam disturbance which is unrelated (we posted that last mont, not too much of an increment to report) - not aware of any deaths during the anti-corruption protest. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- There is a very interesting issue; significant in many aspects. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, that has to be the worst rationale I've ever had. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not denying the significance of the scandal, but a demonstration with hundreds of protesters is surely notable only for being a damp squib. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Why the references of the coal gate scam have been mixed up with the 2012 Assam violence?Regards, theTigerKing  16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Strongest possible Oppose (For coal gate scam as mentioned in the blurb) : No one was killed in today's protests. Leave alone, no one was injured. And such protests happen everywhere in a democracy. No doubt that CAG reports $180 billion(approx) loss to the exchequer, but they are presumptive losses only. Has the world, particularly India changed after the protests. The answer is No. Also, the blurb is violating NPOV. Why only Indian PM has been mentioned in the blurb? Meanwhile, Team Anna's movement also didn't figure in ITN. So, why this one??Regards, theTigerKing  16:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Didn't notice the AJ ref wasn't from today, I removed it and changed that part of the blurb. --Activism1234 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning oppose. The story is interesting and further reactions could develop as a part of the so called Coalgate, but it is just hundreds of protesters with no reported deaths and didn't hit top news in BBC or AJE. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait - I think we just need to wait until the chocolate melts and becomes more silkier and tastier. You know what im saying. This issue is developing. It could get much more interesting in the future. So just wait. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 ICC Under-19 Cricket World CupEdit

Article: 2012 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: India beat Australia by six wickets in the finals to win the 2012 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup (Post)
News source(s): The Hindustan Times, The Economic Times

Article needs updating

 --Vensatry (Ping me) 08:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Junior tournament not really noteworthy in its sporting field. We don't usually post U19's tournaments for any sports I think. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it so? I'm really not aware of the criteria. Vensatry (Ping me) 09:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Its a notable thing, at least in cricket regions. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think it is not so notable even in cricket regions.Egeymi (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It is quite notable amongst the cricket playing countries and I watched the entire match (switching between this one and the test match vs NZ) but its definitely not in the league of the world cup, the ashes, the world t20 or even the IPL which we post every time. Besides, its a youth tournament - do we normally post those ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose U19 says it all, clearly cannot be the highest level of the sport (as US college sport cannot be). Most players on winning squad do not even have articles, participation in this event is not even deemed to push a player over the NATHLETE threshhold. Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If we were going to support a cricket story we should have posted South Africa 1 beating South Africa 2 to take the top spot in the (questionable) ICC rankings.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought of nominating it but recalled that when South Africa 2 became No.1 in August 2011, it was nominated but didnt go through. Now that I check, the nomination was not posted despite having unanimous support. But I guess this is too stale now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think with test cricket it makes more sense to post results of key tests that actually determine the rankings. The rankings themselves are somewhat dubious anyway. Thus I think I would have supported the above result had it been nominated. After the last Ashes series, I noted that the number one and number two ICC teams were also playing at the time and we didn't post that despite posting the less significant (rankings wise) Ashes series. The England / India whitewash perhaps should have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per CH and Kevin. Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -for me cricket barely makes it for ITN. Not really a sport of worldwide interest. But even less so when it is the Under-19 .--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    Not worldwide interest?!--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, cheap shot! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
BabbaQ is somewhat correct. Cricket is big in a handful of countries, but those countries are HUGE: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. For example, the there are 106 ICC members while FIBA has 213; the FIBA Basketball World Cup has seen 54 national teams qualify, while the Cricket World Cup has seen 19 teams qualify; heck even EuroBasket has more teams. The I don't think a typical man on the street in either Guangzhou or Buenos Aires ever watched a cricket match. –HTD 14:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Cricket is definitely "less global" than basketball. But apart from football, volleyball and basketball which are played pretty much everywhere, most other team sports are pretty much in the same league: rugby, field hockey, cricket, etc.
Volleyball is one of those sports that everyone plays but no one really cares about. The opposite is true for the likes of rugby and American football. Basketball is somewhere in the middle; in fact basketball is much like the Liberal Democrats as its followers is spread out thinly on many countries, with only relatively few and either insignificant, or small, or both "strongholds". –HTD 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What football? Because American Football is certainly less global than Cricket. It certainly is not a "Minority" sport. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone suggested US football is more notable than cricket. Though HTD's point is sound--there are large parts of the world where cricket has almost zero penetration. I lived in three countries where cricket has virtually no existence--Russia, S Korea, and France.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just a youth tournament, not for ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't put junior tournaments on the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Entries like this are why I think we need tabs for ITN. It would fit a sports tab quite well (along with other significant junior tournaments, such as the World Junior Hockey Championship, but with limited space on the current template, alas, there is no room for such entries. Resolute 14:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a major tournament/sport that a lot of people around the world would know about, not for ITN. --Activism1234 15:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious Oppose - The under nineteen whatever isn't really much popular. It isn't of global importance and is known to only a few. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose - Cricket is plainly of international interest and importance. Under-19 sport, however, is almost inevitably not so. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

16th Summit of the Non Aligned MovementEdit

Article: 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement is held from 26 to 31 August 2012 in Tehran, Iran. (Post)
News source(s): [16][17][18]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Consisting of 120 member states, and 21 observer countries which represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations's members and contain 55% of the world population, it is the most important gathering of the Developing Countries. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose - yes, an important summit, and has many of the world's officials (although many are low level representatives). But it seems like nearly every month or so there's another world summit with most of the world attending, whether it's on the environment, nuclear weapons, or terrorism, and this one doesn't seem to have a specific agenda that makes it stand out so much. Also isn't making top headlines right now. --Activism1234 06:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support: Notability is already satisfied as it is an ITNR item. Have fixed the nom to indicate this. The article is way above minimum threshold required, so no argument there as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Apologies, looks like it was only recently added to ITNR by User:Wakari07 and while a discussion has been opened, it hasnt been conlcuded. So here are the reasons why it is notable despite NAM having lost relevance in international relations: (1.) 50 countries participating, almost all represented by heads of state. (2.) Highly notable as it is being hosted by Axis of Evil member Iran who has invited both the Hamas PM and the PLO leader to represent Palestine and had initially cancelled the invitation to Saudi Arabia, but now their Sy. Foreign Minister is attending. (3.) UN Secretary General attending summit despite call from US and Israel to boycott and is expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program. (4.) Indian and Pak PM are expected to meet at sidelines. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support, since the conclusions of this summit are more significant.Egeymi (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment, the article should be much more neutral without exclusively focusing on Iran (See "Importance" section of the article). It is a summit of fifty countries, not only of Iran.Egeymi (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment According to a spokesman of the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of the Non-Aligned Movement's 120 member and 17 observer state body, some 50 nations will participate. Attendance at the highest level includes 27 presidents, 2 kings and emirs, 7 prime ministers, 9 vice presidents, 2 parliament spokesmen and 5 special envoys. I think it is not usual that too many leaders gather during the year. There are few gathering which can be compared with this one. In addition, if death of one of these leaders is deserved enough to be mentioned in the main page page, it is strange not to mention their gathering while they are alive. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, important multinational conference. However, it might be worth waiting until announcing the end of the conference, when either major announcements mightt be worth incorporating into the blurb, or at least the reader following the link will have substantive information about what has been discussed/resolved. Kevin McE (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting the conclusion, where eventual important decisions can be incorporated into the blurb. --Tone 12:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very minimal news coverage (e.g. nowhere on the BBC website). Just seems to be a bunch of leaders getting together for some photo ops and speeches without real policy. Would change if there's a significant development at the conference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but agree with Tone. This is a postable summit, but we only want to post it once, which we should do if something earth-shattering comes out of it. If that doesn't happen, then we can post the fact that it has wrapped up. Formerip (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The main part of the event is 30 and 31 August, when the leaders will gather. So we can postpone this debate to 30 August.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose wake me up when one of these summits actually accomplishes something. Hot Stop 14:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, do you oppose posting any summit on a routine basis? —WFC— 19:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- The only thing that makes this summit any less notable than other big ones is the US opposition to it, but detracting from the summit because of that would be POV. This is far more notable than G20, which is ITNR but has far less attendees. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support The interactions between these countries is significant, particularly given the presecence of a number of major oil producers. "Weak" because while a lack of interest from the US, EU and China does not automatically make something non-notable, there is an obvious effect on the level of coverage. —WFC— 19:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this and almost all summits unless there is some notable event other than room service. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Due to the fact that the main days of summits are 30 and 31 August and the major decisions will made at that time, the subject is per-mature now. Therefor I accept that it is not a good decision to put the article on the main page before 30th.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Marked ready, min. update met.Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to disagree, but I don't see it's ready, as we have 4 opposing and 5 supporting, and 3 others saying we should wait until a notable decision is made at the conference. Not something I'm going to relentlessly pursue further, but just felt that I should mention this. --Activism1234 05:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't think any admin is going to post this right away. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Wait to see if anything concrete comes of this. If not we can post the closing. I don't see the point in posting the opening: if the summit is significant enough for an ITN posting it will be as a result of concrete actions or resolutions being agreed, not simply by virtue of having taken place. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

[Posted] China bus and tanker collisionEdit

Article: 2012 Chinese bus-tanker crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bus crashes into a tanker carrying methanol, killing 36 people in Shaanxi, China. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8

Article updated
  • Support - making sufficient (close to top) coverage on outlets like BBC, also death toll is pretty high, we haven't had a lot of crashes recently that resulted in this many deaths, and it's in China. I'll go ahead and start an article, regardless of whether it makes it to ITN. --Activism1234 05:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Created article - feel free to update it - 2012 Chinese bus-tanker crash --Activism1234 05:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - worst accident in Chinese history since a fire on an overcrowded bus last year kill 41 people. This is mentioned in the article as well. --Activism1234 06:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Can we please try to avoid creating articles on events like this where there may be short term notarity but no long-term notability. I dunno if there's articles like "2012 transportation accidents" or something where this ITN-worthy event should be covered, but presuming long-term notability is very premature here. --MASEM (t) 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending article updation : Notable event but article needs to be updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I created the article here and changed the info in the ITN template to updated. Feel free to add any more info. A map would be useful, but don't know what infobox template to put. --Activism1234 06:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, notable and suitable for ITN. Egeymi (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry, but this is nothing more than a tragic routine traffic accident. It's on the front page of major outlets websites. So what? We space is cheap. Is it on the front page of the print edition? Even if it is, so what? Cars drive on the road and crash just like rivers flood during a monsoon. It's not news. --IP98 (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This is not a routine traffic accident. Thirty-six people died because of this crash, which involved a methanol tanker. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Death toll is high.Regards, theTigerKing  16:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article is currently a little too short, IMO. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support After update. High Death toll, and major news in China (You know, China - one of the worlds fastest growing countries in various theatres?) I cannot believe that someone would oppose this because the western media gave it no attention. Unbelievable. It seems stories such as the non-news sensationalist story of the shooting in NYC is what some people will only support when it comes to incidents involving deaths. This "Not relevent in my country, don't care! Can't see it on the front page, don't care!" mentality is REALLY annoying. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Trying to find more info on it... I added an infobox though. --Activism1234 21:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply I didn't oppose this because the western media didn't give it any attention. In fact, "front page of" was used as a grounds for support, which I was challenging. How is this incident any different from monsoon floods? --IP98 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well actually I did nominate the monsoon rains in India/Pakistan (got rejected though), but I think a difference here is that this is a road accident in China with a high death toll. --Activism1234 21:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • So in a country with 85000 kilometers of highway and 1.1 billion people, does it make sense that 36 deaths in a highway accident is totally mundane and insignificant? --IP98 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have not posted accidents of a similar scale before, and this is neither going to have huge readership interest nor will it showcase a worthy article. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • "...this is neither going to have huge readership interest..." False. 36 people dead in a single motor vehicle accident will easily capture a reader's attention. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"False", eh? The bus crash article peaked at 447 views three days ago [19] while the article on Phyllis Diller got over 6,000 views yesterday and got ~250,000 on each of the two days after her death was announced. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Regardless of where it happened, it's a high death toll for a single accident, and it's pretty rare. We've posted at least one accident like these before, and we posted the 39 deaths in the Colombian refinery, so we're not out of line if we post it. The article is in good shape and is entirely sourced, so we should be okay to post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply The significance of the refinery fire isn't the causalities, but the incident itself. Refineries don't explode all that often. On the other hand, tanker trucks crash and burn all the time, like this one from yesterday. It's simply not news, and we're not a death ticker. --IP98 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted per consensus. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
"Consensus"? In other words, in spite of the evidence just given? μηδείς (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but with all due respect, I see 6 support votes (7 if you count Chocolate) and only 2 oppose votes. I think Borg was right to post this. I'm sure that the number of readers will peak significantly when this is posted as well. --Activism1234 04:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't apologize, it's no skin off my ass. But we've had plenty of other bus accidents that weren't posted, and had a train crash in Belgium that killed two people be posted. It will be interesting to see what kind of boost this will give the stub after 3 days in a row of less than 250 views on average. I think BorgQueen's "consensus" speaks volumes. In other words all the rationales besides votes (actual reader interest, an actually good article) have failed. μηδείς (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Fail The article is a few paragraphs and will never be anything more. It had it's 15 minutes of fame, but the investigation won't. Neither will the findings. This was a totally mundane transportation accident, and a day of front page wikipedia coverage has not generated any significant interest in the article. Wikiproject China has not even bothered to give it an importance or quality rating. I support BorgQueen posting, since there was consensus to post, but I can't for the life of me understand why. I hope this nom serves as a reminder for years to come that traffic accidents are not news. --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 25Edit

[Posted] Neil ArmstrongEdit

Article: Neil Armstrong (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, dies at age 82. (Post)
News source(s): [20] [21] [22][23]

Article updated
  • Support This one seems pretty clear cut to me. If Armstrong doesn't qualify for ITN posting who does? Crispmuncher (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
Lance or Neil? Formerip (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, since he is well-known all over the world. Egeymi (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Extremely notable around the world. Should be posted ASAP. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. Formerip (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Obvious. Technically needs updates but there doesn't appear to be commentary on his passing in the press yet. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - obvious ITN material. Should go up fast. Jusdafax 19:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, for obvious reasons. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolute support. DS (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support!!!!!!! Do it now! Speciate (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongest support ever We shouldn't even have to discuss this. --T1980 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There's no reason to wait. Can someone just add it now? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready Article has no outstanding issues and overwhelming support. Only a two-sentence update so far, but covers the essential fact of his death; I don't think anyone disputes the notability here. Khazar2 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but The update doesn't meet the minimum. Also while we rush to support this (and I think we're right to), aside from being the first man on the moon, he hasn't really done anything notable in the last 40 years. We will do well to remember this nom the next time a "lesser" death nom gets pooped on. --IP98 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted Although the "Death" section is extremely brief at this point in time, the quality of the rest of the article describing Armstrong's life makes up for it. This section will presumably be updated as more details are released. SpencerT♦C 19:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
PULL Not updated. I've just gone through a sequence of three edit conflicts attempting to point that out and strip the ready tag. In our excitement to get this posted we've forgotten what ITN is for. Is a single sentence really highlighting updated content or has this simply devolved to a news ticker? Hell, according to the criteria information present in the blurb does not count towards the update requirement when repeated in the article. Therefore we are talking about no update. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
"The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable". You're entitled to your shouty-vote, of course, but I think this subjective call was a good one. Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What about a zero sentence update: simply reporting the fact of his death is mentioned in the blurb so does not count. I don't see any reason for fudging the update criteria for stories like this: waiting on a good update encourages a good update to be made. Too many times in the past we have seen early posts on the ground that the article will naturally be expanded in due course, only that never comes to pass. The comment above isn't a vote, my vote was actually in support if you have missed that. This is commenting on a breach of policy. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
I added more content myself after posting so there is more than a single sentence now. SpencerT♦C 20:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In any case, calling the previous form a "zero sentence update" was some rather creative counting; the two sentences explaining the causes and place of Armstrong's death self-evidently entailed more information than was in the blurb. I won't object further if others want to pull, but this seems well within our very subjective rules. Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • (Perennial image alignment problem): is Syria meant to look like the moon? Maybe it soon will, but perhaps when Armstrong gets posted, a picture of him could be posted at the same time? (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, there are a couple things you have to do related to images so it takes a bit more time to get it up. Which image of Armstrong do we want? A recent one, or one from the moon landing era? SpencerT♦C 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's sometimes looks so bizarrely amateurish that I'd even delay posting until it could be sorted. It's a joke. (Would suggest same as appears at top of his article, but current looks fine). (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. "...dies at age 82" - is there and ENGVAR issue here, or is it just unusual English? Formerip (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe just ENGVAR. I feel like that's a standard phrase in US newspapers. Khazar2 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Changed to "at the age of 82". SpencerT♦C 20:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
or "aged 82"Lihaas (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - (e/c) It's obvious that Neil Armstrong has notability for walking on the moon, there is no doubt about that. However, as someone else pointed out, he has not done anything notable since then, and he did die at an old age - according to our current DC standards, that's not normally sufficient to warrant a posting, and certainly not at this rate (less than an hour!). Bearing that in mind, there's no point in pulling the blurb now, I just think it would be worth noting that we ought to have a minimum discussion time to make sure issues with updates and blurb clarity are sorted out and reviewed prior to committing to the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — That's one small edit for a man; one sad day for mankind. RIP Neil. =( Kurtis (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
comment once again the update was not there when posted (it is now). Please stop bhlindly posting Lihaas (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
'Once again'? It's not like it happens all the time. This was a unique case. It was absolutely clear this was sufficiently notable, and it was absolutely certain that the article would be updated sufficiently in due course. Furthermore it was a Good Article. Waiting in this case makes ITN slow. Yes we're not a new ticker but this was a special case. There was also a consensus for immediate posting, which overrules our normal procedures.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, right after I posted, I went and added more to the section. It wasn't just a post-and-dump. SpencerT♦C 03:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Johnsemlak and Spenser. Sometimes a quick post is OK. Also it is a fine article and worthy of having a pointer to on our front page. Jusdafax 03:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
A quick-post in the case of straightforward deaths of someone highly notable is usually not a bad thing indeed. I would of supported this nom...but you know, being in the UK I was in bed at the time XD --Τασουλα (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It is notable and important person for USA and all the world.--Reality 08:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Venezuela refinery blastEdit

