Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/January 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.

January 31

[Posted] Fred Goodwin loses his knighthood

Article: Fred Goodwin (talk, history)
Blurb: Fred Goodwin has his knighthood rescinded by Queen Elizabeth II due to the part he played in the near collapse of The Royal Bank of Scotland. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very significant for somebody to have a knighthood rescinded. There has been huge political pressure for this to happen from all sides. -- (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support (as nominator) - This is a big story in the UK and brings an end to years of calls for him to lose it. The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all been involved and it's been the lead story on news bulletins all over the country. Noteworthy because of how rare it is and because it's due to the part he played in the downturn we're all living through. -- (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant as this one was not withdrawn for criminal activity, which Lester Piggott's OBE was. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - local story, not interesting or significant for anyone outside the UK.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I find this a fascinating story that is likely to be of interest to a wide readership. Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. By the way, I am an American citizen, since that seems to be an issue here. Personally, I don't think it should be. Cheers! Jusdafax 18:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - There's no doubt that this is significant. It's comparable to one having a Congressional Medal of Honor revoked.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - There have been only six revocations ever (if this article is in shape) since the dawn of the universe. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Time for British editors to make their case! This is very rare (see Chocolate Horlicks). It is highly, highly uncommon for people to have their titles revoked. It is highly rare for people to be AWARDED them (and some Americans have, of course, been awarded honouary titles). That Sir Fred has had his knighthood revoked is significant in many fields - business, politics especially - and is doubtlessly highly notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We could easily lose the blockquote at the foot of the article, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support not just because some fat cat banker lost the one of the highest civil honours available, but it was absolutely part of the mismanagement of banks in the UK, lending a helping hand to the economic "crisis" Europe finds itself in. Of course, expect to see many arguments of limited interest outside the Eurozone but this is English language Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, albeit a mild one. This is essentially a domestic political gesture of no wider significance. Sure, it's a rare event but rare events happen all the time. There's no real allegation of personal misconduct, this is merely another manifestation of the currently popular "give bankers a bloody nose" sentiment. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC).
  • Support very rare and important event. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 22:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support Agree with the point that Crispmuncher makes about this being a domestic political gesture, but the significance of that gesture, the fact the Monarch has got directly involved, is what makes me support. Mtking (edits) 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose this is the third time since 1991 that somebody is stripped of knighthood. Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK, this is not that ITN worthy. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK - you might want to check that comment out, plenty of Australian's have them, and of interest here see The Australian. Mtking (edits) 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have to disagree with crispmuncher. This isn't simply a political gesture designed to appease the public. His knighthood was awarded for services to banking, yet he was personally responsible for bringing RBS, a bank that was once the biggest in the world, to a point of near collapse. He took huge risks and bought another bank with cash (ABN AMRO) that turned out to be a complete dud which lead to RBS needing taxpayer money to keep it going. The Honours Forfeiture Committee said that his holding a knighthood brought the honours system into disrepute. As to the argument that knighthoods aren't widely known outside the UK, everyone's heard of Sir Elton John and Dame Elizabeth Taylor, right? -- (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I also have to disagree with crispmuncher. The banking story is huge, as noted above. Knighthoods are well known, from Sir Francis Drake, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sir Paul McCartney. This story should be posted without further delay; in my view, consensus has been reached and minority arguments against posting are not convincing. Jusdafax 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Marking as ready (I would post, but I !voted) Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Posted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb - I'm not happy with the blurb. It's different to the blurb I proposed even though nobody raised any objection during the above discussion. First of all, it should be 'Queen Elizabeth II'. Queen Elizabeth is just not the correct way to write her name and creates confusion. Second, it should be 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', not 'the Royal Bank of Scotland'. Pedantic maybe, but hey, I'm a pedant. Lets just get it right. -- (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You proposing a blurb doesn't necessarily mean it's the blurb that will end up being used. The fact that no one objected to the blurb is rather irrelevant as the discussion wasn't about the blurb but rather about the news item. In any case, your blurb did go up as you proposed, but was adjusted by a different admin, David Levy, who you should ask about it. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, to be fair "Queen Elizabeth" is utterly wrong and needs fixing. We're about 400 years beyond Queen Elizabeth, the current monarch is never referred to as such but ITN is such a flame-fest I'm reluctant to fix it. Hopefully David Levy (or someone disinterested) can adjust this... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Can't somebody just fix it? It's a matter of fact, not opinion. Queen Elizabeth is wrong, Queen Elizabeth II is right. -- (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm a bit taken aback by the assertion that the current monarch is "never" referred to as "Queen Elizabeth", and I certainly don't see how this could "create confusion" in a context obviously referring to a living person, but I've added the "II".
            Our article is titled "Royal Bank of Scotland" and refers to "the Royal Bank of Scotland" throughout the prose (unless beginning a sentence). —David Levy 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Well Queen Elizabeth, as I'm sure you're aware, was a 16th/17th century monarch and in no way similar to our current monarch who is never legitimately referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" (that's purely erroneous). So thanks for fixing that. As for RBOS, the company themselves call it "The Royal Bank of Scotland", regardless of our erroneous article title. But since we go with reliable sources, not first-party sources, I guess this'll have to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
            • It would be confusing in the same way that 'President Barack' would be confusing. It's just not right and everybody who knows it's not right would be confused as to why an encyclopedia is making such a basic error. I agree with The Rambling Man that any legitimate source knows that Queen Elizabeth is not right and the assertation that she is NEVER referred to as such is accurate if we are only basing it on credible sources. As for 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', the company's own website uses this format and therefore our article is wrong. Perhaps it has been stylised that way to conform to Wiki-standards which is fine, but it doesn't make it correct. -- (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
              • I'll take your word for it that referring to the current monarch as "Queen Elizabeth" is improper, but it's quite common among news media inside and outside the UK.
                To be clear, I'm not defending the practice or arguing that we should follow suit; I'm explaining why I believed it to be acceptable. I apologize for my confusion and thank the two of you for setting me straight.
                If "The" is an official part of the bank's name, our article should be renamed/edited accordingly. (This doesn't contradict Wikipedia's conventions.) —David Levy 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
                • I wouldn't say it's "improper", just inaccurate. News media "inside" the UK don't say "Queen Elizabeth" ever, as far as I know, they just say "the Queen", so not sure where you get that idea from. As for naming the bank, it's probably pretty common that articles slated for main page inclusion aren't named correctly, this is just another example of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
                • There's really no need to apologise, David. I would be genuinely amazed if any reputable news media referred to her as Queen Elizabeth. -- (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • BBC News, London Evening Standard, The Australian, The Gazette/National Post, Winnipeg Free Press, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CBS News, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters
                    Of course, references to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana" (which I know to be incorrect) probably are more widespread. —David Levy 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
                    • Actually, that is perfectly correct, as is a plain "Queen Elizabeth". Lack of precision does not make it wrong, especially when who is being referred to is clear from the context. Personally, I don't see why we are focussing so much on her anyway, she acted in name only, there was never any question of her not following the official request. We're generally not so pernickety about e.g. the Queen calling a general election, although constitutionally only she has that power. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
                      • I thought that "Queen Elizabeth" was correct (and merely lacked precision unneeded in this context), but I've been told that it isn't.
                        My understanding is that the styling "Princess Diana" is improper because Diana was neither born a princess nor created one by the Queen. ("Princess Charles" would have been correct, but it never entered popular use.) —David Levy 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
                        • Diana was made a princess in her own right, in contrast to Kate Middleton who wasn't. The reasoning given there is that she wasn't marrrying the next in line to the throne. Crispmuncher (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
                          • Source? —David Levy 16:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
                      • I can see that my trust in respected news media was somewhat misplaced. I still believe that Queen Elizabeth is an incorrect way of referring to her. Perhaps it would be acceptable in an informal context I'm not sure, but certainly in an encyclopedia we should be using her correct name, which is Queen Elizabeth II. That's a good point about Princess Diana actually. Almost everybody refers to her in that way even though it has never been correct. -- (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Just reiterating I posted the blurb suggested here...I would agree that "Queen Elizabeth" needs the "II" on the end, so good move fixing that. I'm also wondering whether linking "knighthood" might be advisable, but beyond that the blurb looks alright to me the way it is now. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm certainly not sentimental about the blurb I wrote, I just object to it being substituted to one with errors in it. My only interest here is to present accurate information to the reader. -- (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I respectfully ask that the blurb be changed to 'The Royal Bank of Scotland' now that the article's title has been corrected? Thanks. -- (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