Article: Paraguaná Refinery Complex (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A blast at the Paraguaná Refinery Complex in north Venezuela kills at least 26 people and injured more than 80 others. (Post)
News source(s): [24], [25], [[26]], [27]

Article updated
  • Support, notable in terms of both the refinery's capacity and death toll. Major media cover the news, too. However, the article needs further update.Egeymi (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Suppportonce updated - Top news on BBC and Al Jazeera, so no problem for notability. But article does need the usual 5 sentence update. Re-marking this as not updated. Khazar2 (talk) 13:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly falls within our criteria for such tragic events. I agree with Khazar that an article update is required, but that doesn't hinder my support for the nomination as a whole doktorb wordsdeeds 14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready Article has now been minimally updated, and since it's unopposed so far, I'm also marking ready. Khazar2 (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support BBC now has death toll at 24 and injuries over fifty with production stopped for 48 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Making big headlines around the world, clearly meets criteria for tragedies. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment or FYI, the article is updated, but an editor continuously deletes the details of the explosion. Can someone care about it? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest going to WP:AN/3RR. The editor appears to be on their eighth or ninth attempt to delete this material. Khazar2 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Major disaster with a broad coverage worldwide. The article looks good as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Kiril. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

August 24Edit

[Posted] Apple vs Samsung trialEdit

Article: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A US jury finds that Samsung infringed on Apple's mobile patents (Post)
News source(s): [28]

Article needs updating

Nom comment: this is a major case that could have huge impacts on mobile phone markets worldwide. Hot Stop 23:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also $1 billion verdict Hot Stop 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Find this not to be suitable for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Hot Stop 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's something more significant about it. Doesn't one of these cases come to a conclusion approximately every other day? Formerip (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    The $1.05 billion in damages is the largest verdict in patent history. In fact, the jury ruled that Samsung willfully copied Apple's design which could triple the verdict. And not only does this directly affect the American market, the decision will likely be used by Apple to pressure Samsung to settle (rather than risk another defeat) in court cases around the world. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that Samsung is likely going to appeal, probably not, though I will point the $1B verdict makes this rather significant. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A mere stumble on the long, long road of this journey doktorb wordsdeeds 23:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - While certainly notable, it doesn't seem notable enough for me to support for ITN, as it's simply a court case between two competitors and the verdict, with possible future trials as well, and not anything groundbreaking. --Activism1234 23:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as this legal battle is far from over. What I find far more hilarious is the recent ruling that both infringed on each others patents in South Korea; now they're both subject to limited sales bans! Now that's a boomerang! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pile on oppose. There have been a seemingly infinite number of judgements in countless jurisdictions each coming to mutually incompatible results in this particular spat. It's also the kind of business story we feature far too prominently on ITN: when was the last time a textiles company (for example) mentioned? For some reason if it's Intel/Apple/Google/Facebook it is automatically more notable. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Support What happens in the US trial may have worldwide implications. Personally, I believe that the blurb needs to be changed. Something like "Apple wins patent dispute against Samsung in US, to be awarded over $1 billion"Regards, theTigerKing  04:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
oppose mentioning the US trial without the Korean one is POV. And at any rate, this doesnt have implications without synthesisLihaas (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This has important implications in the realm of software patents. For the uninitiated, imagine GM had a patent on "Turning a key in a lock to engage the ignition of an automobile". Slide to unlock baby, and Apple was awarded a billion dollars for it. It's not unexpected that immediately after, Google used their newly acquired Motorola patents to counter sue Apple. Samsung will likely appeal, so maybe we can brush this aside for now, but we can't adopt the position "waaaaa it's only a lawsuit, isn't there a fight in a cafe in the middle east somewhere". In the US, litigation is a major vehicle for establishing prescient, so this is significant. --IP98 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with IP98, but assume "precedent" was meant, not "prescient". μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This is major world news involving two major world companies. DillonLarson (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This court case will have huge and lasting impact on the global economy and people's lives. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support major court case, far more important than other similar ones. Apple is the world's largest company, and Samsung is extremely important. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Apple isn't the largest company in the world. Oppose and wait as well because it's well known that this is nowhere near over. I find it would be better when we are able to add more details to the blurb, such as compensation, fines, possible sanctions, and those kinds of details. Lets not rush this one. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
      • By stock market value it is, by profits it probably is too (which is really what business is about). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it's the most profitable, but not the biggest. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story, clearly a good ITN item as a tech story. Jusdafax 01:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I've heard and read several news sources (including NPR and Wall Street Journal) say that this has been the most significant intellectual property case of the century. It is in the news, and we have a very good article on it. I can't think of any reason why this shouldn't be on the main page. --Jayron32 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron and IP98, and prominence of international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a one billion dollar ruling involving two of the most famous companies on the planet.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- This isn't a vote count, and the support arguments are that much stronger than the opposition. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about "A jury in the U.S. state of California rules that Samsung Electronics owes Apple Inc. more than US$1 billion for patent infringement."? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd say that's good but is there a main article to point to with the facts of the case? Or do we go to Apple Inc.? Jusdafax 03:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, the target article is properly linked now. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Outstanding, thanks. Like a well-baked cake, I'd say it's ready! Jusdafax 03:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That looks good. Are you willing to post it? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, belatedly. Essentially all the newscoverage that I read describes this particular lawsuit as the big one, the one that really matters and the one that will have the most significant consequences for the smartphone and tablet PC industry. E.G., quoting from a CNN piece[29]: "Chris Carani, an intellectual property attorney and design law expert at McAndrews, Held & Malloy, says the verdict could spark "a burst of creativity" in the design of future devices. Competitors won't want to risk being slapped with a design infringement lawsuit, given that it costs so much money to roll out a new smartphone or tablet." Nsk92 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Empire State Building shootingEdit

Article: 2012 Empire State Building shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting by a disgruntled employee results in two deaths and eleven people wounded outside of New York's Empire State Building. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Article updated
  • Strong Oppose Trivial news event that is making headline across the world.Regards, theTigerKing  15:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't call it a "trivial news event", but I do have to admit to a level of "American mass shooting" fatigue. I'd say post only if it is otherwise a slow news day. Resolute 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Even Prince Harry was making news. It is just a small incident that happened in a busy street of New York.Yes, unusual event in New York. Every breaking news shouldn't be considered. The death tally is low. Number of injured are less.(wrt events that were denied ITN)Regards, theTigerKing  15:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Low death and injury tally, and I too feel that a continuing series of American mass shootings is getting a little redundant. Canuck89 (converse with me) 16:01, August 24, 2012 (UTC)
    • How many deaths would have been enough? Lugnuts And the horse 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Every loss of life is regrettable. Recently, an event (Regarding floods in South Asia) was denied. The figures were much higher. An elderly couple was shot dead in New Delhi this week in broad daylight. Surely, it won't figure. The event is a domestic issue of USA. The shooting has gained headlines because it happens to happen in "New York". Not notable enough for international consumption.Regards, theTigerKing  16:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Remember those sweet, naive days of July when some of us could still argue that the US didn't have three mass shootings a week? I'm getting the fatigue Resolute mentions, too, but this is at the moment the world's top news story: top on the New York Times (duh), BBC, Al Jazeera, and second on Xinhua. It's logical to assume that a large number of readers will be interested in its article, making it well-suited for ITN per the first statement of our purpose: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Khazar2 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb check It appears one of the two dead is the gunman himself,[30] making our phrasing either inaccurate or misleading. It's also possible some of the wounded were hit by police fire, according to the mayor (see same story). Perhaps something more like "A shooting by a disgruntled employee results in two deaths and nine people wounded outside..."? Khazar2 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disgruntled worker kills former colleague. Sad for those involved but not nearly notable enough. Leaky Caldron 16:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While presently highly covered, the situation appears to be over. Also, the fact that 19 people were wounded by gunfire in Chicago just the night before [31] and that's being overshadowed, suggests that this is just interesting because it was at NYC. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Minor event. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Pretty minor to make the top headline for Al Jazeera, NYT, BBC, and CNN... --Activism1234 16:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

^^ Pure sensationalism. Same with the Prince Harry nonsense. Use common sense and stop relying other news outlets to do the job for you. This mentality is starting to piss me off. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who often uses similar logic myself, I have to say I don't get the anger. Editors sometimes talk as if we're writing a history book here, and nothing must be included unless it's "for the ages"--but ITN is just a collection of links to Wikipedia content that lasts only 3-5 days. I don't see the harm in linking something that's of high-interest for a week only, since by that point the blurb will have expired anyway. Khazar2 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • The only reason its getting broad coverage then is because it took place at the same location as 9/11, and there was an initial rush talking about terrorism (which has been proven false). If the exact same events , fatalities and injuries, took place anywhere else but NYC, I would except it to far less covered (Again, Chicago had 19 people wounded by gunfire across the city that same night. Where's that coverage?) --MASEM (t) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Exactly - the fact it took place in NYC gave it that amount of notability to make the headlines. I wouldn't expect that in some other cities. --Activism1234 16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Exactly! Prince Harry recently was making headlines around the world. Beleive me, an article on his Las Vegas trip would make a good read. Would the article be notable enough for it to be in ITN?Regards, theTigerKing  16:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Immediately putting a location bias, a factor we've been trying to fight against for the last 6 months here. A completely fair question to ask is "If this event took place in (minor city) instead of (major city), would it likely have the same coverage? The theater shooting? Yes. The church shooting? Yes. This? Absolutely not. Ergo, we need to dismiss the importance of NYC to the news reporting here and as an ITN item. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose - Our standards on posting U.S. based stories have tightened and rightly so. Compared to the stories that are currently on the ITN ticker, this isolated shooting is of absolutely piddling significance. That said, it's somewhat notable that it occurred in a city with one of the strictest gun laws in the nation.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- Despite what the press thinks, not every US shooting is notable. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was temporarily the top story of the moment, but the international interest is probably fleeting and doesn't merit ITN coverage.--Chaser (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Top news is top news. "Shooting fatigue" on the part of editors isn't a valid reason not to post top news. I know it won't be posted, but it shouldn't be "snowed" either. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not important enough. Not enough deaths (as crass as that sounds), not an unusual context or distinctive enough set-up. The Denver shootings was a successful nomination because it was so unusual an event with many deaths; this is a good example of the opposite of that. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Two people murdered in NYC. Of course it's sad, but not ITN. --RA (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it is very ordinary not only for NY City but also for every big city in any country. I am sure that today such cases happened all over the world. Egeymi (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose -this is not a major shooting. Would not have recieved world press had it been in lets say Slovenia.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess you haven't heard of the shooting in Finland some time ago that got massive airtime... –HTD 14:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only one victim killed (plus one non-victim killed). Nothing major. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

[Posted] Anders Behring BreivikEdit

Article: Anders Behring Breivik (talk, history)
Blurb: Anders Behring Breivik is sentenced to at least 21 years in prison after he is charged with killing 77 people in the 2011 Norway attacks (Post)
News source(s): [32]

Article updated

The blurb say enough.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think the ideal article to use is Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik#Verdict. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Iv'e changed the link.
        – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A highly notable crime, the ruling considers him not insane which is also of importance. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe it should be included that this is no 'normal' 21 years sentence, but 21 years of permanent detention, which is to say that the prisoner should not expect to be let out after 21 years has passed. Njardarlogar (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Criminal cases are not posted on WP:ITN until appeals have been exhausted. The sentencing could still change. --hydrox (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This should be posted now whether or not there is a chance of an appeal. Besides, Breivik has said he is not going to appeal. __meco (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Trial of the century. Breivik announces he will not appeal[33] and accepts the sentence. JonFlaune (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Nsk92 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted (by NuclearWarfare). JonFlaune (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment So below (with Armstrong case), the consensus is that court decisions should not be posted until they are final, but in this case we post regardless? Also note that even if Breivik does not appeal, the prosecutor might. And Breivik can still change his mind until appeal period expires as part of his "media game". This is why I don't remember ever seeing ITN posting court decisions until they are FINAL. --hydrox (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The Armstrong case is totally different; we don't even know if the organization is even allowed to issue the punishments against him, hence the wait. In this case the sentencing is very widely reported in the media as if it were final, and to be honest, I don't think anyone thinks it isn't. Besides, if we don't post now it will be stale by the time we do. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed. At this time, both Breivik's counsel and the prosecutor have announced there will be no appeal. Very technically speaking, the sentence will be final by default in two weeks, but it will hardly be news at that time. JonFlaune (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — What a horrific and senseless crime. I refuse to believe that such an act could be committed by somebody of a sane mindset, but at least he'll no longer be out and about. Kurtis (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lance ArmstrongEdit

Article: Lance Armstrong (talk, history)
Blurb: Lance Armstrong is banned from cycling and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles due to charges of doping.

ALT1 = Lance Armstrong announces his decision not to fight the USADA charges of doping despite their intention of stripping him of his seven Tour de France titles. (Post)
News source(s): [34], [35], [36]

Article needs updating

Breaking news across the board, a top story on every paper you can name, really. I think I'm jumping the gun a bit because the ban won't officially be enacted until Friday, but every paper seems to already set this in stone. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I think the newsworthy-ness of this is sufficient to post now. Though I wouldn't argue with waiting until Friday, I don't see the point in waiting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only once ban is official. Obviously notable, but the blurb phrasing is technically inaccurate at the moment: NYT reports Armstrong "will be banned", not "is banned" at the moment.[37] We shouldn't make a mistake like that with a front-page BLP. Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point. If it goes up now, it should say something like "the USADA decides to ban..." – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. I agree that we could wait a tad, but in general once there's a solid update I"d post ASAP.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until he is banned; he will be banned. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Sure is sad to see some of the finest sportsmen of my generation disgrace themselves like this (much like Mark McGwire).--WaltCip (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you read his statement? He said that he was sick and tired of the accusations and investigations against him despite the countless doping tests, so he decided to stop defending himself in proceedings. The USADA took it as an admission of guilt and immediately issued the ban. Smells like a witch hunt and a man who's just sick and tired of it. You can read the statement here. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - very famous bicyclist, breaking and major news, haven't got stuff like this on ITN in a while, reasons above. --Activism1234 03:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious Support Wait Not a supporter of posting sports news, but 7-time Tour de France winner is sorta big. μηδείς (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Have to agree with Ericleb01, a nolo contendere is not an admission of guilt, and not sure how an american body can strip french titles.
  • Support but losing the titles should be the lead part of the blurb, not the ban. Hot Stop 04:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: Correct if it's wrong, but our article says "... although no official statement has yet been issued by USADA." Shouldn't we wait at least until they issue it? --BorgQueen (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in future, wait for now Keep in mind that there's some debate if the USADA even has the authority to strip Armstrong of his titles. The International Cycling Union has yet to comment, as well. In any case, wait until the official statement/ban goes into effect. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support if the blurb remains true once the facts have settled down. The TdF is ITNR so a change in results of 7 tours must surely count as notable. However the BBC for one are reporting confusion over whether the USADA actually has the power to strip him of the victories. That needs to be clarified before this is posted. I suspect that will need Europe to wake up before a definitive statement one way or the other can be given. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Support — I am quite shocked to hear the news. This is a pretty notable event, and a shoo-in for coverage on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait the moment he is officially stripped of his victories this should be posted. But as of now it only seems that USDA can continue to look into the allegations. It is not clear if his results can be stripped the moment he says I quit. Nergaal (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Highly significant that he is to be stripped of his titles, leaving an empty space in so many Wikipedia templates and tables of course! A very important (and from his perspective, bloody daft) story. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support shocking news.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously. Lugnuts And the horse 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Update Actually, as far as I can tell, he hasn't been found guilty of anything or stripped of his wins/titles. Until either happens, then nothing should be posted. Lugnuts And the horse 11:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible wait if that is not too strange a !vote position. Ban is essentially redundant: he has not been active as a professional for more than two years, and there is no clear indication from anyone other than the USADA that he is no longer considered winner of those tours. The ASO (organisers of the Tour de France) still list Bjarne Riis as winner of the 1996 Tour, albeit with an asterisk, and still have third place in the 2008 edition vacant. Kevin McE (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Impossible to support. It is complete speculation per WP:CRYSTAL until formal announcements are made. Even then, he could appeal against the stripping of titles to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Stick to the known facts - he is no longer going to appeal against doping allegations. Leaky Caldron 11:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but wait - I echo Leaky caldron's view on this. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Not your average sports story. Indeed, I predict this will be posted before the day is done in California. This is huge news and will reignite the debate about sports doping. Jusdafax 12:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Does the USADA have the authority to formally strip LA of his TDF titles? Because it seems fairly established that they will do that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Not really, or at least it is debatable. That's the point everyone seems to be missing. I would suggest an alternate text based on the line from Lance Armstrong: The US Anti-Doping Agency bans the cyclist Lance Armstrong for life, and recommends he is stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles. It is somewhat lengthy, but unless the issues can be made clear I would oppose posting. The alternative would be to wait until the UCI officially strips him of his titles, or not.--23230 talk 13:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Going with everyone else by saying strong wait. No question this is notable, but the main question is if it will actually happen. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • BIG NEWS obvious support the debate about whether or not the USADA has the power to strip him should be in the article. The USADA has made the statement, that's news and NOT CRYSTAL. The specifics can go in the article, but this should be on the main page now. I came to WP looking for this article to see what is going on and was surprised it wasn't In the News. And for those who are saying, "Wait until its official"---by the time that is determined, this may no longer be newsworthy... when the beaucracy is done, it may not be front page news. (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Lets wait for the UCI actions. Click here for UCI and USADARegards, theTigerKing  16:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Most of the opposes are because of the blurb. Can someone find wording that isn't crystal but still factual and newsworthy. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong wait. Lance Armstrong is 40, so his being banned from cycling is a sad fall from grace for him, but has limited obvious consequences for the sport. Being stripped of his Tour de France titles would be a bigger deal and possibly ITN-worthy. But, as noted by several editors, this looks like it may be a bit of nonsense posturing by the USADA, who are quite possibly no more entitled to do that than they are to revoke his high school diploma. We absolutely must at least wait for comment from whoever it is that actually does have authority over Tour de France titles. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Seven-time winner of Tour de France is stripped of all his medals and banned from the sport for life? Now, that's ITN for an encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportWait Someone being stripped of his record number of wins in the most prestigious race in the sport is a very big deal. Given that it's a breaking news in sport everywhere, there is nothing to contest its sufficiency for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • could be stripped of all his medals. could be stripped of tour de France wins. could be WP:crystal. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You seem to be right and the nomination appears to inform something that did not happen as he hasn't officially yet been stripped of his wins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Question perhaps this isn't the place for it, but I don't understand how a national body can strip a cyclist of victories from another country. It really feels to me like we should wait for the verdict from an international body because this comes off as the USADA blowing hot air. --PlasmaTwa2 00:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
In the simpler case of a failed drug test, the national drug testing authority that conducts the test (could be home or training base of athlete, could be determined by location of event for in-competition testing) has authority to impose a ban and annul results since proven start date of doping. This is complicated by virtue of non-lab test evidence, which according to WADA rules requires the uncovering authority to reveal evidence to sporting body involved (as WFC states below), and UCI is claiming that it has been the uncovering authority for at least some of the evidence. Kevin McE (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose any mention of Tour de France. The USADA has the ability to strip him of the titles, but only once the UCI and WADA receive and accept the USADA's reasoned decision [38].

    However, given how huge the story is right now, I support a blurb that acknowledges the story, such as Cyclist Lance Armstrong decides not to contest USADA doping charges.WFC— 02:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Meh I support a blurb such as WFC's above, but I'm not too big a fan of the ALT1 blurb posted above. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support WFC's blurb (I already indicated support for the nomination above). There seems to be no timeline on when the UCI will make a decision here, and from what little one can glean from the news they seem keen not to make a ruling. In any case this development has significantly changed the way LA's 7 titles are viewed, and I think it's worthy of posting. We may never get the final resolution we want.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support WFC's blurb. It doesn't capture the full story, but will have to do, given the small space we have for the more nuanced big picture. Khazar2 (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. Consensus seems relatively clear for a condensed blurb, and there is a reasonable update. —WFC— 03:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I am not familiar with sports-related topics so I will leave it to another admin to decide. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 13:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Libyan civil war updateEdit

Article: Aftermath of the Libyan civil war (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Libyan security forces seize more than 100 tanks from a pro-Gaddafi militia. (Post)
News source(s): [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]

Article needs updating

This is fairly breaking news, so it remains to be seen just how widely this will be reported on. However, it represents a major step forward in the stabilization of the new Libya. I'd like to note that the amount of tanks seized from one militia is more than the entire arsenal of some countries! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: Looks like a big deal from the news articles cited. As a side note, never knew that North Korea had more tanks than India or that Mexico didnt have any ! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Why does Russia have so many more tanks than the US? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Canada or China, you tell me. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Such clean-up operations are to be expected. Unless there is something I am missing, these tanks were just sitting around, not patrolling the desert and terrorising the Brits whilst under El Rommel's command. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
These militias are possibly the greatest challenge facing the new Libya, and it doesn't look like we've run a story (aside from the elections) on them in some time. Also, the militia in question was responsible for twin car bombings in Tripoli on Sunday, so they're definitely an active threat. (or at least, they were.) Seriously, though; this militia had as many tanks as the Finnish military.Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Added Al Jazeera's article as another source. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Great news for Libyans, as this could otherwise have developed into a pretty nasty situation. But is it a significant enough development in itself to mention on the main page? Personally, I think not. Kurtis (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose New regime forces seize arms and make arrests after civil war? That's a lot of tanks, but otherwise very normal. --RA (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

August 23Edit

Flooding killsEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​Dozens of Pakistanis and Indians are killed in heavy flooding and monsoon rains. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3

Article needs updating
  • Oppose. It shouldn't be trivialised, but basically the blurb could be re-written as It's monsoon season in India and Pakistan, just like it is this time every year. If there's a major landslide or something that passes the look-at-all-these-dead-people-how-can-we-not-post-that test, then maybe that incident should be posted. Formerip (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll be honest that this wouldn't be my #1 nomination (although I do think it could make it to ITN), but there's been some inactivity here at ITN, mainly due to static world news or not interesting enough, and I sure as heck wasn't nominating this! --Activism1234 23:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FormerIP, and pending an obvious article home for the information. Khazar2 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there an article for the specific monsoon nominated? If it doesn't have it's own article, it's hard to judge notability. And if it doesn't have/deserve an article, then it's probably not notable enough. SpencerT♦C 00:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • One can always be created, as done in many cases at ITN, if enough editors feel this should be posted, I'd be willing to create an article. --Activism1234 01:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now: This isnt really grabbing headlines here in India (Sample front pages: [46], [47], [48]) or from I can gather from Pakistani websites, in Pakistan either (Sample front pages: [49], [50], [51]. The deathtoll seems like an aggregate of various small incidents throughout the entire Indian subcontinent which is in fact experiencing drought in some areas due to lack of rainfall. None of these incidents on its own seem to make the cut. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

West Nile outbreakEdit

Article: West Nile Virus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An outbreak of the West Nile Virus is the largest ever in the United States, with over 1,118 cases and 41 deaths reported. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Article updated
  • Strong oppose- This is old news, there is no update, and large West Nile outbreaks aren't out of the ordinary in the US. In 2010, there were more deaths and about the same amount of cases as this year. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I just saw it as a top headline on Al Jazeera and CNN today. --Activism1234 16:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That doesn't always equate to notability. I still oppose for the same reasons. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
        • All right, I respect that. --Activism1234 16:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bzweebl and quick disappearance from prominent international coverage. (The BBC currently has 5-7 US stories higher than this, for example). Kudos to A1234 for the update, though. Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
comment Cholera out break in Sierra Leone has killed almost 250 p[eople so far and will perhaps go up . If someone wants to create that article...Im not doing so as i dont think its notable encycloaedically (though we have one for Haiti last year), though its quite plausibly ITN worthyLihaas (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lebanon ClashesEdit

Article: 2012 conflict in Lebanon (talk, history)
Blurb: Sectarian clashes linked to the Syrian civil war continue in Lebanon's second largest city, Tripoli. (Post)
News source(s): [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57], [58]

Article updated

Clashes between supporters of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad (predominately Alawite neighborhoods) and opposition supporters (predominately Sunni neighborhoods) have been ongoing since the beginning of the week, but they seem to only have escalated to widespread coverage recently. Earlier today, a fragile ceasefire that was brokered yesterday by community leaders dissolved, resulting in at least one known death (Bringing the total to 12 confirmed deaths and 45 confirmed wounded so far.) The Lebanese Army has deployed tanks to the city, in an attempt to bring the situation under control. The international community considers this a serious development; to quote the BBC News article

"The UN political chief Jeffrey Feltman described the situation as "precarious". He told the UN Security Council that, as the situation in Syria deteriorated, there was a risk that it could escalate in Lebanon too."

I know we already have a Syrian Civil War sticky, but this is a big development, as if I'm not mistaken this is the first confirmed time the conflict has spilled over Syria's borders. Given Syria and Lebanon's prior history, I'd suggest we post this as soon as the article is updated. (I'd also appreciate comments on the blurb; given that this is my first ITN nomination, I'm not entirely sure what to do.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Suppport - yes, we have a sticky on the Syrian Civl War. But this is news of that war spilling over into Lebanon, which is very significant, and can have major implications for Lebanon. --Activism1234 15:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Lebanon is already critical area and this news shows the effects of Syria on Lebanon. Egeymi (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- The blurb isn't good, but Lebanon getting involved is huge. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 12:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Comment It is not trending in Google News- USA,UK,India,Australia to name a few.Regards, theTigerKing  17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely a "developing story"; Front page of BBC News I'm a little perplexed by the uneven coverage, to be honest. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Aaaand they bumped it before I could get a stable URL. As of now, it's still on the front page, but it's no longer the second highest story. You have Mitt Romney to "thank" for that. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor disturbances between various ethnic groups in what is nothing more than a little self-generated bother. --IP98 (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd venture that a "minor disturbance" wouldn't provoke a comment from a high UN official calling the situation "precarious", nor would it merit the deployment of the Lebanese military to pacify the area. See the article 2012 conflict in Lebanon; I'm surprised at how under-reported this really is. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It's not yet a major development. Reconsider if the conflict in Tripoli escaltes to an actual urban warfare, or if the unrest spreads to Beirut. --hydrox (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - top headline on CNN. --Activism1234 19:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As Zaldax says, oddly uneven coverage, but prominent enough in some sources (CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera) to justify posting. Plus it passes the common sense test--another country getting sucked into the violence is obvious big news. Khazar2 (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've revised the blurb, but I still don't think it's very good. Does anyone have any idea how to improve it? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: The New York Times has finally published a story about this. Seems that the press is starting to pick up coverage. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged the entry as possibly ready. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The event must be treated, for now, as an isolated event. The event is a minor development. The event has not been trending even now, had it been a major development. The contention that the war be "spilling over" are individual point of view. This again, hasn't been reported either by any respected journal. Regards, theTigerKing  05:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong postmortem support as per Activism1234 above me. The situation that is taking hold in Lebanon has a great deal of relevance to Syria, and to the broader Middle East sectarian conflict. Kurtis (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this bad news dear Zaldax and posting it dear BorgQueen, very serious. I hope I am wrong.Egeymi (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
comment the article is awful at the moment and ive tagged it as ssuch (which was reason to remove the Bahrain uprising last time), but the update is there. One could link to the relevant section instead OR link to the other article (which i haven seen ye)Lihaas (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Updating: I'll try and fix this thing up as best I can. While I"m at it, I'm going to update the article with the latest information, which can be found here in this BBC story. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No Easy DayEdit

Article: No Easy Day (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Memoir by pseudonymous author announced, detailing the experience of killing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. (Post)
News source(s): [59], [60], [61]
  • Oppose better suited for DYK unless very serious consequences happen from this, which is too soon to tell. Secret account 05:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doubtful any book launch is important enough for the front page, unless "The Bible II" ever comes out. Secret is right, maybe there's somewhere else for this to go. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Preemptive support for Bible II. -- (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose DYK for sure is a better location and certainly would qualify with article creation timing. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Exactly per above. Sounds about perfect for a DYK. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per lack of significant consequences so far, but agree that this would make a great DYK. Thanks to DarthBotto for the work on the article. Khazar2 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose "Man writes book" is not news. DYK. --RA (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

August 22Edit

Ebola in DRCEdit

Article: Ebola virus disease (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An outbreak of Ebola virus has flared up in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as the outbreak in Uganda is winding down. (Post)
News source(s): [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

Article updated
  • Oppose Some of those sources are a week old. Also, using the casualty logic being applied below, if a shooting that kills two and wounds nine isn't "deadly enough", then I don't think a disease outbreak that kills nine and "wounds" fifteen is sufficient either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We've usually also based it in part on whether the mode of death itself is unusual: shootings that kill several people are common in the United States. We did post the Ugandan outbreak (also described at Ebola_virus_disease#2012_outbreaks), which had 16 deaths, earlier this month.--Chaser (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on lack of evidence of prominent international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if this gets any bigger. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Shootings in US happen quite often. Based on the chart in the proposed article, there have only been two breakouts in the DRC since it became the DRC. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - More notable than the West Nile virus outbreak in the U.S.--WaltCip (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • The West Nile outbreak wasn't posted, so this being more notable doesn't mean this should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - it is notable since it has potential danger whatever the death toll it causes. Egeymi (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the most recent of these sources is from 22 August, moving to this date for clarity and to preserve chronology. Khazar2 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: What's our precedent vis a vis Ebola outbreaks? This is notable for sure, but the current disparity in coverage makes me hesitant to support it. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Kenya clashesEdit

Article: 2012 Tana River District clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: Ethnic clashes over grazing rights for cattle in Kenya's Tana River District between the Orma and Pokomo peoples kill at least 52 people. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This isn't the #1 headline, but it is one of the top headlines or close to #1 for a variety of notable international media outlets (The New York Times, Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, etc), and this ethnic violence is particularly gruesome, involving machetes and killing women and children. --Activism1234 17:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support when article is ready Regards, theTigerKing  17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi, I updated the article recently. Thanks. --Activism1234 19:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Very weak support. Is it just me, or does ITN voting sometimes feel like Top Trumps with piles of dead bodies? Formerip (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- These aren't the types of deaths we've posted recently, like earthquakes or riots. This is plain violence. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, sure for ITN, since it involves etnic unrest and violence.Egeymi (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - the most relevant article for updating would seem to be Tana River District. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll update it now. --Activism1234 18:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not in world headlines, not unexpected, no projected readership interest, no great article to promote; same old same old. μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Very weak Support Coverage is a bit sparse, and I'm not sure how much of an addition to the article could be made. If there's enough information for a new article to be created, I'd support it, but despite the event's notability I'm not sure we're prepared to post it. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that an article has been created, I'm fully behind this posting. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support high number of causalities in a fairly stable African country. Google world news top 20. --IP98 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — Damn, the situation in Kenya sure is deteriorating at an alarming rate, isn't it? But this is one of the nastier incidents in recent memory. Definitely worthy of comment here. Kurtis (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Whoops, sorry, mistook this update as being related to Nigeria (that country's situation is "deteriorating at an alarming rate"). Still, this is big news. Kurtis (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: The article is currently tagged with a "refimprove". It will have to be dealt with first. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you think it'd just be easier for me to move the ethnic violence section into a new article? Seems like a tough job to find info for the unreferenced sentences in reliable outlets. --Activism1234 21:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article still on the short side. Also, the blurb should probably be re-written: although factual, "women and children being hacked to death" isn't as helpful when describing the larger issues surrounding the conflict. SpencerT♦C 22:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- Time has passed with still nearly unanimous support. The support arguments far outweigh the oppose, and one of the oppose reasons given was that their was no article, which is no longer true. Overall, this is definitely good for posting. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable incident. Have included an infobox in the article. I'm not good with maps, so I've included only the location of the province - perhaps someone can replace that with the specific location of the district. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm usually good with that, I can replace it with a coordinate map. Thanks for the infobox though. --Activism1234 01:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • UPDATE:   Done Hope it's good! --Activism1234 01:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Article still on the thin side but acceptable in my book. My thanks to those who upgraded; I think it's ITN-worthy now. Jusdafax 03:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony NicklinsonEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​Tony Nicklinson dies from pneumonia at the age of 58 after suffering locked-in syndrome which had for years paralysed him from the neck down. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Herald Sun Australia New York Times Sky News ABC News CBS News Irish Times Fox News Just saw it covered by Al Jazeera as well but can't find an online link at the moment.