January 30

Shafia family murders

Article: Shafia family murders (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three family members are convicted of murder in the Shafia murder case in Ontario, Canada. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, BBC

 --Jayron32 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Major case in Canada regarding so-called "Honor killings". Been all over the news today. The article is OK, and I know the update is a bit short, but hoping that attention here at ITN/C could encourage a bigger update regarding the conviction and reactions to it. I'm a bit short on time at the minute, but hope to get on this as well in the near future. Given the coverage in the news, this seems to be a newsworthy event, so I think that if we can add a paragraph or so of text on the conviction, it would be ITN worthy. Besides, its been a bit slow, and an update once in a while is nice. --Jayron32 00:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Just so you know thats something normal in the arab/islamic countries and arab/islamic families arround the world.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The case established that murder is illegal in Canada. That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me, regardless of what some extremists may believe. I'm leaning towards oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose as it has no real significance. Honour killings have never been legal in this country and the whole hubub behind this case was the media putting the Islamic spin on it. Besides, by all accounts the decision will be appealed. A media-driven case with no major legal significance isn't good enough for ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

January 29

2012 Men's European Water Polo Championship

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The 2012 Men's European Water Polo Championship concludes with Serbia defeating Montenegro in the final. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: European Championship in the Olympic sport, also related to the spots at the 2012 Olympic Games in London. --Avala (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support since it's Olympic sport with growing popularity everywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward oppose. Although these are international level championships that lead to the Olympics, they are not at the highest international level (like the Olympics or 2011 FINA Men's Water Polo World League). SpencerT♦C 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Hardly any text in the article. As far as I know, water polo is a minor sport, almost insignificant as a spectator sport, along the lines of rythmic gymnastics or, well, I was going to say team handball but it looks like that's another story. The fact that a sport is in the Olympics doesn't make its regional championship a major news event. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Mwalcoff.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite being a Olympic sport, it is almost a minority sport with no wide media coverage outside of the Olympics like handball. Donnie Park (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Question is a notion that it is a "minor sport" an objective or a subjective view? Because it is an Olympic sport. So this can only be seen as POV pushing. What differentiates handball from waterpolo? Objectively nothing. Most of the people from Europe may see baseball as something relevant along the lines of rhythmic gymnastics yet we will include it in the ITN as the POV is not what we are here for.--Avala (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • According to the page, the gold medal game was attended by 2300 people, a pretty strong and objective indication that the sport is minor. Even the most sparsely attended regular-season Major League Baseball game will have a paid attendance almost five times that. Fourteen countries broadcast games from the tournament and ten broadcast the final--or, less than half of the countries than are showing this year's Super Bowl. Whether Europeans "see" baseball or American football as something akin to rhythmic gymnastics or waterpolo, objective facts are that they are not. PeteF3 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It's completely inappropriate to compare a sports game played indoors with one played outdoors. Attendance of 2,300 spectators for a swim stadium with capacity of 3,000 makes it more than 75%. Five times that makes it 12,000 which is barely 25% of the average capacity for a baseball stadium.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I didn't bring up any comparison to baseball, just expanded on it. If there are no swim stadiums with a capacity over 3,000, well...see the first point. Evidently the demand just isn't high enough to justify it. Hockey and basketball are played indoors and most top-level teams would go under at the first game with a 2300-3000 attendance. The comparison was also between a gold medal game and a regular-season baseball game--no stadium in the U.S. would fail to sell out a World Series game. PeteF3 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
          • What is the point of mentioning 2300 attendance if that is the maximum of the venue? It's not comparable with football, or at least you then need to say, it's like 75000 people attending football final which all out of a sudden is no longer sounding so bad. And what do you think is the attendance of other sports with limited venues? How many people attend Formula 1 or ski jumping? However here is another number which I would like to hear a comment on - 2.749.000 people watched the game in Serbia alone, and that is not counting cable channels which also had it on, just the RTS station - [1]. That's about the third of a population, pretty much the same percentage as the Super Bowl in the US. How is that for irrelevant?--Avala (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 European Men's Handball Championship