Oppose Strictly domestic news, if he had died under assisted suicide (If it were ruled legal) I would support however. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Unless editors around the world say different, this certainly feels like domestic news to me. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Certainly not for ITNRegards, theTigerKing  17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This was only a story in UK, because from what I could read, the only notable aspect was a British court case. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above.Egeymi (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was in the news in the US as comedy. Only his partisans will see "guy who wants to die tragically dies" as tragic. 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is not an obituary. More notable folks have died recently, and we didn't post them. Plus, this seems like domestic news to me. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Whilst meaning no offence, this proposal was poorly done. The notable part of this story is that Nicklinson's only options were to ask his family to break the law, to live a life that he described under oath as "unbearable", or to starve himself to death. I'm supporting because to my knowledge we have never had a story on euthanasia or the "right to die" debate, whereas from time to time we do run stories which relate to the likes of religion, sexuality, gender equality and capital punishment. —WFC— 19:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment in that case, Euthanasia_in_Australia should be updated and bolded. Right now there is no good article to promote. --IP98 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Errrm, you have looked at some of the sources, haven't you? He lived and died in England. Kevin McE (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure did, and he sure did. When I went to assisted suicide, Australia was at the top of the list and I just went with it. Oops, that was dumb and embarrassing. --IP98 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Tony Nicklinson would be the obvious choice of article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It just redirects to Locked-in syndrome. I'm all for posting this, but he should have his own article with a history, timeline, etc. --IP98 (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. If we've never done a story on the Right to Die debate, I may retract my opposition to posting this, but we really need a dedicated article before we put this on the Main Page. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Seemingly this is being poorly reported. From many news reports, I had assumed he died of illness. It would appear that he began refusing food from last week. --RA (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nina BawdenEdit

Article: Nina Bawden (talk, history)
Blurb: Nina Bawden, writer of the influential novel Carrie's War, dies at her home in London. (Post)
News source(s): [69] [70] [71]
  • Oppose Well known for writing only one book? It's a good book...but is she en exceptional writer at the top of her game? I don't think so. World influence? Doesn't matter, she was almost only know at home. Also the article is very short. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not notable. Also, the adjective in the blurb "influential" is clear reflection of POV.Egeymi (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable enough. Sorry to say but she hasn't won any credible award in her lifetime. Just wrote novels.Regards, theTigerKing  16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose -sorry not notable enough for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose - that book may be somewhat famous, but isn't world-renowned necessarily, and the author's death hasn't been making international news. Not notable enough for ITN. --Activism1234 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- She never even won an award. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Em, she did. Several in fact. At least get your facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Which ones? Could you please throw light on them! The article mentions none award won.Regards, theTigerKing  17:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
From the article: "Carrie's War won the 1993 Phoenix Award from the Children's Literature Association (U.S.) as the best English-language children's book published twenty years earlier that did not win a major award." SpencerT♦C 22:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean to say that she won an award for books that didn't win an award? That reflects more negatively than positively on her. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This award is actually not a notable achievement. And awarded just one award even after writing so many books?Regards, theTigerKing  05:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unopposed I could see this if a good case were made in its favor. Let's have some sources quoted. This would go up if my suggestion in the Phyllis Diller nom for a one line bare-link recent deaths section were supported. μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that "recent deaths links" is actually a really good idea. I strongly encourage you to propose that somewhere. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
comment I just created a thread to discuss that here Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Deaths_in_last_7_days EdwardLane (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN is not an obituary. More notable folks have died recently, and we didn't post them. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

August 21Edit

[Posted] Russia and WTOEdit

Nominator's comments: important event --TarzanASG (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, although I did not check its media popularity, it is notable for both the world economy and country's economy and the WTO.Egeymi (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, this nomination should be uncontroversial. Thue (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. Nsk92 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support In Soviet Russia, world trades you! Lugnuts And the horse 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Should be in ITN.Regards, theTigerKing  13:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Huge development for international trade, a long-awaited development. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - easily ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support straight forward. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: No question on notability. Is there anything more that we can add to the update? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've de-linked Economy of Russia because I don't think we should link almost the whole blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm... Only four hours of discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you have a substantive objection to the blurb that has been posted? --Jayron32 15:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Why is four hours of discussion not enough when there's that much unanimous support? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We need to call a doctor if any discussion lasts longer than four hours. :P hbdragon88 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Just came to nominate ?(and would thus support). But saw its already up. No qualms there, but does anyone see the voting hre per CONSENSUS which says it does not vote count but assess the quality of discusion. "In Soviet Russia, world trades you" + "ofcourse" + "this nomination should be uncontroversial" + "should be in ITN" + "easily ITN" + "straight forward" + (no comment whatsoever) + "No question on notability." (it is not ITNR, so there is clearly discussion). There were but 1/2 productive commetns of support, and as WaltClip noted, it should be discussed (mre so as its not ITNR)Lihaas (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Had someone opposed it, people would have had come out with plausible defense. The framing of the blurb made it an obvious contender. Kudos to the nominator of the news-event for framing it beautifully. Even now, nobody has come-up with a reason why it should be opposed. Regards, theTigerKing  05:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you expect this to be ITNR? It's not exactly a recurring event. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If nobody objects, what's there to discuss? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Everybody agreed that it was notable. No-one could think of any plausible objections that may arise that needed to be pre-emptively countered. And I also want to place on record that "In Soviet Russia, world trades you" remains the best comment in this entire discussion. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Seconded! Zaldax (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize that Yakov Smirnoff had become in vogue again. ;)--WaltCip (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is Russia "the world's largest non-WTO economy" or has it just joined the WTO? Formerip (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Romania courtEdit

Articles: Traian Basescu (talk, history) and Romanian presidential impeachment referendum, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Romanian constitutional court invalidates a referendum to impeach President Traian Basescu, reinstating him as president. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Big event in Romania, follows a referundum to impeach him but he has now been reinstated and the referendum ruled invalid. Making some headlines on various international media outlets.

--Activism1234 23:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Very interesting in the political spectrum of SEastern/Central Europe and the world in general, I mean how many times do we see an impeachment overturned? --Τασουλα (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- A big surprise that is undoubtedly significant. This is certainly bigger than him being elected in a proper election, which would automatically posted. Just to clarify, was he ever out the job, or did the court stop it from happening? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think he was out because there was an acting president whose really pissed now. --Activism1234 01:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Think the article could do with a little reorganising though. I eventually found the update, but it wasn't easy. There's also this barely-updated article, just for info. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I updated it and put that one in the blurb instead. --Activism1234 03:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This was nominated on July 29. Posted and then pulled. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the impeachment was posted, then pulled because it was decided that we would wait for the court ruling to be posted. Really, one could argue that consensus for posting this already exists. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, makes sense. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Was gonna ask if ywe posted it the first time. Since it wasnt done as such think this shuold be posted.
Whats the status of prez at the moment now?Lihaas (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the government is going to officially approve this (confirmed that they will do it though, as they're required, it's just ceremonial) in a day or so, and then he'll be back, if they haven't already done this. --Activism1234 04:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was known at the time of the last nom that the result was not valid. I recall pointing out at the time that the lack of turnout was itself a result that had been campaigned for, and that encouraging voters not to turn up at the ballot box was a deliberate strategy. In effect this was a ballot where no matter which way you voted it had the net effect of voting the Pres out of office. That is reality, not some legal sleight of hand. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose. 88% votes YES so its clearly a great injustice to the Romanian people. This Turnout requirement didn't exist for 2007 impeachment Referendum. This law is totally ridiculous. The protests continue.- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 05:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That seems more of a personal reason to oppose this... Can you please clarify, as ITN says to do when you vote, why the subject isn't notable or shouldn't be mentioned on ITN? Thanks. --Activism1234 06:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Exactly, its best that we leave out value judgement while evaluating notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment - is not a personal opinion, is the opinion of 7.4 million people. Yes, illegal is notable but the subject is not, because there was not changes, in fact still remain the same person as president. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support wide international coverage, very unusual political situation in a country with a 20+ million population, and presumably a final step in the political chaos in the country. The so-called "injustice" to the people of Romania by the 9 judges makes it even more notable for ITN. Nergaal (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (as already approved) on the basis that this had already been approved for posting in July but was pulled owing to the disputed outcome. Now that the outcome has been clarified, posting it now is no more than a re-post following a correction to something we already approved. Minor improvement to the blurb:

    The Constitutional Court of Romania invalidates a referendum to impeach President Traian Basescu, reinstating him as president.

    --RA (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, very significant event with wide coverage.Egeymi (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per RA's comments above. Nsk92 (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Should be in ITN considering the fact that it is/was making headlines in a large pocket of Europe.Regards, theTigerKing  13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support support in some form. Careful with the blurb, could be more twists in the future. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with this being an "In The News" blurb, but I am very frustrated at the use of the phrase "invalidates a referendum". I have posted on the Main Page Talk and on the 2012 referendum article Talk about this. Saying "invalidates a referendum" implies that the Constitutional Court of Romania has an ultra vires power to invalidate referenda, and glosses over the fact that there is a public law in Romania, on the books since 2000 and amended more recently, which establishes the rules by which referenda are considered valid or invalid. It bothers me particularly because Romania is being portrayed as a country with no concern for rule of law, despite the fact that the law has been followed at every instance, both by those defending Băsescu and those opposing him. Please note also that the headlines of the articles originally used above to justify the blurb's adoption for use on the Main Page are: "Romanian court rules impeachment vote invalid", "Traian Basescu: Romanian impeachment vote ruled invalid", "Basescu reinstated as Romanian president", and "Romania's Rulers Cry Out against Basescu Return". Two of these headlines say "rules invalid" rather than "invalidates", and the other two do not use "invalidate" in the headline. Furthermore, those last two articles say this in the next few paragraphs: "Traian Basescu is set to return as Romania’s president after the Constitutional Court ruled that last month’s impeachment referendum was invalid", "Tuesday the Constitutional Court declared void the July 29 impeachment referendum against Basescu, based on finding that it is in fact true that less 50% of voters had participated." So none of these articles make the claim that the referendum was "invalidated" by the court! Three of them state that the court "ruled" it was invalid, and the remaining one references the terms of the actual law that was the basis of its judgment. Yet I was told when I raised this point on the 2012 referendum talk page that it was generally the case that this "invalidated" phrase is the phrase generally being used by the media. That appears to be false. Please change the wording of this blurb to read "declared invalid" in place of "invalidated", to make it clear that Romania is a country "of laws not men". Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I find that to be quite the well-reasoned, considered, argument; I'd support that change. It's fairly minor change in wording, but as Zachary Klaas suggests, it drastically changes the meaning to more accurately convey the facts. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Just saw that the change has been made - much appreciated, thanks. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Apple Inc.Edit

Article: Apple Inc. (talk, history)
Blurb: Apple Inc. becomes the most valuable company in history as their market value reaches $623 billion. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post

 -- (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is a market fluctuation; nothing more. The "in history" business is easily dismissed when the devaluation of the dollar is accounted for: this is no Standard Oil. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
  • iPpose Trivial. Lugnuts And the horse 08:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above. This is a very nice press release and publicity burst for Apple; I'm not sure it's 'news' in its purest form. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial. Most valuable company of 2012 surpasses the value of Microsoft in 1999? Nice press release for Apple (so long as you don't mention the Microsoft context), but not actually significant. -- (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even if the figures were market-adjusted, this wouldn't be interesting. No actual event has occurred. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose well this is decent news however market value is not a good stat to judge size of company. its mostly fake money till cashed in. unless they pile up that much cash, which would be lot more interesting news. -- Ashish-g55 13:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • OpposeIf figures for Microsoft are adjusted to inflation, then $850 billion is the present day valuation of the Microsoft then.Regards, theTigerKing  14:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose exactly per the above reasoning. If adjusted for inflation, other companies have been worth more. As Crispmuncher perfectly put it, "this is no Standard Oil." Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - perhaps big news in tech world, but not ITN worthy. And isn't that unexpected either. --Activism1234 16:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not showing in the Google top 20 business stories today. Just same fan cruft for depraved apple fanbois. --IP98 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not an appropriate.--Reality 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not news, this is dated information.. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Milestones are cool. m'encarta (t) 22:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted]Ethiopian PM diesEdit

Article: Meles Zenawi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After weeks of speculation about his death, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi dies at age 57. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Top headline for BBC, Yahoo, and Al Jazeera, and will soon likely be for other outlets as well.

  • Support with further update. Death of a sitting head of state in extremely notable. – Connormah (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I updated the article. --Activism1234 05:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think those tags at the top of the article have to go too. I don't have the time to do it myself, but IIRC we usually don't post until those types of issues are worked out. – Connormah (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Two of the tags are from 2008 and 2009. Think I can just remove them or no? Open a talk page discussion on it? --Activism1234 06:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I went through some sections and made it more neutral. I've gotta get some sleep now though, in case someone can take over... --Activism1234 06:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Have clubbed the illness and death sections. Have also expanded the lead and removed the yellow tag. The orange tag for neutrality remains. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Are there any glaring POV issues? If not I'd suggest removing the neutrality tag. It's 4 years old and there's no discussion of it on the talk page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Cant spot any glaring POV issues but I wont claim to be entirely familiar with all of the sub-topics covered in the page and its a pretty big article. I've opened a discussion in the article talk page. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm removing the tag. It's over 4 years old and there's been no discussion of POV on the talk page since. If we look at the article when the tag was placed, it was in a very different state.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Satisfies WP:ITN/DC #1. But yes, there are a couple of tags. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support No brainer. Lugnuts And the horse 06:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It certainly meets all the related criteria.Egeymi (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I add my support to the comments above - a clear case of a nomination which should make it to the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 07:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Ready to post when the tags are dealt with. --Tone 07:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Very well, posting. --Tone 08:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Postmortem support — Holy hell, this is a bolt from the blue! I was definitely not expecting the main page to announce Zenawi's death this morning. Very obvious posting, as he was the strongman of a country with over 80,000,000 people for at least a decade. Kurtis (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
ROFL on the pun...but it asnt really a "bolt from the blue", the news reported as such with the church leaders death that he was near.
Anyways, can we merge this with the head of the church as both died in the smae week? And both are evidently notable, and more so in such close succession?
comment; having just read the page, there is one sentence on his death and another on his replacment. That is no where NEAR a sufficient up[date. Im in the process of reviewing.adding more. But these updates need to be seen BEFORE postingLihaas (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Lihaas (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Lots of deadlinks in the reference section! Lugnuts And the horse 07:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
coment ive gone and done an update thats significant now.Lihaas (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Lihaas, you're an angel! x --BorgQueen (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mali forms new unity governmentEdit

Article: 2012 Malian coup d'état (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following a military coup, Mali forms a national unity government in an effort to restore stability and solve a political crisis. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not sure if the article I linked to should be updated or a different one. It needs updating. Also, this is a pretty prominent event in Mali after its coup, which garnered much international attention. It is a top story on the BBC.

--Activism1234 03:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak support On the BBC's front page, and minor mentions deep in the subsections for the New York Times, Al Jazeera, and Xinhua. A notable development in the ongoing struggle to keep Mali from becoming the next Somalia. Khazar2 (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — I think it's an important milestone for Mali as it recovers from a political crisis. Kurtis (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support A significant story for surebut it seems that coverage stopped rather quickly. It seems to be buried in subsections in most major news sources now. Update: I've changed my mind on this one; after digging deeper, this story's still receiving a good bit of attention. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, this should not be a problem, ITN stories often take some time to get on the Main page. However, I see no update in the coup's article, maybe somewhere else? --Tone 15:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to update it right now, thanks for reminding me! --Activism1234 16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Updated. --Activism1234 16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Significant coverage and milestone for the obviously significant crisis in Mali. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
cAN THE link got o the relevant section instead o f the page?Lihaas (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dom MintoffEdit

Article: Dom Mintoff (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Prime Minister of Malta Dom Mintoff dies in Tarxien at the age of ninety-six. (Post)
News source(s): [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Dom Mintoff, who was a well known prime minister among many has passed away at the age of ninety-six. I know that he died of "old age" but from the news websites and other stories about him, it seems he was well liked by a lot of people. Oh, and it's even updated.

  • Oppose- Since he was a former prime minister, he doesn't meet DC#1. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You've managed to overlook the more relevant #2. Also #3 - in Malta anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2012
  • Oppose - per Bzweebl, not familiar with him and isn't a top headline on most media outlets I'm looking at. --Activism1234 03:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you read about him instead of dismissing him because you're "not familar" with him? I was not familiar with him either. But he seems to have done a lot for his country. He has his own nickname and everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That's great, and I'm happy for his country, but we're looking for internationally known politicians at ITN, not just country-centric. --Activism1234 04:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • He's dead. Somehow I don't think "his country" is very happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: There are spaces for 216 political types on my imaginary list. As I acknowledge there, that isn't even enough for all current heads of state. A former PM of a country whose current Pres probably wouldn't qualify is beyond the realms of discretion. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose About twice as notable as the passing of any former mayor of Buffalo, NY, and about 1/100 as notable as the death of the Ethiopian patriarch. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I see Guido was included a while ago. This guy probably has more, or at least as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm tempted to SNOW this now given there has been no support and only the IP nominator contesting that opinion. I'm about to retire now and I'll review it when I get up, but in the meantime it is something to consider. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Strong oppose, former PM and as nominator pointed out he died of "old age".Egeymi (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; simply not a significant figure even if he was the PM of Malta.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Man dies of old age. In stark contrast to the nomination above, here's a case of a nominee which hasn't the notability we require for front page inclusion. Clear case of 'no' doktorb wordsdeeds 07:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • In what way does he not meet the notability required for front page inclusion? Unfortunately he did die an old man but he seems to have done enough with his life to meet DC#2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: I'm going against the tide here but from what I can read, he is considered the architect of Malta's freedom from British rule and was PM from 1955 to 1958 and then from 1971 to 1984. Thats a pretty long tenure. He's been given a state funeral by Malta - which has been done only for Guido de Marco so far. Malta remains a tiny country of only 400k people but he seems to be a top guy there. Second headline on the BBC Europe page. But I agree that valid concerns of ITN becoming more like an obituary weighs against this nomination. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of prominent international coverage. In the BBC, but on a first pass, I couldn't find it in the New York Times, Al Jazeera, or Xinhua at all. Khazar2 (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • New York Times[80] was included in original nom showing you didn't look through the facts presented: "To admirers he was the father of modern Malta" ... "he sought to integrate Malta into Britain, with a status like Northern Ireland's — having a legislature of its own but electing members to Parliament in Westminster and gaining access to British economic aid, military defense and other benefits. When Britain refused, Mr. Mintoff resigned as prime minister and began advocating full independence for Malta." Tripoli Post "Malta Mourns Its Greatest Ever Politician" ... "Malta is mourning the death of its best known statesman and politician" ... "The man described as a giant", "Malta's longest serving politician and one of its most controversial", "one of the founding fathers of the island" From the news coverage of his death he sounds like Malta's George Washington or James Madison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I too am going to go against the tide and support this nomination. The man has been described as "The Father of modern Malta"; Malta might not be the biggest of countries, but an accolade like that certainly deserves a mention. The arguments by the above ip and C.H. have swayed me. ITN may not be an obituary, but people responsible for a nation's independence (as well as two-time prime ministers) probably deserve a note. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportFor the fact mentioned above. Let's not consider how he died. A prominent figure of the tiny nation. Regards, theTigerKing  17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per comments above, the death of a one of the most important figures in a European Union country history is extremely notable. A much better encyclopedic topic many celebrities deaths and other other events that had little global impact like protests or flooding in a random country. I hope the opposers reconsider. Secret account 01:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Can we give this another look? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly per Khazar. Obviously very significant within Malta, but not seeing the international significance. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

August 20Edit

[Posted] Iran Female University RestrictionsEdit

Article: Iranian restrictions on female university students (talk, history)
Blurb: ​36 Iranian universities place restrictions on female university students, making 77 fields of study male-only. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a rather drastic, unexpected event by the Iranian government that backpedals from the direction the country was going, affecting the entire female population. This is the first time i've ever nominated anything for ITN, so please let me know if I messed something up. --SilverserenC 03:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - how does this backtrack from a direction Iran was going in? Iran certainly isn't known for its equality in genders. Also, not necessary, but if you can add me as "updated2" and this article Human rights in Iran, where I updated here before this was posted, that'd be great. --Activism1234 03:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. And it's a backtrack because, as some of the sources state, Iran has actually been slowly getting more inclusive toward women and allowing them rights. Slowly, yes, but steadily. SilverserenC 04:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - it's making headlines on some media outlets but not on others, but not the top headline. I'd like to wait a bit and see how this develops. --Activism1234 03:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I find opposes/supports on the bases that an item is/isn't on media outlets particularly irrelevant. If you want a news ticker then go visit news sites.. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It's an imperfect way to determine "relevance", for sure, but still beats the off-the-cuff rankings of 5-10 non-professionals. Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The article and headline seriously need to be rewritten to avoid WP:ENGVAR issues. After reading the article, it is not clear to me whether "courses" is intended to mean entire fields of study or degrees (e.g. a chemistry degree, an electrical engineering degree) or particular individual classes or modules, etc. -- tariqabjotu 06:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    According to The New York Times, it is fields of study, so please say that rather than the ambiguous "courses". -- tariqabjotu 06:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Done. Sorry for the confusion. I'll go fix the article right now too. SilverserenC 07:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it is very significant negative development for women in the country.Egeymi (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Mmmaah I have to read over this a lot. Is this really significant? Haven't similar things happened in the US but gone without headlines? Student voting restrictions? Homosexual laws etc. it's not easy to get a DUE balance. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
SunCreator, please read the details, Iranian women will not attend such departments as English literature, translation, hotel management in addition to many other technical ones. Don't you think it is significant in 2012? Cheers,Egeymi (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I find the details less significant then the headline. The topic could be seen as pro American/anti Iranian. There is no US student voting restrictions article nor was it ITN and in 2011/2012 I find the latter coming from the US more significant then a restriction in Iran. Perhaps both topics could of been ITN worthy, so I'm somewhat in two minds. Why does the nomination say it affects the entire female population? it's only the students? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems some disconnect here. Is it all Iranian universities or the 36 in the article? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 01:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I feel that this is only significant for Americans who want to vent their anger at Iran for a lack of woman's rights, as opposed to an actually significant event. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you back these accusations up? Which other country starts banning women from what they could learn in a university. This isn't "Americanism" stating Iran is evil and look what they do. I don't really see much American sources on this so your argument doesn't add up, but this is clearly notable from an "encyclopedic perspective". 'Support Secret account 21:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — Very bad news, but significant. I hope their regime gets toppled; they belong in the Stone Age with all the other misogynists. Kurtis (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I marking this as ready. Consensus seems for posting and there seems to be a decent update. Secret account 01:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesnt appear from the comments that there is enough consensus to post this. Given that almost all other Islamic countries have far worse records with gender equality (except for may be Pakistan), and given further that 52% of university graduates and 68% of science degree graduates in Iran are women, this appears to be a rather myopic view and I'm inclined to say that this appears to be in the news primarily thanks to the Iran = bad guy fixation. At the same time, I'm not dismissing this as entirely non-notable but just that its being hyped up a lot. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
How much is needed for consensus? There are five supports and one oppose. The Venezuela prison riots blurb below that was posted had only five supports. SilverserenC 09:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't know whether CH's comment about Iran having a generally good record on women's education is true or not, but if it is, this makes the story more noteworthy, not less. Banning women from subjects like maths and engineering seems extraordinary, no? I don't think that's the case in any other country in the world (correct me if you know differently). Even in Saudi Arabia, according to this article, 58% of people in higher education are no-tails. Formerip (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, this can be posted if an admin thinks there is enough consensus ... I dont have too much of an opinion on this just gave my two bits on why I thought it was making news. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Regardless of Iran's record on women's education, this is a BIG step back for women in that country. All politics aside, this is one of those human rights developments that we really should be posting to ITN, in my opinion. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

US-Korea war drillsEdit

Article: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States and South Korea carry out a joint military drill against the will of protestors and the North Korean government. (Post)
News source(s): Herald Sun

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This comes at a particularly tricky time for the Korean Peninsula with the Northern rocket and such, and North Korea will bolster its military further because of this. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Hmm... Perhaps you should try to find a source other than PressTV, which many view as an incredibly biased propaganda mouthpiece of the Iranian government. As of now, I don't see it as a top headline for BBC or Reuters, unfortunately. Perhaps it will develop further with time. --Activism1234 04:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Update - Perhaps consider using or inserting this Yahoo/AFP reference as well. Should be better. --Activism1234 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, replaced the article. I used the other one because it had the most info of all of them- didn't know that about it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Saw your above comment, sounds good. --Activism1234 04:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"Against the will of protestors"? How many divisions does the pope have? μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Two more than you'd imagine he needs, although no ICBMs. Formerip (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd remove that from the blurb. I don't see it in The Herald Sun either. --Activism1234 05:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Due to lack of evidence of prominent coverage. While potentially a newsworthy story, I'm having trouble finding it in BBC, Al Jazeera, and the NYT. (Park's daughter seems like the bigger Korea story of the day for some outlets). Khazar2 (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They do this every year, right? Formerip (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The predictable occurrence of a non-public event is generally not news. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- The biggest element of this story is that North Korea has vowed to use force to counter, not that the drill has occurred. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, they said the last military US-South Korean exercise (and use of DPRK flag as target) was equivalent to a declaration of war on them .. so this comment is natural and hardly surprising. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Venezuela prison riotsEdit

Article: August 2012 Venezuela prison riot (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A Venezuelan prison riot leaves 25 people dead and 43 injured, setting off a political debate in Venezuela. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Just saw it on the news, and this would be a good test of whether and where the so-called "casualty line"- as I would call it- exists. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So the nomination is explicitly and intentionally pointy, to test us contributors? μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No. That's a side thing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see an update. I'm out of my element here. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It says in my nomination that there is no update. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and update it in 5 minutes. I've updated it. --Activism1234 03:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - making top news in major media outlets; although perhaps not common in the West, the prison system in Venezuela is a major debate in the elections. --Activism1234 03:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Will an article be created solely for the riot? There are good sources in English and in Spanish, which I can help translate. [81] [82] ComputerJA (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I would highly recommend that. We can move what I updated into a new article and expand that. --Activism1234 04:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Created August 2012 Venezuela prison riot. Feel free to expand. --Activism1234 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot. I did the above nomination first because I prefer international relations, so you saved me a lot of time. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - would recommend for blurb "A Venezuelan prison riot leaves 25 people dead and 43 injured, and sets off a political firestorm." --Activism1234 04:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I like it, but political firestorm is a bit vague. I think we should leave that bit out or change it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. You can also use "political debate" if you'd like. Not necessary though. --Activism1234 04:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Replaced the blurb. Amazing how many nominations there are today but only one posting. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
            •   Done
  • Support: Significant news, considerable causalities and a decent article. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support Appears prominently in the regional subsections for BBC, New York Times, and Al Jazeera. Usually that would be a little weak for me, but in this case I'm comfortable assuming this is getting more play in Spanish-language media. Khazar2 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support although I don't like the blurb – the implication of the latter part is that we are only posting because it makes Hugo Chavez look bad. I would suggest something along the lines of "A prison riot in the Venezuelan captial Caracas results in 25 deaths." —WFC— 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: I like WFC's blurb. Any objections? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm down (support) for it. --Activism1234 04:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if only because we don't have enough prison riots on the front page. I don't see the problem with stating the political context. --RA (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Phyllis DillerEdit

Article: Phyllis Diller (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Comedian Phyllis Diller dies at the age of ninety five. (Post)
News source(s): [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89],[90]
  • Comment Phyllis Diller, who was a well known comedian among many has passed away at the age of ninety five. Her death is the top story on a few news websites currently. It seems a lot of people liked her overall. --Andise1 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I can honestly say that I would be lying if I said I hadn't heard of her. But I would also be lying if I said she was one of America's most notable/exceptional comedians, she simply wasn't - she became more well known in her later career for her plastic surgery and longevity. And let me not even get started on how world-famous she was...that would be near-non existent. Wasn't the top of her field, only notable in recent times for non-ITN worthy reasons and died aged 95. Nothing more to say. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can't believe Phyllis Diller has died without me ever having any idea who she was. So sad. Formerip (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportGroundbreaking comedian for women (although she never crashed Augusta). "I am too young to..." is rather a tired reason for opposing posting ITN noms. Bet she'll outdraw most of the articles on ITN now even if not posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Unsure if that was @me, but I have no idea if I am too young. I am probably too "international", though. Formerip (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- The update is one line with one reference. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not groundbreaking in life, not newsworthy in death. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume you have read a different verision of the Times and Guardian articles linked below, Muboshgu, (I could list a few dozen more) than the rest of us? μηδείς (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Surprise, surprise. You chose to bitch about this and do nothing help the other's case. Hot Stop 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Surprise, surprise. I am doing something about it.
  • Support iconic figure. Hot Stop 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems to be a notable but not exceptional celebrity. I don't see any awards or other evidence of notability. And I've never heard of her. I'm of the opinion we've been posting too many celebrity deaths lately. If Robin Williams or Joan Rivers dies,, then that would be notable enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, not notable and a death at 95. (The first surprise, surprise comment is very authentic, :))Egeymi (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not convinced by the claims of notability, I notice that her death is not being carried by many news agencies in prominent places. Another nomination to be filed under 'woman dies of old age'. Wikipedia is not, of course, an obituary site.doktorb wordsdeeds 07:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doktorb. Khazar2 (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose - I have gone and read her article, and I'm just not seeing why her death belongs on ITN. There's no outstanding achievement, no consistently famous media appearance, and no evidence of wider notability. Sad, but not needed for ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

New York Times[91]:"Ms. Diller...was far from the first woman to do stand-up comedy. But she was one of the most influential." "But Ms. Diller’s hard-hitting approach ... was something new for a woman. Her success proved that female comedians could be as aggressive or unconventional as their male counterparts, and leave an audience just as devastated. She cleared the way for the likes of Joan Rivers, Roseanne Barr, Whoopi Goldberg, Ellen DeGeneres and numerous others." Add TV, Film, Stand-Up headliner, Broadway, Concert Pianist, Author, Singer, and "one of the first celebrities not just to have plastic surgery but also to acknowledge and even publicize" it. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian Phyllis Diller, zany humorist and comedy trailblazer, dies aged 95 "an influential figure for women in comedy" "Time magazine ... the poor man's Auntie Mame, only successful female among the New Wave comedians" "a field she had largely to herself because female comics weren't widely accepted" (I assume everyone who voted for Augusta has voted yes for this real woman pioneer.) μηδείς (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Phyllis versus Meles: 250,000 hits on each of the last two days for Phyllis, not on the front page: 70,000 hits for Meles, on the front page. μηδείς (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

3,110 recent Google News Hits for "Phyllis Diller Groundbreaking" μηδείς (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment to offer on the notability of Phyllis Diller but just to caution against using page views as the determining critieria, here's this list of Most visited on English Wikipedia pages of this week: [92]. Go by page views alone, Tony Scott appears to be a no-brainer yes for ITNR. As would be the case for the releases of the Hindi film Ek Tha Tiger, the English film The Expendables 2 and the sale of Robin van Persie to ManU. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
And going by the trends of article views like Ryan Holle (127,021 views today), Gandhism (95,565 views) ... I think the a link making the front page of reddit is all it takes to shoot the views up. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The google page views are offered as a source, not a raw number. And it is page views for her plus "groundbreaking" The wikipedia page view comparison is quite clear, meles vs phyllis. Of course other pages like bird will outpull her. She only averaged 1,000 hits a day preposthuomously. The point is that we have a bunch of young editors saying "i never heard of her, she's old, she's not groundbreaking" all based on their own ignorance of the topic, when any simple research would prove otherwise. Recentism is one bias here. Another is a patronising exoticism, the notion that merit accrues to supporting the nomination of non-anglophone functionaries (treated as exotic pets) but not domestic celebrities, as if human interest stories that actually appeal to our readership are inferior to tedious homework lessons. Frankly, I think a solution would be a one-line section below ITN and the stickies for Recent Deaths with 5-6 bare links to notable passings after it. This should please those who want all celebrity deaths off ITN. μηδείς (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree that recentism is definitely an issue but I think you are contradicting yourself (at least partially) when you say 1. that people should read up about the article they are not familiar with and 2. that Meles Zenawi's nomination is some sort of patronising exoticism and that we should be posting articles about domestic (I'm guessing from thats "domestic" from your perspective) celebrities whom the readership is more familiar with. You are comparing an in-office Prime Minister of a country of 84 million to an actress and comedian. As I said before I did not want to comment regarding her notability as I am not familiar with Western culture except for mainstream movies and tv shows. But for ascertaining notability within the concerned field, based on what I am able to read about Phyllis Diller, I unable to conclude that she has had more of an impact on American culture and American people in general than Meles Zenawi has had on Ethiopian politics and Ethiopian people. I think you have certainly chosen a very poor example to showcase "recentism", or "patronising exoticism" for that matter. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that Zenawi's death shouldn't be reported on ITN, I think it is perfectly valid, and that Diller's nom is just as valid. It was a more general issue that there seems to be an active prejudice here against popular interest (which often deals with anglophone celebrity deaths) and a prejudice in favor of what is viewed as the exotic, a sort of perverse Orientalist slumming in the sense of Edward Said. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose Diller was a trailblazer in her field don't get me wrong, but barely passes our death criteria and we need to change how we treat obituaries here, and her death isn't a good example as it was noted above, she really haven't been active in her field recently and her health was poor for years, to the point of tabloid fodder. Secret account 02:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama warns SyriaEdit

Article: International reactions to the Syrian civil war (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Barack Obama warns Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over using chemical and biological weapons against Syrians. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Making top headline or close to top headline on Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, etc. --Activism1234 22:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose We have a sticky up there on the Syrian Civil War for just this purpose. A "warning" from the US isn't enough to merit its own post, it would have to be actual military action. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Just pointless rhetoric - no change in any country's position. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The blurb shows how little of a deal this is. A "warning" isn't the most threatening military action. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, probably today or tomorrow Assad will issue a warning.Egeymi (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    •   Done - see here. --Activism1234 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your feedback dear Activism1234.Egeymi (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
        • No problem. Noticed this as well. Got the whole gang here. --Activism1234 16:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Maybe indirectly, but this completes the picture, I think.Egeymi (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. Khazar2 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as with the UK's letter to Ecuador, this is not even sabre-rattling. Perhaps sabre-polishing. Not real news, at any rate. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Gaziantep bombingEdit

Article: 2012 Gaziantep bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​9 people were killed after a bomb attack in the city of Gaziantep, Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): [93]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: 9 people were killed after a bomb attack in the city of Gaziantep, Turkey. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Note Updated with the ITN Template. Please use the ITN Template when nominating an article here. Thanks! -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 19:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Latest death toll is 8, but the number of wounded is 64. Egeymi (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - making close to top (2nd, 3rd...) headlines on BBC, Reuters, etc. A pretty big terrorist attack in Turkey, and could have major implications under Erdogan's government if the perpetrators were Kurds. --Activism1234 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If the PKK is indeed responsible, as is currently suspected, this could have huge implications for the Turkish government. Either way, this is a sizeable enough terrorist attack that it needs an ITN mention. Article must be updated as more information is acquired (I've added a "current" tag on the page for that reason.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but this should not be hastily posted and our article should not identify the PKK as responsible (as it currently does) until the most reliable sources are doing the same. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
oppose 8 deaths in a ME bombing is tragically not that notable. The article was also presuming (though i removed PKK) and needs a bigger update (at this point an addition to th elist of 2012 bombing would mre than suffice). Lets wait and see what the political games say with SyriaLihaas (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I would usually say 'no' because 7 is not enough deaths for my liking (I know, we've covered this before). However I'm struck by the location, its context, its unexpectedness, and as has been mentioned above, the importance it could have in the region given the alleged involvement of the PKK. It'd be easier to dismiss where this anywhere other than Turkey, I suspect. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Terrorist attacks of this caliber are not notable very easily. There isn't anything about this that really stands out to me that deserves an obvious posting. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; unless there is something that makes this more notable? μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Part of the on-going Kurdish–Turkish conflict. Nothing to indicate that this attack is particularly notable. The article also does not meet the minimum requirement yet. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: It is a very important terror action. I support it.--Reality 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Augusta National Golf Club admits womenEdit