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The 2012 European Men's Handball Championship concludes with Denmark defeating Serbia in the final. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Handball is sport that receives growing attention in the countries where it was not previously played. It was reported that coach of the Great Britain Olympic team will attend the final accompained with other members of the OC for the Olympic event. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: There should be a prose summary of the final match in the article. SpencerT♦C 22:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, and further explanation: This is an Olympic sport (has been since 1972) and a truly international one. It's NOT the game known commonly as Handball in the USA, Ireland and Australia. (A look at the Handball disambiguation page will help interested readers.) The relevant Wikipedia article for this sport is Team handball. If you've never heard of it, here's your big chance to broaden your knowledge! HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Olympic sport.--Avala (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've updated the section about the final adding some prose.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting Consensus seems clear, update is sufficient, and timer running out. SpencerT♦C 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
How does consensu\is "seem clear" with 2 supports when its not a minority topic and the article needs updating???!Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was 100% clear because nobody had opposed the nomination at that time. Updating the article was needed, but has nothing to do with consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending some kind of proof that this is a "big deal." When I lived in Europe, it seemed team handball was a game played in front of sparse crowds with limited media coverage. Will reconsider if someone can demonstrate to me that this is a major event that a lot of readers care about. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - if the attendance of 100% of seats in a 25000 arena is a sparse crowd what is then good attendance for you? Selling two tickets per seat? That is illegal and against safety regulations. There is your proof.--Avala (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One what basis was consensus 'clear'? THe article has almost no prose except the final match. Has receieved minimal media coverage in English. The sport has very limited popularity outside a small portion of the world. We already have the World Championship for this sport; the European championship is of no interest to readers outside continental Europe. This is sports cruft.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"On what basis was consensus clear?" Ummm. No opposition at the time. "Has receieved minimal media coverage in English." Hmmm. Those evil foreigners who don't speak Godzone! Is that really one of our criteria? "limited popularity" The final filled what is described as "one of the largest indoor arenas in the world". What more can it do? "small portion of the world" I don't really want to reopen old wounds, but Joe Paterno? "We already have the World Championship...the European championship is of no interest to readers outside continental Europe" The same could probably be said about the world championship anyway, but so what? I could say Joe Paterno again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Lack of English media coverage matters for sourcing. The current article lacks any media sources in English. It's entirely reliant on one German article and the official tournament website for references
      • Not sure what bringing up JoPa does except open old wounds, but both recent college football nominations recently were not posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • OK. Replace Joe with American Football. One small area of the world. No world championship to even compare anything with. Look, these objections are exactly the kind of thing that discourages people nominating items here. We need MORE items. And you guys come up with not very serious objections. I can't figure it. Why do you do it, really? HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Couldn't care less about handball, but for those saying that this final hasn't been covered by English sources, see Reuters, ESPN, AFP, Al Jazeera (video). Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Australian Open

Article: Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Novak Djokovic defeats Rafael Nadal to win the men's singles tournament at the Australian Open. (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.

 --Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment We already have nomination about this event. Men's final can be discussed in the same nomination. I suggest to close this one, just to provide more comprehension on the page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support through the expansion of the previous proposal for the women's final.--Avala (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
comment Propose to add in a "record breaking" final and also to mention the 100th anniversary of the event.
man, 2/3 Serbian finals victories today ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

January 28

[Posted] 2012 Australian Open

Article: Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Victoria Azarenka defeats Maria Sharapova to win the women's singles tournament at the Australian Open. (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.

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment It would be nice if we could speedily post this given how slow ITN has been of late but there's nothing there we can call an update: simply filling in the blanks giving the result isn't enough. The separate article on the women's singles specifically doesn't seem a whole lot better. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC).
rcomment take our becomes world number 1, we can add that prose on the page.Lihaas (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • comment it seems to be all results tables with very little prose except to summarize the tables. That seemed to get another recent ITN/R item a sour face. Article is otherwise fine, won't oppose. -- (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
better link?Lihaas (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I would be inclined to think that mentioning that the men's final (now finished) was the longest ever grand slam final as per here would be better in the blurb than a new women's number one given how many times that ranking has changed hands in the last decade. Davewild (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, and propose: "In tennis, the 100th anniversary of the men's tournament results in a record-setting Novak Djokovic win and Victoria Azarenka wins the women's 2012 Australian Open." Lil cumbersome but something similarv.Lihaas (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Posting. There's enough prose regarding the both finals. And we can add some new photos. --Tone 13:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Protests in Senegal

Article: Senegalese presidential election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Clashes erupt in Senegal, after its constitutional court allowed Abdoulaye Wade to run for a third term as president in the upcoming election. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Voice of America, Reuters

Nominate. --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: Needs update and a clarification on the size of the attacks (were they major? how many killed?) The size of the clashes would determine notability. SpencerT♦C 19:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I just checked for the same. AP, BBC, Reuters, no one seems to have numbers. Also it looks like it was only 1 day. -- (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
NOT just 1 day...its ongoing. ditto Congo DR, but thats smaller. Senegal is certainly in the news.Lihaas (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas is right, it's not just one day of protest. --bender235 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[Ready] Arab League suspends Syria mission

Article: Arab League Monitors in Syria (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As civil unrest continues, the Arab League suspends its monitoring mission in Syria. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, Al-Jazeera

 --Found5dollar (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • support - for posting asap.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. --bender235 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The whole article could use some expansion, especially the timeline section (Arab_League_Monitors_in_Syria#Timeline). SpencerT♦C 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support What is going on in Syria is on every major news outlet yet we havent posted anything about it since god knows when. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Failure of the Arab League mission is big news, as noted, and has wide implications for the near and long term prospects for peace in the country and region. Agree, however, that the article needs work. Jusdafax 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Didn't think this article would even be considered for posting when I started it like a day ago. Definitely a stub, flags are placed in the wrong area and formatting needs fixing. I don't have time to edit ATM but can make changes later in the week. WikifanBe nice 04:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Update/Support I added a brief new section describing the suspension. That's really the only big news. Media and UN made a ton of noise about the Arab League monitors and the pull-out is definitely ITN worthy. I think the article meets the threshold requirements, but I think the timeline could be merged into a "background/history" section. I understand an editor took down the "ready" tag because of my statements. I started the article but obviously it is not my possession. The article has been updated dramatically compared to the first edit. No need to make those kinds of changes because of my opinion. WikifanBe nice 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment So is this going to be posted? WikifanBe nice 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

January 27

January 26

[Posted] ACTA signing, rapporteur's resignation and Polish protests

Article: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Union and 22 member nations sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, resulting in the resignation of the treaty's rapporteur and protests across Poland. (Post)
News source(s): ZDNet Techdirt BBC AP

   — C M B J   07:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - Update, though thin, is otherwise sufficient. Placing this on the front page may encourage further revision.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
with treaties general policy is when it comes into effect. If it has immiedately then i support too and the timer is red for a while.Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It doesn't come into effect in the EU before being signed by the EU parliament, as I understand it. But it still seems high-profile enough to post now also; it has been in the news a lot. Thue | talk 13:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is very very long and the lead doesn't really explain whats going on. Is it an agreement to establish an agreement, or is it the actual agreement? Has anyone ratified it yet? Are the protests in Poland significant enough to boost the notability? Lots of other protests have gotten sour faces around here. If I were a drive-by reader and clicked the bold link, I would want to know in a few sentences what all the hubub is about. -- (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. 1 2   — C M B J   23:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone Funso (re-nom) [Posted]

  • This was pushed off the list by robot, but there still appears to be enough space on the ITN section and we gained three supports plus an article at Cyclone Funso. Proposed blurb:
Intense Tropical Cyclone Funso stalls offshore central Mozambique, killing 15 at sea and at least 14 from inland flooding.