Article: Augusta National Golf Club (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Augusta National Golf Club has admitted the first female members in the club's history. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a slightly weird one but anyone who knows golf also knows how prestigious Augusta membership is considered. Well they have finally decided to admit women (2 atleast). worth nominating atleast -- Ashish-g55 17:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This appears to be more of a quirk that it's taken them this long than anything else. I'm not sure it's really that important in the WP:ITN scheme of things. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This comment was removed by a user trying to add the template and was not restored, so I'm restoring it. I'm not exactly pleased. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry Strange Passerby, I got an Edit Conflict when I did that, but it never showed your edit in the changes. My mistake. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 22:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note Updated with the ITN Template. Please use the ITN Template when nominating an article here. Thanks! -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 19:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Note When updating others' nominations to add the ITN template. Please do not remove legitimate comments when doing so. Thanks! —Strange Passerby ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|t]-] × c) 20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Huge story, as the club has been strongly against admitting women for decades. Significant to not only the golf world, but to Women's rights as well. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 19:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    Women's rights? You mean their non-right to join a private club that has it's right to set the rules for membership? - Floydian τ ¢ 19:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
While it is within their right to not allow women to join because they are a private organization, their reasons for not allowing women appear to come down to Gender bias. When a club associated with one of the most famous golf courses in the world has ties to not only not allowing women, but also not allowing African-Americans to become members until 1990, and a former policy to have all black caddies, they have come under fire. This is significant for women's rights because after decades of protesting and public outcry (at least once a year it is always brought up in the media during press conferences and interviews for the Masters) on whether women should be allowed to join, 2 female members are finally admitted. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Put the lid back on your sandwich box and walk away slowly. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - political correctness + PR = society fail. I should start harrassing Curves to let me join as a spectator. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose^2 This is news amongst dead white upperclass golf snobs in Dixie. The rest of us laugh as they finally enter the 20th century. Hardly of interest to Americans in general, let alone the world. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the undoing of one of the oldest institutions of gender bias in America. This is obvious. --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Just as Myanmar tears up its rule book, so Augusta in its own way. I'm wary of going down this cul-de-sac, but would we be so split as editors were this "Such a Place votes to allow blacks to such and such"? It's a highly significant decision which stands very tall in the history of gender equality in the United States, a country with a history marked by these milestones. What a shame that those milestones are so far apart! doktorb wordsdeeds 21:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - as to "Hardly of interest to Americans in general, let alone the world", BBC News have a front-page story on this in the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this controversy had been going on for years, causing to lose membership and sponsorship in arguably one of the most famous golf courses in the world. Don't forget this is the course for The Masters. A victory for women rights here in a country that you least expect from. Secret account
  • Oppose - The business of one golf club, no matter how ancient, prestigious or sexist, is not my idea of front page news. (And despite what Pigsonthewing says, I can't see it on the BBC's front page.) The comparisons with Myanmar are scarcely credible. (And I'd say the same if it was the Royal and Ancient, so this isn't about UK vs USA news.) AlexTiefling (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One club, playing one game, changes its rules. Not big internationally significant news, per Medeis, Strange Passerby, etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- As a private golf club, Augusta isn't quite of the same caliber as Myanmar. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An elitist private club for an elitist sport decides to be slightly less elitist. Even in the U.S. media this story is rapidly moving to page 3 or further back (the Todd Akin story is the U.S. story of the day). Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Removal of a minor inconvenience for a few dozen people at most. -Zanhe (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose Albeit with my personal feelings not coming into play. As a girl who actually LIKES golf (PLAYING it, not watching it!) this is slightly joyous to me, but then again this is too minor and trivial for ITN. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to the opposes the significance here isn't just Augusta, it's the "end of an era" of sorts. Augusta was one of the very last hold-outs for institutional inequality. Long after women got the right to vote, to work, to own property, etc, Augusta still said "maybe, but you may not be a member here". You're the CEO of Yahoo? Too bad, can't golf here. This is actually a pretty big deal. --IP98 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    But it's not an institution. It's a private organization, much like a women's-only gym. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think people saying that it's 'just a private golf club' just at least acknowledge that it's a pretty iconic venue, akin to Lord's Cricket Ground, which had a similar controversy. The Master's is widely considered the most prestigious golf tournament in the world. It's not just your neighborhood golf club. I remain neutral on this nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is purely domestic news. It was commented above that it is on the BBC frontpage for the UK. But it isn't. It's not even on the BBC frontpage for the US and Canada. It's on the BBC frontpage for golf, which is about right. Formerip (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • At the time of my comment above, and for approximately 8 hours or more beforehand, it was on the BBC News domestic (i.e. UK) front page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Regardless of however noble the decision may appear, it's still not notable. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Typical slow news day fodder. Lugnuts And the horse 06:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Call me back when the U.S. ratifies CEDAW. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Golf club in rich country allows rich golfer to join .. meh. --RA (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Relaxation of Burmese censorshipEdit

Article: Censorship in Burma (talk, history)
Blurb: Burma announces an end to pre-publication censorship of print media. (Post)
News source(s): [94], [95]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Described by the Associated Press as "the most dramatic move yet toward allowing freedom of expression in the long-repressed nation" [96]. Briefly the second-highest story on the BBC (now slid down to sixth); 6th on Al Jazeera; 10th on New York Times. --Khazar2 (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: This is only a change of domestic laws, but I suppose it is a major development and important enough in the context of general reforms taking place in Burma/Myanmar. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: While this is, in a sense, a purely "local" story, it is a huge step forward in Burma/Myanmar's ongoing democratic reforms. I'm a tad surprised that this isn't gaining more coverage, but then again I suppose today is a big news day. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: major development. -Zanhe (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The slow blossoming of normality in Myanmar is fascinating, and this event is (whilst minor, as mentioned above), its resonance could flow through history yet unwritten for longer than we could guess. A fine and fair nomination for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 18:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Don't have much to add to the above comments. Formerip (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Great news of interest to those with eyes above the grass. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose a rather minor incremental update. It's not an end to censorship, so media might still face repercussions for opposing the government. Ancient Chinese riddle: If a tree falls in Myanmar, and no one's around, does it get posted to ITN? Hint: the answer is yes. --IP98 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a country going through a period of rapid change. It's...what's the phrase...ah, yes, it's in the news a lot. Formerip (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Scott suicideEdit

Article: Tony Scott (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British film director Tony Scott commits suicide in Los Angeles. (Post)
News source(s): [97]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Relatively famous director, brother to an even more famous director, still working their field, in a rather stunning suicide. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is NOT updated, and it lacks citations.Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Support Whilst the article requires some tidying up, I can see no reason why this nomination shouldn't pass on notability grounds. A well known director, with a good track record in making very famous, very successful films, and a death which, for ITN, is unusual. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, I think all his qualities and his death are suitable to be posted. Egeymi (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think he's notable enough. Some of his films made money, but he wasn't anywhere near the top of his field, hasn't won many awards, and I doubt many people even know who he is. Sure, the circumstances are unusual, but you could say the same about Junior Seau's death, which (wisely) wasn't even nominated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Bleh, how can we objectively determine whether people are likely to have heard of so-and-so or not? i wasn't very aware of Nora Ephron or Marvin Hamlisch, for instance, although I did know of Ephron's When Harry Met Sally and Hamlisch's A Chorus Line, and I recognize their achievements carry more weight than Tony Scott's. Seau's death would have been probably dismissed as sports and/or regional U.S material not befitting ITN so I don't like the comparison. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • They were from different backgrounds, certainly, but they're both mid-level celebrities I wouldn't expect to find on ITN. I don't see which of the death criteria he meets - he's not even the most important or well-known director in his own family. If he had died of a heart attack, this wouldn't even be a discussion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe, but manner of death is a relevant consideration in terms of whether this should be posted. Also, Bobby Kennedy wan'ts the most well known politician is his family... Formerip (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would have supported Seau death, and I probably will support the findings if Seau had when he killed himself chronic traumatic encephalopathy, as that would have a significant and unpredictable impact against a popular sport. Also apparently Scott committed suicide because of terminal brain cancer, which makes a sudden death a bit less sudden as he was going to die soon anyways. Secret account 21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with article improvement - I wouldn't have thought this would make this sort of international news, but Scott is at the top of the New York Times, the Guardian, BBC, and Xinhua for his suicide. Article needs a lot of work with citations, though, before it can be posted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Did some citation work, but article could still use more. Khazar2 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we please just restrict these things to Recent Deaths unless they are world-shattering? Alternatively, rename ITN to "In The News and Obituary Section". (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Marquee name, international coverage, still active in his field, very unexpected death and no getting around its unusual circumstances. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just the suicide is notable, he was not. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • While he might not meet ITN criteria, questioning his notability is absurd. -- (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support but can we please not mention his brother in the blurb? That just seems a little insulting. Formerip (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I think the article has some neutrality issues. It reads in places like he was total failure, which is obviously not the case. And a lot of it is just "and then he did this film, and then he did this film, and then he did this film". Really not sure about it in terms of article quality. Formerip (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the career summary in the lead, and I agree that it's a little harsh; it was more intended as a temporary measure until something better can be found. Feel free to balance (or even replace) with some sort of adulation, which given the popularity of his films, shouldn't be too hard to find. Khazar2 (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The death is notable but (sadly) he doesn't meet the death criteria. While being a well-known director and having directed many well known films, he was not a "very important figure in his or her field". --RA (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per RA. -Zanhe (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I don't feel that his death is that major news for ITN, but I just checked the BBC and it's their top headline, so it seems to me to be pretty important. --Activism1234 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not one of the top twenty or so directors that would naturally warrant an ITN listing. Suicide does add some notability but it is not a highly unusual form of celebrity death and not enough in my view to raise this over the threshold. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Weak Oppose He wouldn't be considered on the merits, only the suicide is driving the story. Phyllis Diller would be a much better nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    1. Oppose Death was sudden, but doesn't meet criteria 2, I agree that Diller despite her old age and health problems would be a better nomination as she was "the" trailblazer with female comedians. Secret account 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a very major figure, and his cause of death shouldn't be relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Everyone always complains that the person is notable but the death isn't. This is a clear case of a notable death. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Well known and notable director of some extremely well known films (Top Gun, True Romance, Beverly Hills Cop II, etc) and a death in tragic circumstances.Torqueing (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning oppose: Suicides happen all the time. I can't see the suicide being notable on its own as it just seems to be a tragic incident without much "baggage" so to speak. Pretty for his notability as a film no. I HATE to say this but if it were his brother...? No problem in supporting if it were >_< Oh daaaamnnn I feel terrible for saying that :S --Τασουλα (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    Don't—Tony was one of those film-makers who might have produced successful films but could never really be called a star in their own right; if you asked the layman to name the director of Top Gun, The Last Boy Scout or Man on Fire I'm pretty sure they'd draw blanks all the way. Ridley is a director whose name sells films; Tony is a director whose films sell his name. GRAPPLE X 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not even a top guy in his own field. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. We've had some similar nominations (moderately notable sports/entertainment personalities committing suicide). There was a German national team goalkeeper who committed suicide last year; there was no consensus to post for that (opinion was rather divided). I think there was another one more recently but I don't remember.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you may be thinking of Gary Speed, an association football manager who hanged himself. Speed's posting was somewhat controversial too, and it got really heated. In the end the admin decided that the ITN cycle was a bit slow and the article well-written, so he posted it. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I believe he's conflating Speed and Robert Enke, who was discussed in 2009; though I don't believe Enke was posted. GRAPPLE X 06:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Gu Kailai jailedEdit

Article: Gu Kailai (talk, history)
Blurb: Gu Kailai, the wife of Chinese politician Bo Xilai, has been given a suspended death sentence for the murder of British businessman Neil Heywood. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Top or near the top (second to top) headline for BBC, Al Jazeera, CBS, Yahoo News, CNN, etc. Significant end of a major political scandal, and huge implications for her ambitious husband and his political career. --Activism1234 04:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, notable event since the event happened in a country where such events are presented as an outcome of the Western cultures.Egeymi (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. Khazar2 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Important development, agree with nominator doktorb wordsdeeds 08:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support' per nom. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 08:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready Marking ready. Khazar2 (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, an unusual story with significant political implications for China. Nsk92 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Major news story of the day. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Picture of Husband?: Why is the picture of the husband included in the burp? As far as I understand, he is not charged with being involved in the murder. --15:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well there are implications as well for him, he may be formally charged as a result. --Activism1234 15:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Until that happens, or if it's mentioned in the blurb, the picture of the husband is irrelvant. (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Propose using the term "burp" instead of "blurb" from now on. Formerip (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Oppose Blurb is commonly used to describe short, concise summaries, for example, a book that has a blurb. A burp is generally used to refer to a sound made by the mouth due to an intake of certain foods. Calling the blurb a "burp" wouldn't have any reason or make sense. --Activism1234 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I think FormerIP was just trying to be humorous. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Philippine air crashEdit

Article: 2012 Philippine Piper Seneca PA 34-200 crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three people, including Department of the Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo, died in an air crash off Masbate City, Philippines. (Post)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Suggest adding this to the blurb about Sudan below as both have notable passengers and its better than 2 different air crash postings. Notability together would add to it, also Robredo is higher in his government post --Lihaas (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Minor official in small crash with no foreseeable reader interest. 02:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
note posted by μηδείς, who said below itself that hes inherently opposed to non-american (united tsates?) nominations.
I was going to add: This is the Interior Secretary, one of the most powerful and high ranking jobs in the country. It owould be akin to Gibbs/Clinton/Geither dying.Lihaas (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It's bad enough that you are irony-blind. At least you could post diffs. This nom isn't going anywhere just because I have opposed it. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Unlike the Sudan situation, only 3 dead; more importantly, though, very thin coverage in international news. Fifth headline on Al Jazeera, but not on Xinhua or BBC's front page (it's as low as the 8th story in BBC's "Asia" section), and doesn't seem to be in the New York Times or CNN at all. Khazar2 (talk)
But notability is not just the macabre thght of number of deaths, its also the individual. (bearing in mind that president aquino personally went on the dsearch party)
note this is listed several notches higher on Al Jazeera than the sudan incidentLihaas (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What the fuck? Spellcheck, please. Hot Stop 04:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There are way to speak without letting the tongue run loose. And thats not CIVILLihaas (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, higher on Al Jazeera. But also much lower, or nonexistent, on every other site I checked. Khazar2 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not notable for ITN. If it is posted, then the Sudanese crash with 32 casualties should also be posted.Egeymi (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As crass as this sounds, not enough deaths for a place on the front page. Just as ITN is not a celebrity death ticker, it's not a record of transport crashes either doktorb wordsdeeds 06:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
its not about the death count, its the notabilityf of the person who died.
Not a celebrity death tiker, i agree...but then how does scott get support for his death?Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Support: More than the plane crash, the possible death of the interior minister seems to be the major news topic from what I can gather from Philippine news sources. An interior minister of a country dying in harness is certainly notable. But as I understand they are still searching for him. If confirmed dead or declared missing, then it certainly would be newsworthy. The story isn't receiving much coverage in non-Philippine media though. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm switching to support. It's been reported by news agencies of Malaysia, India, UAE, USA, Singapore, Qatar, France, etc ... Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, It becomes more significant, per Chocolate Horlicks.Egeymi (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Will go out on a limb and support this one. High political officials going missing are indeed newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- The vote count isn't clear, but I think any admin will see that the arguments are far stronger for the support side, particularly with Chocolate Horlicks' links. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support/Update Not lost: Secretary Robredo's body was retrieved this morning (just two hours ago, per GMA, ABC/TV5 and ABS-CBN). It is a very big news item in the Philippines, and I can imagine it getting bigger tomorrow when the newspapers bearing headlines of the Secretary's death hit the stands, so I do think it's notable enough to warrant inclusion in ITN. (I also updated the blurb to reflect this fact.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it has received increase coverage - top in the BBC Asia page now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Notable person in Asia - Ramon Magsaysay Awardee; Interior Secretary/ Minister of the Philippines; Sudden interest by the public due to (1) difficulty of the retrieval operations - one of the deepest seabeds in the Philippines (2) Conspiracy theory - conflict in the narration of the lone survivor with the diver's account on the actual seating position of the secretary. (3) Most notable air crash since the death of Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay 55 years ago. --Exec8 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

End of TFGEdit

Article: Somali presidential election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following the expiry of the Transitional Federal Government's mandate, a new presidential election is held with X being elected. (Post)

Article needs updating

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 pretty big news (surprised there wasnt an article/updae) as the structure of government in Somlai has/will change (its more a "recolution" then Yemen, or even Egypt, in some sense). TFG is over and election should occur in the next 18 hours. --Lihaas (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note the TFG officially ended today (see the page), though th eelection has been put off by a week or so. Still the ending of such a governing institution is newsworthyLihaas (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Wait until an actual the presidential election. However, the blurb doesn't even say Somalia. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An awful blurb that doesn't even say what nation or region is affected. Nomination is poorly-written, full of spelling mistakes, and (much as I hate to make this personal) typical of Lihaas' rushed, poorly-considered style. As Bzweebl says, let's wait until a full election takes place. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