~AH1 (discuss!) 00:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good to go. Since there was support expressed before already, I am waiting for one more opinion and then I can post. --Tone 08:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Support The article's update is of extremely high quality. SpencerT♦C 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Support the article says "was a deadly" and "was the eighth" in past tense, then still says "active". Still it's a decent article. -- (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Posting. SpencerT♦C 03:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

January 25

Emergency law in Egypt abolished

Article: Emergency law in Egypt (talk, history)
Blurb: Supreme Council of the Armed Forces of Egypt has abolished the state of emergency in the country after 45 years in force. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The news was followed with high international acclamation and positive responses. It used to be in force since 1967, but with no interruptions after the assasination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. My blurb suggestion indicates the full length of the law in force, instead of only the time after it was reimposed in 1981.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasnt it briefly revoked after mubarak and then quickly quite sure i read of that and then a few days (werek?) later restoredLihaas (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment the article says "partially lifted" but the blurb says abolished. There is a bit of a gulf between the two. -- (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Please clarify

Rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen

Article: Rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Poul Hagen (talk, history)
Blurb: United States Navy Seals conduct a raid raid against Somali pirates, freeing two hostages from the Danish Refugee Council 12 miles north of Adow Somalia. (Post)
Article updated

XavierGreen (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • On the fence: However, a point to consider against inclusion is that anti-piracy operations are/were quite common (at least through 2010 and early 2011). During this period, the Indian navy alone had 15+ operations (including the controversial sinking of a Thai trawler which had been converted to a mothership by the pirates) where around 30 pirates were killed, 140 captured (and taken to India for prosecution) and around 80 hostages rescued. I used the Indian navy as an example because I had been following these news reports - I am sure other navies, especially those part of the CTF-150 would have had similar or comparable operations. Points in favour would be that this is a land raid on Somali soil as opposed to Somali territorial waters and that this was a planned operation as opposed to a response to an SOS. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • US ground actions in Somalia are quite rare.XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to mention this came from the commander-in-chief and involved as XavierGreen put, "rare" ground operations. --Nutthida (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Its also gained signifigant media coverage over the past 12 hours or so.XavierGreen (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is but the latest in a series of small scale military operations in or near Somalia undertaken by several countries in response to the country's lawlessness. While interesting, it's hardly a major news story outside the US. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait for the movie. (and as per Nick) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many other navies have done much more in the Suez-Persian Gulf area, though I agree this was a bit different. Lynch7 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A state power using military force to free two of it's citizens == news. A state power violating the sovereignty of another nation == news. Military force used as part of that violation == news. Therefore this == news. Regarding objections above: go back in time to the Indian navy raid and nominate it then, it was news. If it wasn't nominated, then waaaaa. Not news outside the us? Who cares, happens all the time. See item #3 above. "Wait for the movie" hahahahaha you're hilarious but not the least bit helpful. Other navies have done this, again, nominate it then. Also this was a land raid inside Somalia and not in international waters. -- (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Relax man, no-one's waaa-ing... no need for the melodrama. Was just trying to give some points that I considered valid both for and against. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I apologize, your response was very even and reasoned, but by the time I got down to "wait for the movie" I kind of went on a rampage. "waaaaa" remark is withdrawn. Though I stand by the rest of it, I would have supported the Indian navy action if I had been active here at the time. It's no reason to discount the current action. Especially with a red timer at the 36 hour mark... -- (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Question (really a comment) Why does this nomination have such a meaningless title? "Action of 25 January 2012" is particularly non-explanatory. Almost guaranteed to lead to a "What?" response. I am not taking sides on the nomination, but I will, as I often do (even though it annoys some here), comment on the quality of discussion. Surely a name such as "US Navy Seals' anti-piracy action of 25 January 2012" would be better. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
it is silly and vague, could mean anythign reall. i tried renaming 2 scuch articles.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As the admin who move protected the article to prevent a movewar, I would say that there is a precedent for "action of (date)" titles. As I said at the talk page, I've no objection to the issue being discussed via WP:RM and a better title being formulated that has consensus. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There's overwhelming agreement that the article's current title is unsuitable. Any of the alternative titles suggested on the talk page would be preferable. A WP:RM discussion might be helpful, but in the interim, we shouldn't be stuck with the one title obviously lacking consensus. We literally could draw straws and arrive at a better outcome. —David Levy 13:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: I've initiated a move request. —David Levy 14:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for the record); while I am sympathetic to the news item, the article name needs to be addressed (see HiLo48's comments above), secondly the topic probably does not meet WP:EVENT for a standalone article so should be merged into an article that can give the reader a better over context to the event. Mtking (edits) 06:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

January 24

[Posted] Jaipur Literature Festival

Article: Jaipur Literature Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: Salman Rushdie (pictured) cancels a planned appearance at the Jaipur Literature Festival and four other writers leave the country after reading excerpts from The Satanic Verses, which is banned in India. (Post)

Article updated

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)‎

  • Comment. Please sign your posts, so that we know who nominated this. I don't think this should go up; its an incident quite expected, given that there are crucial elections coming up in India. Lynch7 11:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, although the blurb needs to make it clear who was doing the reading. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable both in Indian and international media. Although the update could do with a little more beef (hehe). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Disturbing story and notable in the literal/political/religious world. But yes, certainly needs more of an update, --Nutthida (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The article appears to have been adequately updated since. Posting soon. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
A bit late with this comment, but maybe the blurb should be amended. According to the news reports, Rushdie was never actually due to "appear" at the festival, except by means of a video link. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so, he was scheduled to appear in person all right. Seriously, this blurb is way too inadequate to satisfactorily sum up the drama that happened in relation to this. Lynch7 18:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
No. According to all the reports, he was scheduled to make a videoconference call to the festival: [2], [3], [4]. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. The attempted video appearance came after the attempted personal appearance was cancelled. Quote from statement by Rushdie read out at the festival, "I will therefore not travel to Jaipur as planned". But an appearance is an appearance anyway, even if it is by video link it is still an appearance so there is nothing wrong with the way it is phrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

January 23

[Posted] E.U. oil embargo on Iran

Article: Iran-European Union relations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Union imposes an embargo on future oil contracts with Iran. (Post)
News source(s): [5], [6]

Article updated

 --WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The article will need updating, if in fact a new article is not needed. Meanwhile, this story appears to be doing the rounds and is probably sufficient for inclusion on ITN, especially since the timer's red. --WaltCip (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Significant development in the "cold war on Iran". Although it should be mentioned that these section only begin to take effect in July. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, a significant event in global politics. The BBC say that the EU currently buys ~20% of Iran's oil exports so the potential impact is very significant for both sides. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Important development in a global situation. Owen (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Certainly significant. Swarm X 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant. Truthsort (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since there seems to be a consensus, shouldn't this be posted before it goes stale? I added a couple of sentences to the article, but I don't think it's enough, and it would be nice to have some insight from a few more politically savvy editors.--WaltCip (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The update at this moment is not sufficient. With all the sources available, it shouldn't be too hard to write a decent paragraph on the topic. --Tone 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Updated.--WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

January 22

End the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics

Article: 2012 Winter Youth Olympics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​End and Closing ceremony of the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics in Innsbruck, Austria, showing Germany on top of the Medal table, followed by China and Austria (Post)

 --Feroang (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

1,059 Athletes, from 70 nations in 15 diferent sports.--Feroang (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support It seems to have exceeded the expectations. I did support it when the event was commencing, but now we have the summary that proves its notability and importance on international level.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nowhere near top level of sport. Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have only seen this event covered here. Not in any major newspaper, not on the television news, not anywhere. It can't just be because I'm in the UK - this event is simply not notable enough to be on the front page. Minority interest sports by young people - not good enough. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - international coverage of the event. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The opening of the Games was nominated and there was not enough support to post. I guess closing is very much a similar case. And in comparisson to the "regular" Olympics, the press coverage is negligible, what is rather surprising. --Tone 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
And yet the "special" Olympics passes through ITN/R. -- (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be on the wrong page, as this isn't the place to discuss whether or not something belongs on ITN/R. --Golbez (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm in Sweden, where winter sport is normally followed by many. Media coverage of these games however: almost nothing. There seems to have been a huge inflation in <Something> Olympic Games in recent years, but without actual notability or media coverage, nobody gives a *. Not actually "In the news" => don't post at WP:ITN/Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yemeni president seeking treatment in United States

Article: Ali Abdullah Saleh (talk, history)
Blurb: Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh after 34 year in charge, announces that he is to leave for treatment in the United States. (Post)
News source(s): [7]

 --Feroang (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

a nation change his Head of State after 34 years, that is ITN --Feroang (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • There's nothing here that says he's stepping down. He left the country for treatment last year, and returned without stepping down. Thus, oppose. --Golbez (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose', he's not stepping down. He's travelled abroad for medical treatment. Deinitely not noteworthy enough. Peter (Talk page) 11:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Death of Joe Paterno

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Joe Paterno (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American college football coach Joe Paterno dies at the age of 85. (Post)
News source(s): [8]

Article updated
 ----MuZemike 15:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No major importance outside the college football world.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- One of the best-known figures in American sports, one of the most recognizable faces in the country, currently the lead story across the major North American media. A good article on the subject. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    We need an update. Otherwise support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

North America, yes. But in the world overall he is not known. and in my opinion definitly not a person to be included in the wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)t