August 19Edit

[Posted] Sudan helicopter crashEdit

Article: 2012 Sudan helicopter crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​32 people are killed in a plane crash in Sudan, including members of the government, military, and a television crew. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: The crash has made international news at Reuters, The Huffington Post, NBC, BBC, CNN, etc. It's a pretty significant crash that killed many important members of Sudan's government and military. --Activism1234 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments: I am not sure what the "background" section has to do with this particular incident. Is it supposed to show that air crashes are common in Sudan? --BorgQueen (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's been removed. --Activism1234 00:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, leaning support I'd support this for notability--the crash included national and state ministers, and was on BBC, Al Jazeera, and Xinhua front pages, for example--but I think it remains to be seen when the coverage will be detailed enough to support a real article. So far very little seems to be known about it, with most reporters forced to fill their articles out with material about past Sudanese air crashes. (There even seems to be confusion as to whether it was a heli or plane, with different sources giving different answers). Khazar2 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Even if only because if the same thing happened in a European or American state it would be an instant ITN. --RA (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
hmm, havent read up on it , but it seems to be akin to the polish crash that we posted.Lihaas (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, part of that is because if this happened in Europe or the US, we'd have sourced telling us what had actually happened. Khazar2 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The number of government officials who died definitely makes this crash ITN worthy. Canadian Spring (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, the article would be longer if this had happened in Swansea, but it still meets our update requirements. We should modify the blurb somehow, though. It feels like it is about to end with "...and a partridge in a pear tree". Formerip (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm open to suggestions. :) I changed the blurb a bit to specify that all members on board were killed, and changed specific helicopter to general plane. --Activism1234 01:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
comment would suggest adding 2012 Philippines air crash. (added to blurb)Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, please don't make radical blurb changes without consensus once a discussion is underway. If we were to add a second unrelated aircrash, how is a posting admin supposed to know whether the support votes above still stand? Formerip (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Okey, seperate nom above, but theres no reason to be pedantic. As such, the reason above suggests merging it. Hope thats a better way to nom it?
Also suggested blurb: "Members of the government, military, and a television crew are killed in a helicopter crash in Sudan."
Also marked ready (As is the Philippines ones)Lihaas (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: The incident is clearly notable. The article's on the thinner side but it looks like further details aren't currently available. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Post Already I usually only support American nominations, and given that if this had happened in America it would be up already, it should have been up already. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Isnt this an inherent admission of bias (and thus not AGF)...elucidating also why further supports are laden with bad fiaith (And really ought to be voided)Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm, Lihaas. The intended message is that Medeis supports all note-worthy nominations and does not have any bias whatsoever. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait a bit I won't undo the "ready" tag, but given that it's still not even clear if the crashed vehicle was a helicopter or a plane yet, I feel like this one's being a bit rushed. Let's verify the blurb and article title first, or at least find a neutral way to phrase them ("aircraft crash"?). Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Be BOLD i the changeLihaas (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the talk page about this. Input from anyone would be welcome so we can make a decision quickly and post. Thanks. --Activism1234 03:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, since we are presenting encyclopedic content as opposed to reporting news here ... it wont hurt to wait for some more time to get the correct picture. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
OK based on the user input and new sources, I moved it to 2012 Sudan plane crash and updated the blurb as well. Should be good now. --Activism1234 05:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, looks like we have enough sources to tentatively resolve the issue. I'd say ready, too. Khazar2 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, certainly notable.Egeymi (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 32 in a helicopter seems a lot - maybe leave the type of vehicle out of the blurb; but on the other hand if it is a helicopter that seem relevant anyway.. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the reference to the helicopter in the heading was thanks to certain earlier conflicting reports. Most recent sources have now confirmed its either an Antonov 24/26, so that issue seems resolved in the article and this looks ready to post. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

August 18Edit

[Posted] Senkaku Islands disputeEdit

Article: Senkaku Islands dispute (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Japanese and Chinese activists stage protests around the disputed Senkaku islands. (Post)
News source(s): [98]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Japan and China's dispute continues to escalate, with Chinese activists (from Japan's perspective) illegally entering the islands, and Japanese activists approaching by boat. In July, Japan recalled its ambassador over argument. As for prominence, currently the top headline on the BBC, and has been on the BBC's front page in the US for days. Also covered, though not as prominently, in the New York Times and on the front page of Al Jazeera. (And, obviously, a top headline in Japan and China.) --Khazar2 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm wary of driving traffic to an article as controversial as this while there are tags on the page relating to sourcing. I'm leaning towards posting the story if this can be sorted out. —WFC— 01:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that the "citation needed" tags on this page are nearly two years old, I'm planning to just delete the occasional unsourced claims and then work my way back from there. Whoever inserted that information initially has had plenty of opportunity to properly source if they chose. Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like to support this, but it seems like we have a bit of a dilemma with blurbing, since the Japanese call the islands one thing and the Chinese another. The page was moved earlier this year, but it doesn't look to me like the discussion was particularly thorough. I don't have particular knowledge or a view, but I'd be nervous about putting it on the front page. Formerip (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point. The Japanese currently control them, which would indicate to me that they have an edge for the name. Perhaps we could indicate the Chinese name in the blurb as well, however. Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
As another possibility, perhaps the blurb could be modified to something like "Chinese and Japanese activists stage protests over a disputed island chain in the East China Sea." As for the article title itself, there's nothing we can do about that end of it; the article title is considered binding until Jan 1 2013 per ArbCom. Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I like your suggested blurb. As for the naming dispute, NuclearWarfare's otherwise sensible discretionary sanction would need to be modified while the article is on the main page. The principle stands, but we cannot put an article onto the Main Page whilst refusing to allow readers to even discuss its most controversial element. I'll drop a note at the user's talk page now. —WFC— 01:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I cringe slightly at that proposal - I have seen a good deal of news reports today that performed gymnastics to avoid the words "Pussy Riot" in their titles - but I also can't think of a better way of doing it. I promise to answer at least one of the inevitable complaints to mainpage talk. Lifting the moratorium would be good if we can. Part of the point of ITN is to bring new input to articles, after all. Formerip (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that our article on the topic is called Senkaku Islands, that seems to be the title to use. I presume that the name of the article has been extensively discussed, so not using it would be to, in effect, not support the process which lead to the current name. I'd note that the article is currently under heavy duty discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration case, so linking to this from the main page is likely to lead to (more) trouble. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do you presume that the name of the article has been extensively discussed? That doesn't look to be the case. Formerip (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
A reality of Wikipedia is that if there is no common neutral title then we will inevitably end up with a name that is perceived as non-neutral by some. So I'm relaxed about using Senkaku in the blurb. What's problematic is doing so while the current Arbcom sanction is in effect. The combined effect might give some readers the impression that we aren't welcoming to newbies and/or don't permit divergent opinions. —WFC— 14:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Provisional support I'd be happy with this going on the front page. Maybe we could just use both names in the blurb, "....Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands..." ? doktorb wordsdeeds 09:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Or use the English language name, Pinnacle Islands. Kevin McE (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support either Japanese name, or English Name, or no name. --IP98 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about using the English name. I haven't seen it used in the media. It seems pretty obsolete.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    I agree, but using it would at least limit the claims of favoritism on the main page. --IP98 (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, this is definitely building up as a significant international row. I have no particular opinion on which name to use in the blurb (e.g. using no name is fine, just something like disputed islands in the East China Sea, with a wikilink to the article). I do think that the current wording of the blurb sounds a little weak and something more concrete is preferable. In the last several days there were actual landings on the islands by rival groups of Chinese and Japanese activists. The wording "stage protests around" is somewhat ambiguous and may be read to mean that the protests are occurring elsewhere. Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that mentioning the landings is the way to go. My understanding is that both groups of activists had several members successfully reach the shore. Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Major international news. Agree with using "disputed islands" phrasing. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning to oppose The wider dispute may have a lot of notability but this latest episode strikes me as ultimately small time stuff. A few private citizens landed on a disputed island without the permission of their national government. Big deal. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC).
    • As usual with such things, the significance of the story lies not in the objective nature of the actions themselves but needs to be understood in context of how these actions are perceived by the affected sides. In both China and Japan these kinds of landing actions, even when done by groups of private citizens, are perceived as highly symbolic. That is why there has been such passionate and immediate reaction on both sides, with escalating diplomatic protests on both sides, with reports of significant protests in several cities in China[99],[100], protests in Japan etc. So these events are definitely viewed as "big deal" in both China and Japan. Korea and Russia are also affected, given their ongoing territorial disputes with Japan, as are some other regional countries having ongoing territorial disputes with China. Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - sorry didn't get to post my comment last night. I've been working on adding some content and formatting the bullets on the article, and it's pretty big news regarding the South China Seas dispute, something which we haven't got on ITN in a while. --Activism1234 15:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- I have a been following this story for a bit now, and this seems like the right time to post it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

August 17Edit

[Posted] Pussy RiotEdit

Article: Pussy Riot (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three members of the protest group Pussy Riot are convicted of "hooliganism" in Moscow. (Post)

Article updated

 Formerip (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Guarded support: this is similar in many respects to the Assange and Rajab cases. I see no reason not to post provided we are careful to stick to the facts and avoid editorializing or veering off into commentary or original research. For that reason I don't see why "hooliganism" needs to be quoted, and equally, since it appears that the religious hatred element actually forms part of the charges filed there is no reason not to cover that either. The inevitable links to Putin are more speculative and better left to the article than trying to force into the blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Support as this trial has long been major international news. But I do agree that the quotation marks around Hooliganism should be removed, since it's the technical name of the charge. Khazar2 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If anyone can think of better wording to propose that would be great, but I think "hooliganism" without the quotes might be a bit confusing for people not already familiar with the case. It's a surprising thing to read as being a criminal charge and the quotes help to reassure that that's the official wording, not just Wikipedia being weird. Formerip (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What would you think of a wikilink per RA's suggestion? Khazar2 (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That actually looks a bit worse, since it links to an article mainly about street gangs and football. Nothing about taking guitars into a church. Formerip (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's straightfoward enough to state the case was essentially a show trial, most print media I've seen has been calling it that way (The Guardian especially). GRAPPLE X 12:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Straightforward but highly POV. NPOV means we can't simply take the usual Western line, especially not one particular line adopted by what is the most left wing of the mainstream British press. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I've yet to see this case described as impartial by anyone, anywhere, not just in the left-wing press. The reason this is international, not domestic, news is due to how heavy-handed and corrupt the trial has been reported as being, and leaving that out colours the story as much as inserting it does. GRAPPLE X 13:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Applying liberal vlaues (or even Western values generally) is still POV-pushing, and something we need to be careful of because of systemic bias. If this had happened in a mosque in much or the Arab world it is likely the women would be facing death penalties by now. Even in the West these kind of things occur and are prosecuted. What is the substantive difference between this and Peter Tatchell's conviction for taking to the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral? Crispmuncher (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC).
Broadly? That we weren't hammering out wordings for ITN blurbs in 1998. More specifically, that Tatchell's trial was, unlike his actual indictment, conducted in a relatively tame and fair manner by a judge who wasn't outspokenly hostile towards the defendant in the case he was trying. If his had happened in a mosque in the Arab world we'd likely be in agreement that the case was too harsh and injust, as would, likely, English peers. GRAPPLE X 14:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Their trial has been notable international news for several months and their conviction today is the right time to place it in ITN. I agree the quotes should be removed. Suggested blurb (since suggestions were requested):

    "Three members of the Russian art collective, Pussy Riot, are found guilty of hooliganism."

    --RA (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
They are clearly more a protest group than an "art collective". They are not professional artists or musicians. All their fame comes from protests and hooliganism, not from their "art" from aesthetics point of view. GreyHood Talk 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe some of them are professional artists, although I prefer "protest group" in any case. Everything they have done seems to be a public protest. Formerip (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Admins obviously don't care what either of us think. They're a feminist punk-rock collective, apparently. Formerip (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I've followed the definition given in the Pussy Riot article. If you think they should be defined as a protest group, please suggest rewording in the article first. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ~ It's making international headlines much like the Assange extradition. I also agree that we should remove the quotes on hooliganism as that's what the judge sentenced them for (at least that's what the translator said). --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As noted, its slightly complicated by the need for translations and the unfamiliarity of the legal processes in question, but it appears the actual conviction is for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" - the religious hatred element forms part of the charge as opposed to further description. I imagine the situation is comparable to that here in the UK with charges of "assault" and "racially aggravated assault" - they are distinct offences, the latter is not a variation on the former. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC).
Indeed. If this has to be posted, it is very important to mention that the convinction is for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred". The members of the group were not arrested and charged for numerous other acts of hooliganism they previously committed, it was their action in the cathedral which crossed the line. GreyHood Talk 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better if the blurb not only mention the full statement of conviction (this religious hatred part) but also the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour as to implore the significance of it. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. Why are the convictions and sentences separated (not announced together)? Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No significance, artists are often charged with hooliganism/disturbing the peace/swearing/offending religion, etc. Canadian Spring (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The trial became a major symbol and focal point of the discussion, both inside Russia and internationally, of the freedom of expression and independence of judiciary in Russia. The blurb will need to be updated once the sentence is announced. Nsk92 (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sentenced to 2 years prison each [101]. Suggest update to blurb. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support belatedly. Worldwide headline, trending on twitter, household name now. Can we add that Garry Kasparov was among protestors arrested outside the courthouse?--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Please notice the blurb has to be concise. Do you seriously believe we need to even mention in the blurb that there was some protest outside the courthouse? --BorgQueen (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I agree. Garry Kasparov should be the bolded article. We are giving entirely the wrong perspective at the moment. Formerip (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Borgqueen, Kasparov is a highly notable individual in his own right; his arrest among the protestors is a useful way of highlighting that this is a controversial verdict, and ultimately, a notable verdict.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with BorgQueen--best to keep the blurb concise. Khazar2 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Theres large amount of international support as well so i dont think singling out one person would be the right way to go. even though kasparov getting arrested is big but unless he gets charged for something i suggest just keep as is -- Ashish-g55 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Though I don't agree with adding any specific protesters, Kasparov's relevance would be greater due to his significance within anti-Putin protests and opposition, a movement which has resulted in this kangaroo debacle. GRAPPLE X 22:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support historically significant event showing the status of free speech in Russia while being watched internationally.. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Essentially all the media outside of Russia describes the conviction as resulting from an anti-Putin stunt. I think the blurb should mention something about that and not just about hooliganism and religious hatred. Perhaps something like "Three members of Pussy Riot, a Russian punk band, are convicted of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred" resulting from an anti-Putin stunt". Nsk92 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Putting in scare quotes and openly siding with the view that they were convicted because they spoke out against Putin? We might as well go all the way and call them heroic martyrs. As I said at WP:ERRORS, what they were convicted of is not in dispute: whether they should have been convicted of that offence is the question, one which is for the reader of the article to determine. —WFC— 13:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Essentially all the press coverage I read about the trial characterizes it as highly biased and unfair and even as a kangaroo court, so the actual formulation of the verdict is not the only relevant consideration here. Quoting the verdict without putting it in some kind of minimal context gives extra credence to the verdict which is, in and of itself, a WP:NPOV problem. Mentioning that the conduct in question involved an anti-Putin stunt is hardly making them into martyrs; and also the fact that an anti-Putin stunt is involved is not actually something that is factually in dispute and is mentioned by basically all the sources covering the story. Nsk92 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
        • The best way to add some context is to provide some mention of the protests of the verdict. After all, it's the widespread outrage at the verdict that's notable, not the verdict in and of itself. As was pointed out above the blurb is already pretty long though. Still I think some mention of resulting protests would be helpful--though it's difficult to come up with a concise wording other than the dreaded amid widespread protests.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
          • @Nsk92: I agree with most of that press coverage with the caveat that Putin has made some relevant comments which haven't really been picked up on. But it is not Wikipedia's place to knowingly reflect any POV, not even the majority one. As I said before, no-one is disputing that they were convicted of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. I don't like or agree with that verdict, but it's a fact that they were convicted on that charge. The majority view is that they weren't actually guilty, or that there was an ulterior motive behind the length of sentence, but unfortunately that merely a POV.