I think a fair few people at least heard of the scandal connected to him. My college in the next room heard of him and he's from Yorkshire.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - would be outrageous and bias to mention this right now considering other important news stories that should be up (Egyptian parliamentary election, the Nigeria attacks). There's currently 4 American "Based" Stories but these were notable worldwide and on a much more significant scale and impact. Adding Paterno's death would really make things out of balance. So Oppose for now. --Nutthida (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is far from being an important death of an internationally notable person. I'd say that the death of Sarah Burke is much more notable than this one, so definitely not for ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • A tip for American editors (...and desperately not wanting to be accused of anti-Americanism myself.) You really need to explain items like this a lot better. No-one from another country would try to nominate anything to do with an amateur sport in colleges, because it's simply not important anywhere else. America is different from the rest of the world in this area, and you CANNOT assume that people will just accept your claim that it's important just because you say so. For your own sake, and to reduce the level of argument here, please put your claim in a broader context that will be understood by people who aren't familiar with the significance of American colleges and sport. HiLo48 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't nominate the item, but I think that since it's impossible for someone not familiar with American culture to understand in a paragraph why someone like Joe Paterno is so newsworthy, the best thing to do is to look at how the media play it. When Etta James died, it was a significant story, but it didn't bump the presidential election off the top of all of the big media websites like Joe Paterno did. I have no idea who the most important coaches in the UK are, but if someone were to tell me that (for example) the BBC interrupted their programming to announce his death and that the Times dedicated the top of its front page to the subject, I'd be convinced that it was a noteworthy event. The best I can do to explain is to say that college football is a gigantic sport in the United States that attracts near-religious devotion from many of its millions of fans, that Joe Paterno was in charge of one of the biggest college football programs for four decades and that he was among the most-revered figures in American life until a mind-blowing scandal that shocked the country last year. The main reason why I shy from ITN nowadays is because it is so maddening to come face-to-face with people saying things like that the death of an extreme-sport athlete known by perhaps one out of every thousand North Americans before her death is "much more notable" than the death of one of someone who could have walked down any street in America and be recognized by most of the people he passed (who would have gone apeshit at the sight). It's like a scientist coming across a creationist who tries to argue that the planet is 6,000 years old. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      Yes, how the media play it could be useful, although with the major sites (e.g. BBC) now tailoring content to where a viewer is, that's becoming harder to do. What's important is that it's not up to non-American editors to go looking for those relevant media sites. Why should they? It's up to the Americans, particularly the nominator, to do it. The nomination and blurb here still give no explanation to a non-American as to why an amateur sports coach in a school, unknown outside America, is important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I have to agree the Sarah Burke comparison was pretty warped. That said, I'd say the comment 'one of the most revered figures in American life' is a bit of a stretch as well. But I do think Joe Paterno is extremely notable right now having been the subject of a very significant university scandal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the explanation Mwalcoff, though you seem to have overdrawn some things. This death is really very well covered in North America and possibly makes some influence on other things, but it doesn't mean any notability at all. I see it is mentioned on the front page on many news portals in North America, but frankly with no echo in the other media. Even BBC did not mention his death on the front page of its sports news portal, although American sports news usually are so. For the comparison that I've made with Sarah Burke I guess not to be the only one who claims this death is by far least transmitted through the media. And please don't shy, be bold when you have to say something.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Kiril the death of is currently on the front page of the BBC main site.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
            • No, it's not. It's only mentioned as a secondary news in the US & Canada section.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
            • P.S. And there is only a heading on the main page which does not induce any notability beside all other news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Well I"m getting a different view than you; I'm not in North America. It's the 4th headline where I am and there's a blurb on the article as well. It's also the 3rd most read story on the BBC right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
                • I use this page and my view is that the blurb tops the other headings right from news for Mitt Romney and Ali Abdullah Saleh. If you mean this, it's a secondary news in the US & Canada section. According to the official list of popular news, the death is even not in top 10.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • I'm looking here, which is not a secondary news site.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hard Oppose win 2 nationals championship 1982, 1986 and die is not enough, how many cough win something and die arround the world? gonna we post all of they? --Feroang (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • when the entire active team Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash and die, that is a real-news, some old just national sportman die, is not a real-news, just a national-sport-news--Feroang (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Would support but... I have to defer to this Support Washington post lied to me. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • To clarify why I would support, this very easily meets the criterion "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." People outside the US may not recognize this, especially because he wasn't an NFL coach, but he is arguably one of the most, if not the most, important and widely respected coaches in all of football. I note that criterion explicitly does not call for international attention. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • His death was confirmed by his family at [9] earlier today, so there is no doubt as to his death announcement being premature. — Moe ε 20:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's the top story amongst news organizations right now, and as above story did hit international attention so this isn't just something purely American-only. — Moe ε 20:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Whathisname in the wales NATIONAL team was a sitting coash who also pulled out the stops in their performances.Lihaas (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Shirik. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Huge Support! I went back and did some research of your archives and John Wooden was listed as ITN after his death. They are similiar with respect to winningest in their sports. This needs to be posted it is ITN worthy. By the way, it was and is harder to win national titles in football than basketball because they are significantly different sports.HotHat (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I just want to end with a question. Is the winningest coach in college football history ITN worthy? His death is of hugh importance in college football.HotHat (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Haha, nobody outside UK knows about Gary Speed but that had a huge groundswell of support and people going so far as to claim that ITN would be a joke if it wasn't posted (it was posted with perhaps 50-50 support). Now we have the death of the most winningest coach in NCAA D1 history, an icon in the American football community, and people are opposing. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • At least Speed was a young man and died unexpectedly. Speciate (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • So what? Do we now have age bias? We've posted the deaths of Ted Kennedy (age 77), Alexander Haig (age 85), and just recently Etta James (aged 73), and some 96-year-old Indian painter. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Until the child sex scandal broke I had never heard of Joe Paterno, and I'm from Chicago. Speciate (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Meets criteria for inclusion, despite being an American. At or near the very top of his chosen profession for some 40+ years, and almost universally widely acknowledged as such. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth did you choose to use the term "universally acknowledged..."? It means everywhere. It obviously wasn't everywhere. It's guaranteed to NOT get the support of non-Americans. In fact, it will only lead to more, totally justified in this case, allegations of US-centrism. Please think before you type. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. I've changed the wording that bothered you - I don't see much difference, but hopefully you will find it more agreeable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You're nitpicking, HiLo. Paterno's chosen profession was "American football coach", so it's understood that professional recognition is limited to those commenting on American football. If someone were to state that an Australian rules football coach was "almost universally acknowledged as one of the top figures in his profession", would it be reasonable to refute this by pointing out that he lacked recognition among Americans? I certainly don't believe so.
For the record, I'm neither supporting nor opposing this item. —David Levy 01:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You've completely missed my point here, starting with my Tip for American Editors above. This does have a chance of posting, but ONLY if Americans clearly justify it for the millions of people who have never heard of this guy. Words have to be carefully chosen. They are what we work with here. BTW - I wouldn't dream of nominating the old age death of an Aussie Rules coach. Would never be notable enough. But I can live with some Americans being obsessed with Paterno. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As noted above, I'm not arguing for this item's inclusion. I know very little about NCAA football (and sports in general) and had never heard of Paterno until the scandal broke last year.
My point is that you understood (or should have understood) what was meant. No one on the planet literally has universal recognition (among humans in general), so it's patently obvious that Bongwarrior wasn't making such a claim. —David Levy 02:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3)@David Levy - "Paterno's chosen profession was "American football coach"" but he never reached the top of that, he never coached an NFL team let alone won a Superbowl, for me to consider any sporting coach's death as ITN it has to be at a minimum multiple top level professional championships wins. Mtking (edits) 02:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not expressing agreement with Bongwarrior's assertion. (It's been argued below that American football coaches aren't customarily judged in that manner, but I don't know enough about the sport to comment.)
I'm addressing HiLo's response, which relied upon an unreasonable interpretation of Bongwarrior's wording. (By "almost universally acknowledged," he/she obviously was referring to those with opinions on the matter, not to humanity in general.) —David Levy 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh just piss off please. Go pick your fight with somebody else. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to pick a fight. From my perspective, that's roughly what you're doing. And I'm responding by addressing your criticism (not by telling you to "piss off", which is rather uncivil). —David Levy 02:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Bongwarrier --TorsodogTalk 23:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, highly US-centric, college football coach best known for letting little boys be raped. Speciate (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Very classy, ITN. You never disappoint. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's put an the death of an archbishop who transferred pedophile prients around rather than call the cops ITN next. Paterno claimed he had never heard of men abusing boys; for that alone he should be condemmed, rather than been featured on Wikipedia's Main Page. Speciate (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Most wins in college football history. Key figure in Penn State sex abuse scandal, which was previously listed on ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. While I agree with some editors' concerns regarding US centricism, Paterno's death is, at the time of this post, fourth in the headlines on BBC News and is the pictured article in the World section of the Sydney Morning Herald (article here). The scandal itself received similar international coverage. This seems newsworthy to me, provided the article is suitably updated. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as US-centric, the supporters have not adequately demonstrated that the subject is of sufficient world-wide stature or interest; and after all, a natural death at a ripe old age. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 23:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose most fiercely for the following reasons Outside a small cross-section of a very small minority sports audience, this person had passing notability. He was not a household name. He would face difficulty in passing BLP and Notability guidelines where he not American. His death matters only to his immediate friends and family. It is of no importance whatever to anyone else. To put this on the front page of Wikipedia would be to display a US-orientated bias so strong as to be considered perverse. This should not be put on the front page - Wiki is better than this. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • An article with more than 80 references wouldn't be notable if the subject wasn't American? I'm not sure how we got there, but you are entitled to your opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • How do you figure that "his death matters only to his immediate friends and family" and "is of no importance whatever to anyone else"? Do you deny that he was extremely famous in his home country?