            @Johnsemlak: I'd be happy to see a mention of the protest in the blurb, provided care is taken with the wording. —WFC— 14:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

            • I am not talking about guilt or innocence here for the moment but about the factual content regarding the underlying conduct involved in the incident for which they were convicted. All the newscoverage, including the coverage by the pro-government media in Russia, prominently mentions the fact that the incident that led to their arrest and trial involved an anti-Putin prank. (The same is true even for the court verdict itself) This is a big - in fact central - factual part of the story. I don't think that by mentioning this fact in the hook we are reflecting any POV at all. Nsk92 (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
              • That's a good point, but whether or not we are reflecting a POV depends on how we mention Putin. To mention him in a way which implies that this is why they were convicted would reflect a POV (admittedly one that I hold, but a POV nonetheless). On the other hand, it's a matter of fact that the conviction led to anti-Putin protests – as you say, even the likes of RT are open about this. —WFC— 15:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
                • I do not see why mentioning Putin reflects any kind of a POV. It is a basic factual part of the story that the act for which they were arrested involved an anti-Putin stunt. This fact itself is not in dispute: it has been reported by every media outlet that has covered the story, both inside Russia and abroad. I really don't see a problem here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
                  • There is a very big difference between saying that Pussy Riot's protest in the church was anti-Putin (or that their supporters are anti-Putin), and saying that Pussy Riot have been sentenced to two years in jail because of an anti-Putin stunt. If you can't see the distinction I'm afraid I'm not sure that I can help any further. I have no objection to mentioning Putin in the blurb, but accurately communicating what they were convicted of takes precedence. —WFC— 17:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
                    • Please do not patronize me. I have been here a lot longer than you have and I know a thing or two about the proper meaning of WP:NPOV. There is absolutely no problem with saying that they were arrested for an anti-Putin stunt (or if you like, for an anti-Putin stunt in a chuch). Not only because this is exactly what happened and every single source says so, but also because this is what made the story notable and made the newsmedia follow it. If they were simply arrested for some religiously offensive stunt in a church, the story would never have made it front page news and we would not be talking about it here now. Ignoring a key factual aspect of the story in the blurb is, in and of itself, a WP:NPOV violation. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
                      • With respect, I am speaking to you in simple terms because you are showing little understanding of how this site works. single-purpose accounts aside, we do not discriminate based on how long people have been here – it is never acceptable to pull rank based on when you first started editing. And repeatedly asserting that a POV is not a POV does not make it true, regardless of what organisations hold that POV. If we can't find a concise way of mentioning Putin without inferring that the verdict was political, then we won't. If we can, then we probably will. —WFC— 23:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
                      • Like I said, stop throwing your patronising nonsense at me. I understand perfect well how this website works and have been here long enough to know what WP:NPOV means. Nsk92 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
                        • Currently the wording being used is exactly what the court found them guilty of. ITN should only use that wording and not what media outside russia is using. people can decide for themselves after reading the article if the demonstrations were anti-putin. ITN asserting that it was anti-putin will not be right as the russian court didnt give a crap (even though we all know that probably isnt the case). they seem to be more unhappy that it was in a church -- Ashish-g55 23:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
              • The Putin element is a side stroy here. Yes, they were critical of Putin. They were also creating a pop video. Neither of these is what they have been convicted of. According to Russian law they are guilty because they did what they did in a church. We can't fully explain each and every facet of a complex case in a one or two sentence blurb. The actual substantive story here is the conviction which is a matter of fact. Elevating accusation and speculation to the same level as that is always going to be POV no matter how it is presented. Leave the surrounding controversy to the article. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Support - Just for the record... I think Pussy Riot have ITN worthyness for the reactions concerning their political actions.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Because this is a great nom and I'm proud to support it. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

August 16Edit

UN mission in Syria endsEdit

Article: United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations Security Council votes to end the United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Obviously the most significant (but not greatest) milestone for the mission thus far, and the best time to add a UN related story on Syria, which I don't think has been done yet unless Annan's resignation was posted. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - In regards to your comment about Annan, see this. I would support this, but I'm not sure what the point is of the sticky then, or how it works really (maybe someone can direct me to an article with an answer?) Also perhaps we can include the part about the Algerian diplomat taking over from Annan in this. --Activism1234 02:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Like the Olympics, the sticky does not prevent the inclusion of individual stories. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Where would it be possible for me to read up more on stickies? --Activism1234 04:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's just practice over time.--Chaser (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
True, but we don't need to push marginal ones when we have a sticky. I largely agree with Mohamed (below) and oppose. I don't see that the UN has had a major role here--it was just an observer mission.--Chaser (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't think this event is prominent/important enough to be posted while still having the sticky. This will probably change nothing on ground; those weren't able to do/change much, if anything during the months they were active. As far as I know, their best work was to document/prove that some killings happened there or there, but they couldn't stop it, in fact violence escalated to civil war status "on their watch". Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • However, UN presence by itself, regardless of success, already adds some level of notability. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 12:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - was a prominent headline on BBC and other news sources, and another important development in the conflict. Khazar2 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
'comment ' consider adding Lakhdar Brahimi as the new envoy..Lihaas (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] South African mining deathsEdit

Article: Marikana miners' strike (talk, history)
Blurb: South African police shoot dead 34 striking miners and wound 78 during an industrial dispute near Rustenburg. (Post)
News source(s): [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a tragic event which has gained coverage on numerous news websites. With thousands of miners striking, and the protesters being armed, the police used their own weapons to try and get the protesters attention (or try and calm the protesters down a bit) since the protesters would not negotiate a truce with the police. --Andise1 (talk) (UTC)

Well, it seems like they succeeded in calming them down a bit. Some of them, at least. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A rare event. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This may have been a result of me messing up the whole page when posting this nomination (did not intend to mess up the page, just messed up somehow when making the nomination) but this nomination does not appear in the contents list on the top of this page (under August 16th). If anyone is able to add this nomination to the contents list...that would be nice. --Andise1 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when good article is found Was planning to nom this myself tonight. Prominent international coverage--Al Jazeera's top story, BBC's second, etc.--, high death toll, likely political repercussions. I'd suggest this be linked to an article specifically about the strikes and today's violence, though. This is a prominent event that it seems like it would support one. Khazar2 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Question is 12 past the minimum threshold of deaths? --IP98 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Do we have a minimum threshold of deaths? I'm not sure I understand your question. Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A recent shooting in America got "Oppose - not enough deaths" --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Was that shooting carried out by the police? Formerip (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Murder is a crime! Unless of course it is done by a police man... Lugnuts And the horse 08:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I have made a start here. It is not enough yet and it may not be in the best article, but it is something for others to work with. Formerip (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - notable news, not something we hear about often either. Interested in helping out with the article as well. --Activism1234 00:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A few hundred thousand miners (a very important industry for SA) are on strike - this is near ITN worthy alone to me, but todays violence, which has recieved much international attention, for sure makes it ITN worthy. Canadian Spring (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- The update is sufficient right now. If someone wants to make a new article, that can be changed while the story is up. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I figured that if this is making ITN, they'll be a lot more news about it in the upcoming days, enough to warrant an article. I created one here (needs some work, but that can be done easily. It's taken from the linked article in the blurb, which I helped expand, and if it's good to stay, we can remove the detailed info from the linked blurb article). If editors here object to it, I'm fine with deleting it. --Activism1234 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The articel was very poorly written, i just reworded some parts, but another pair of eyes from ana english speaker is reuired. Also brear in mind SOuth Africa's ENGVAR.Lihaas (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Pleas e read CONSEUNSUS we dont vote count...that said theres plenty of support with this irrelevant commentLihaas (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be writing contradictory statements but are not aware of, it seems. A quick look and hopefully you will realize. I believe you are still suffering from hangover of your past mistake which you were unwilling to accept. Sorry everyone for posting this comment here but Lihaas provoked me to post one!! Cheers Lihaas :)Regards, theTigerKing  10:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That you need a reason for support is a wrong statement? Kindly take your vengeance mongering NPAs OFF this pagev and WP!Lihaas (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought your comments on the Talk page were enough. Seriously, you are not letting your ego-go off.Cant help for that!Regards, theTigerKing  16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This also seems to me to be getting personal. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand... Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
IAfter being told not to NPA and focus on content he comes back to say only an attack. What is that if not ABF? Then he claims i aited him when i mentioned not a lick to do with him but the comment itself.Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, the BBC are now putting the death toll at 34, the ITV news bulletin I'm just watching has it at 39 dead with nearly 80 injured. Serious stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Serious and ITV in the same statement?! Lugnuts And the horse 11:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What was it you said to me, "shush, the grown ups are talking"? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It was in reference to you using the childlike retort of "whatever". I'm amazed you don't remember. Lugnuts And the horse 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Same applies to you here then. Oh and I do remember you calling me an idiot. Read this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That's super! Lugnuts And the horse 13:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, you should try to avoid making personal attacks on people. That's a WP:POLICY by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black! Hidden this because you have something to hide yourself? Lugnuts And the horse 13:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you win. Back to personal attacks you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not ready Bzweebl was right to mark it so earlier, but the article appears to me to to have some POV issues now, and I've tagged it as such. Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready This is still a fluid article, but POV issues appear to be resolved. Khazar2 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, (after posting, just in case); a significant national and regional story, with significant international coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Death of Abune PaulosEdit

Article: Abune Paulos (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Abune Paulos dies at the age of 76. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: He was an important figure in Eastern Christianity and patriarch of more than 40 million people in Ethiopia since 1992.

support pre precedence, important religious figure, in the interests of globalised coverage not limited to western scope and western christianity. Several reasons.Lihaas (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Precedence is not a good reason. Shenouda was a bit of a dodgy posting, IMO. Formerip (talk)
  • Comment. I'm neutral notability wise, but if this is to be posted then sourcing could use some work. —WFC— 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Section si updated with sources. The other section need sources (which im working on), but the relevant ITN bit is sourced and of substantial size per min. requirements.Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I have unmarked as [Ready], pending completion of this work. An article with eight appropriately placed [citation needed] tags, covering vast swathes of the subject's life and work, is not ready to go on the Main Page. —WFC— 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention, Lihaas, that you frequently complain when items are posted after only a few hours' discussion, yet in this case we've had barely an hour, and you happen to be the updater, so it should be posted asap? —Strange Passerby (t × c) 20:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
When did i say it should be posted. I clarly mentioned that the update was ready. Which was the notification is for NOT for consensus.Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Marking it [Ready] means that it is ready to be posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Support, pending completion Sourcing could be improved, but from a global perspective this is a fairly significant event. Given precedent, I feel this should get the nod as well. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose not a significant enough figure in Christianity as a whole. I'd only consider the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury notable enough. Hot Stop 20:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm also skeptical here. Precedence is not enough, and this person seems to lack international significance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- He wasn't even one of the top couple of figures in his religion. We didn't post Rav Elyashiv's death, and he was arguably the biggest Jewish leader. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
But no one nominated it. If it was, there would have been a strong chance of supporting it in the interests of diversity and equity. (We posted Sai Baba's death and Shenouda and Fadlallah). Should probs be ITNR for deaths of religious leaders of any such (whatstheword) sect/institutionLihaas (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I would have nominated him, but was on Wikibreak. It was one of my biggest regrets of my break. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Btw- i would have supported and expanded the relvant sectionLihaas (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral update the article and convince me it's a big deal. --IP98 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)--IP98 (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose death section doesn't convince me that this is important. --IP98 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)--IP98 (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning support. The BBC's top Africa story at the moment, so a reasonable nom for notability, but I'd also like to see the high number of citation needed tags reduced. Khazar2 (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
We can do a John Atta Mills again?Lihaas (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Dunno that I'll have time--I've got a fussy baby and some friends coming over today. Might try to swing by the article later, though. Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, not seeing anywhere where it's the top story. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unmarked as ready There is no consensus here. per precedence as noted in the edit summary marking it ready is not a reason to override the normal consensus-forming process. The fact it was marked ready 24 hours ago and still has not been posted pretty much confirms its marking was premature. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC).
Cheers to BorgQueen for unmarking it as such. I only noticed later in the edit summaries I missed doing it, which was actually the whole point of my post. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
REmarkign ready Pleasee see Senkaku Islands. The update is there and wholly sourced, despite concerns for a lack of sourcing in the rest of the article (As mentioned here). Ready is based on the update, conesnsus is adjudged by posting admins. This ihas been said before.Lihaas (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, insufficient international coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support So, what's the difference between him and the Archbishop of Canterbury? μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Weynay GhebresilasieEdit

Article: Weynay Ghebresilasie (talk, history)
Blurb: Eritrean steeplechase runner and Olympic flag-bearer Weynay Ghebresilasie seeks political asylum in the United Kingdom (Post)
News source(s): Guardian

Article needs updating
  • Support: I mean, how many stories come out of Eritrea? And how many are reported here? This doesn't seem to be akin to the Cameroon athlete "wanderings" and the story is being well covered in several sources. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Similarly to Julian Assange, we wait for the outcome. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is just a stub and per Bzweebl. Don't hesitate to nominate this again if he is granted political asylum. Meanwhile, the article needs much expanding. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not to be confused with Haile Gebrselassie, a runner who is actually famous. This guy's only very slightly gebrselassie. Formerip (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a major athlete in world terms, not a well known person anywhere in English speaking world beyond specific fans of that discipline, about 18,000 UK asylum applicants in last year for which there are records, not even the only asylum applicant expected from Olympics. Other than some embarrassment to Eritrea, no different, and not much more publicity, than what happens 50 times a day at UK ports. Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
oppose non notable individual, a harem of Cmeroonians apparently did so too. Ohther options include, 1. DYK, 2. post this at the controverises page f the Games.Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until the UK decides. Their flag bearer, with such an honour, said "I'm not going back". --IP98 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on meager (3 sentence!) article and lack of evidence of prominent international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nabeel Rajab sentenced to three yearsEdit

Article: Nabeel Rajab (talk, history)
Blurb: Bahraini human rights activist Nabeel Rajab is sentenced to three years for instigating and participating in "unauthorised protests". (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AFP, AP, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: He's "one of the world's most prominent activists"[111]. The sentence was described as unexpectedly and stiff by AP and it drew sharp criticism from rights groups as such as HRF (USA), FIDH (France) and Amnesty (UK). The latter said this was 'Dark day for justice' in Bahrain [112]. Just last week nineteen U.S. congressman demanded his release.[113]. Also we haven't covered the situation in Bahrain much lately. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support when mild POV issues are addressed Jailing of one of the highest-profile players in a high-profile situation. Already on the front page of the NYT[114] and Al Jazeera [115]. Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Should the header say "three years" rather than "three months"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for correction. I got confused, because he was already serving three months jail for a tweet. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support My father met this guy while working in Bahrain. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
comment;;; because "my father met this guy" is not a reason to support for notability. Im sure hes met lots of fathers.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
True, but this time I just didn't feel like giving a detailed reason for my support. But I can assure you I have good reasons too ^_^ --Τασουλα (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You can't "assure" you have a good reason without saying so, if you do then cite it. Consensus is NOT vote counting. Basically all youve said here is "support" with not reasonLihaas (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, significant event and has potential effects for the country (also, per Τασουλα :)))Egeymi (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a funny story...he was overseeing the environmental side of a project out there for a Korean company and just got swept up in one of his protests on his way back to the hotel...--Τασουλα (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- One of the major figures of the events of Bahrain, a situation we have not covered much. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Article needs severe attention before main page posting. Govt actions in inverted commas are not a neutral presentation. One person's "harassment" is another's protection of the interests of the state. BCHR website is not a neutral source for describing his dealings with the police. I would not want to be an apologist for the Bahraini government, but wikipedia should not be taking sides on such disputes, even if our sympathies are fairly unanimous. His sentence is only newsworthy in so far as one considers it objectionable, so while I'm very happy for readers to write to their governments and Amnesty International and encourage any agencies they can to bring what pressure they can to bear on the Bahraini authorities, that is not the job of Wikipedia. On that basis, and given that it is only the third Middle Easrt story on BBC News site therefore only marginally in the news, mild oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The use of word "harassment" is referenced by HRW and Front Line. If you have specific objections about article content, could you point them at the article talk and I'll deal with them? Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kevin's points to an extent. Generally the international community appears supportive of Rajab, so I believe a "pro-Rajab version" will emerge as the majority viewpoint. Still, it'll be important to rewrite the lead and other sections to include the important viewpoint of the Bahraini govt. I'll add a neutrality tag myself and try to help with this review over the next 12 hours or so. Khazar2 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but agree that some work is needed on the content. Even the sub-heading makes it seem like there was a "legal crackdown" on him personally (er, which maybe there was, but you get my drift). Formerip (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
WHY basically all youve said is the update requirement (which is a given before posting)Lihaas (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This term is specifically sourced to Reuters. Anyway, I changed it to "Legal measures". Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but as said above, some mild POV issues need to be addressed first. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Apparently an egregious violation of human rights. __meco (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose he protested the government in a highly repressive regime and is going to jail for it. Not exactly a surprise. "Putin sends political opponent to gulag" would get a sour face, this is no different. Just because we want to wag our human rights finger at Bahrain doesn't make this news. --IP98 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • By this logic we shouldn't be posting about earthquakes in countries in Flinn-Engdahl regions, deaths in countries with ongoing war (or civil war) or elections in democratic countries. Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Correct, we shouldn't post magnitude 3 earthquakes from in Flinn-Engdahl regions, and we shouldn't post the mayoral election in Denpasar, and we definitely shouldn't post this. --IP98 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)--IP98 (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
But we did post about Iran's magnitude 6 earthquake. Rajab might not be Great East Japan Earthquake, but he also isn't Ali Hasan. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Putin sends a famous and prominent opposition leader to the Gulag, or someone like Natan Sharansky whose imprisonment caused international outrage, could very well get posted on ITN. --Activism1234 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
If it helps, I am planning to nominate the Pussy Riot verdict tomorrow whether innocent or guilty. Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Rajab is a key Bahraini figure in the uprising, and this move is especially prominent and may lead to a more intense uprising. Notable and interesting news as well. --Activism1234 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note As the one who put the tag there, I removed the POV tag from the article, as no one else has yet expressed concerns about the content on its talk page. (I'll also ping Kevin, who originally expressed these concerns above.) Could use another pair of eyes before marked ready, though. Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is Khazar telling us the article is ready to be posted, right? ;) Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • SupportShould be on ITNRegards, theTigerKing  04:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What is with the inverted commas around the charge? That is clearly a way of expressing cynicism over the charges. As already said, that cynicism might be well placed, but is not POV. We simply post a translation of the charge on which he was convicted, and post that without editoialising. Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we could lose the quotes. There's little doubt that he was involved in protests which were unauthorised. Formerip (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin McE and FormerIP--better without the quotes, unless there's a strong case for keeping them that I'm overlooking. Marking attention needed. Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed by another admin. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Julian Assange