      The argument that "he would face difficulty in passing BLP and Notability guidelines [were] he not American" is analogous to one that a Gaelic football manager would face difficulty in passing BLP and notability guidelines were he not Irish. Of course, there are more NCAA football viewers than there are people on the island of Ireland. (I realize that you're English, incidentally.) —David Levy 01:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Doesn't meet our significance criterion; I'm usually the last to argue "XX-centrism" but this is taking things a little too far. I'll add that meeting the "death" criteria alone is not necessarily enough to post, and this is a prime example of that. Swarm X 23:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Did we post John Wooden's death? I don't remember, and it's a fairly good barometer of whether this one will fly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I was comparing him mentally to Brian Kilrea, who isn't dead, but also whom I don't think would be listed at ITN if he did go. Of course, Kilrea never had anything remotely close to the Penn State scandal surrounding him. Resolute 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Checked myself, and looks like it didn't stay up there. College football may be big, but leaning oppose given that. Won't go fully do to issue i have with a lot of the comments here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Joe Paterno is one of the most well known coaches of any sport in the United States, and has particularly been in the news recently due to the scandal that caused him to be fired. He is certainly a household name. Calathan (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess we gonna fight about every "well known coaches of any sport in the United States" that do something every week, "the coach of Chicago Bulls get rich is ITN", hope wiki is more that ESPN --Feroang (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I certainly can't name the coach of the Chicago Bulls, nor do I have any interest in anything that he does. I think you are really underestimating how well known Paterno is in the United States. Calathan (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This guy was "larger than life." Sports figures are over-rated, IMO, but Paterno was one of the most famous and admired coaches of any sport in the United States for more than 4 decades. Also, although he died a natural death at age 85, he was active -- and still at the top of his game -- until a couple of months before he died, and his retirement was due to a bizarre scandal that continues to have repercussions outside football. (Among other things, the scandal caused the university president to resign and it has led to a lot of adult men reporting long-ago sexual abuse by youth coaches.) --Orlady (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - does not meet the criteria for posting death. The criteria #1 & #3 clearly are not relevant, that leaves #2, and as he never coached at the highest level of his field (NFL) and only coached non-professionals he does not pass that either. Mtking (edits) 01:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Coaching between college football and professional football is not hierarchical like playing the sport is. BroadSt_Bully [talk] 01:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you sure as I picked three NFL coaches at random starting at Jason Garrett of the Dallas Cowboys then on to the Head coach of Miami Dolphins Joe Philbin, and then Green Bay Packers coach Mike McCarthy and two of the three have coached at college level. Mtking (edits) 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Paterno could have coached in the NFL; he chose not to. (This is discussed in his NYT obit, among other places.) In many markets, college football is just as popular (and often more popular) than the NFL. Beaver Stadium is the second largest stadium in the US (behind another college football stadium). Zagalejo^^^ 04:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
          • College football being popular does not negate the fact he never coached at the top of the sport, and setting that aside only wining the College football championship twice does not seam that special. Mtking (edits) 04:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 'STRONG support.' Extremely notable figure, not only within college football but outside it as well. BroadSt_Bully [talk] 01:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Given the legitimate talkpage complaint that we have posted only US news for over a week, this would really take the biscuit. --FormerIP (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to be a case for which the Death Criteria were precisely defined: narrow interest, local impact, more nostalgia than notability. Fails Criterion 1: I'm not aware of any major contributions to football strategy/coaching made by the deceased. Article also fails to mention any distinguishing features of tenure besides 2 national championships over 45 years. Fails Criterion 2: the deceased won a lot of games, predominately by coaching long enough to accrue them. Not a particularly successful coach with regard to winning championships or producing professional players on a per annum basis (see List of college football coaches with 200_wins and sort by percentage). Fails Criterion 3: Predominately American media coverage of an American coaching an amateur American sport. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "Elderly retiree passes away" is not ITN material. I'll take this opportunity to propose again (and have been doing it on-and-off for the last seven years) a "Recent Deaths" section on the front page, perhaps below ITN, with one or two recent deaths, so the fighting over who gets to be included in that can be shunted off to some other hinterland. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Spanish wikipedia have his "Recent Deaths" in a corner of his "Current events" and it work well, there is around 7 "famous people" dead by weak, many old politicians around the world and many old culture-people around the world, still if massacre happend that is post on the center of there "Currents events" --Feroang (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe we can remove one of the US items for this one? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Subject of niche interest only. Owen (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see anyone in the opposition addressing the fact that we had a precedent - back in November, we posted the fact that he was fired (along with a university administrator). I think it's fair to say that the death of someone is more notable than the fact that he lost his job. I understand the previous posting was controversial, but repeating many of the same arguments ("niche interest" "US-centric") and expecting to get a different result here seems silly. JimSukwutput 05:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah and saying he isn't very notable in collegiate American football in nonsensical. With two national championships and more wins than any other coach in the game, he's probably going to be the most notable collegiate American football coach ever brought here. I'll have to come here more often and vote oppose based on "British-centric" when I see some silly cricket player die. — Moe ε 06:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • But that would be stupid. Cricket is played professionally in a lot more countries than American football is. Oh, I just remembered, this ain't even professional sport... Don't worry, I'm not opposing the nomination. I'm opposing poor quality posts. As I said earlier, when a nomination IS relevant to only one country, those nominating really have to work a little harder to explain why, and not make dumb comments like that cricket one. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you're confusing my tongue-in-cheek comment for ignorance. The point is exactly that, cricket is known and played internationally, however if you asked the average American to even name a cricket player, they wouldn't be able to tell you one. The "I don't know who this is", "this is American-only" argument is flawed pending what country you live in. You and others stupidity in not realizing this is astonishing. I don't think you have to be a genius to realize that a coach or player in any sport at any level who has been the most successful (and Joe Paterno is the most successful college football coach of all-time, holding more victories than anyone) is notable for being listed here when they die. On top of that, he was entwined in the same sex scandal that you featured on ITN a month or so ago. The "they had to die in a notable way" logic below falls through as well, as Etta James died of leukemia which is no more a notable way to die than cancer. So what exactly is your reasoning? Is this because his death is not reaching international media attention or because American football isn't an international sport? — Moe ε 10:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you miss where HiLo said "I'm not opposing the nomination"? Also, I'd dispute your assertion that he is the most successful of all time. As far as I can see, he only won the most games because he coached the most games. Surely someone like Bear Bryant, who won six national championships, was more successful? Jenks24 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Success in sports is only measured in two ways primarily, championships and number of wins. Paterno won two championships, and had more wins than anyone. I'm not going to dispute Bear Bryant having more championships, and it's a useless comparison since both are very, very notable college football coaches. The point is American football not being an international sport should not be grounds to dismiss the all-time winningest college football coach dying, the same coach that was just fired from his 50 year old job after a well-known scandal ITN covered along with his firing. — Moe ε 10:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • He died of old age, I presume. Not controversial this time. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I neither support nor oppose this item, but I disagree that the earlier instance set a precedent applicable to this one.
    Firstly, I oppose the concept of ITN "precedents" (not to be confused with the sort of long-term consensus documented at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items). It's reasonable to note what we've done in the past (especially if it's occurred frequently) as evidence of consensus or to challenge a particular editor's inconsistent arguments, but the fact that "we posted x" or "we didn't post x" doesn't automatically mean that we must do the same with y. The community sometimes makes mistakes (and shouldn't be doomed to repeat them).
    Secondly, as was argued at the time, the November posting stemmed from a major scandal affecting far more than Joe Paterno's employment. As HiLo noted, Paterno's death of natural causes simply isn't comparable. (Had he been murdered or committed suicide in response to the controversy, the situation would differ.) —David Levy 09:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Utterly obscure and non-notable in 95% of the world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obscure figure outside of the U.S. and, from the limited knowledge I've just read about him, wasn't actually involved in any major/top league American football, which makes his notability questionable. Peter (Talk page) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For coaching American football, the NFL isn't really a higher level than coaching the most popular university teams. Joe Paterno turned down NFL coaching jobs, and as another example, Nick Saban left a NFL coaching job to take one of the top college coaching jobs. The top college teams actually play at larger stadiums than the NFL teams (Penn State's stadium is the 4th largest in the world according to List of stadiums by capacity). Calathan (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose death at 85 years of age should require a lot higher notability than coach of sporting team. If this was some accidential death at early age then i might have supported but as it stands this is not for ITN. (this has nothing to do with US) -- Ashish-g55 15:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment keep it in the realms of sport/American football in general. It's tiring seeing all these accusations of US-Centrism being thrown around. Currently we have 4 US-based stories but these should 100% be up there. I oppose this and I'm a pretty big NFL fan (not terrible fond of College football >_< but I don't let that get in the way) and I'm not in the US. --Nutthida (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
That's funny. Nobody has actually accused this of being US-centrism. Several have said that it's only relevant to the United States, which is obviously true. I'm not sure if saying that is that same as calling "US-centrism". I don't think it is. Those editors wanting this posted have to make some effort to justify posting something only relevant to the US. I don't think they have done a very good job on this item so far. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As much as I always admired him, I do not see his death as globally important enough to make ITN. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - when one of the world's most famous opera stars died last month his death failed to make it to the Main Page because "most people outside the German speaking world knew who he was". As for me, I am not American and I have no idea who Mr. Paterno was. First time I heard of him it was because of some scandal and the second time he made the news was because he died. As famous and well-known as he may have been in his country and state, I doubt someone in Africa or Russia or China would have any idea who he is. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While college football might be important in the USA, it's trivial in the rest of the world and therefore it's not important on a global scale. so there needs to be something more about the story than "old man dies of natural causes", and really there isn't anything here. The scandal he was involved in might be notable, but notability is not inherited. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • maybe we can agree on sportpeople that, if you not win a Olympics medal or a World Cup/World Championship you are not notable enough, a national championship is not enough.--Feroang (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • A world championship for some sports might have a million people who care. The Super Bowl is national but has hundreds of millions. And what about the World Series? Is that national or a world championship? I don't think you've thought this through. --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • There are also sports that are not in the Olympics and don't have a world cup/world championships - test cricket comes to mind immediately, but it's not going to be unique. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • seriously, somebody that was member of a team that win a national championship and die is not a ITN-news, especially with a 40 players sport roster, and yes there is sport nobody play and they must not be ITN--Feroang (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not in favour of lowering the threshold of the notability requirement for ITN this low. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Croatia referendum

Referendum on EU accession takes place in Croatia. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Roughly 2/3 of the voters supported accession, according to early results. A more reliable result should be known later tonight. Needs an update and then it's good to go. The article is in a good shape otherwise. --Tone 19:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
oppose add it when they officially joiin the eu, though i would support if it failed as more notable., this is routine with a referendum to join the eu.Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
We did post stories like Iceland starting accession talks with the EU in 2009 or some countries becoming official candidates earlier. --Tone 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
did we? hmmm...dont think we should have though..guess i cold go neutralLihaas (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - notable geopolitical event. Voomie (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as soon as ready. I don't mean to be anal, but can we have a template box with a blurb please? --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support democracy is always welcome--Feroang (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, surely a notable event across the whole EU. JIP | Talk 06:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment More or less ready to post, when some parts of prose are changed to reflect that the incomplete results have been announced. The blurb: Voters in Croatia back EU membership in a referendum? --Tone 08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Updated, since there was no feedback, posting the proposed blurb. Feel free to modify. --Tone 16:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Execution of 15 Pakistani soldiers by Taliban

Article: No article specified
Blurb: Pakistani Taliban release video of its execution of 15 Pakistani soldiers that were abducted on 23 December. Bodies of the soldiers were found three days earlier. (Post)
News source(s): .

  • "Taliban releases horrific video of executions of 15 Pakistani soldiers". Mail Online. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  • "Taliban video shows execution of Pak soldiers". NDTV. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  • "Taliban video highlights revenge on Pakistan military". Reuters. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  • "Taliban video shows execution of Pakistani soldiers". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  • "Taliban video shows execution of 15 Pak soldiers". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  • "Australia Network News:Stories:Pakistan Taliban releases video of soldier killings". Australia Network. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  • "Pakistan Taliban - Terrorism - Video Killing - Soliders - Pakistan Military". Retrieved 22 January 2012.

Nominator's comments: I am unsure why this is so under-reported. I am not happy with the blurb so feel free to modify it. ---- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Finnish presidential election

Article: Finnish presidential election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​X is elected president of Finland. (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: Election takes place tomorrow, results should be out soon after.Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment This should of course be posted, but we don't need a prior discussion for this. Pending the update, it's a guaranteed post. Until then there's really nothing to discuss. —WFC— 04:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently, there will be a second round. So we'll post the result then. --Tone 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing the nom.Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

January 21

Africa Cup of Nations

Article: 2012 Africa Cup of Nations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Africa Cup of Nations has started. (Post)
News source(s): Above

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Now started. Get it on the front page. Lugnuts (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Come back and inform us that the article is fully updated after the final on 12 Feb, and it will go up, as it is on ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So the Olympics wont go up until that's finished? Or the next FIFA world cup? Lugnuts (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I will support only a sticky. The start is not so big deal. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The vast majority of sports events have only their final result posted. I believe that the Olympics and the World Cup are the only events for which the start is regularly mentioned, and the Olympics has to final result to report. Do you really wish to argue that CAN is of equivalent status? Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
For CAE, only the final result will make it to ITN. No sticky either. --Tone 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the concerns above. But per ITN/R, once the tournament concludes, we'll post it then. Resolute 16:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until the conclusion of the tournament. It is an important event anyway and the final outcome should be posted per ITN/R.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Powerful cyclone hits offshore Mozambique [Ready]

Article: 2011–12 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season (talk, history)
Blurb: Tropical Cyclone Funso stalls near central Mozambique, killing 15 offshore, at least 25 inland and leaves dozens missing. (Post)
News source(s): [10], [11], [12]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The cyclone struck days after another tropical disturbance hit southern Mozambique (the first storm to do so since 1984), and its path potentially puts that same area at risk of further flooding. Recent floods in the past week are almost reminiscent of 2000. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • support-definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait Given that the Nominator's comment partly depends on prediction and speculation at this stage ("...its path potentially puts that same area at risk...", let's see how it actually pans out. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
comment IF decided the updaet is adequate...3 paras and sourced.Lihaas (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Support - 3 paras would be too much for that article since its meant to be a summary of the storm, but if things pan out we should be able to give it a main article at Cyclone Funso.Jason Rees (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree, with an ITN-impact, a separate article is in place. --Tone 14:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per the media coverage and the casualities of the cyclone. It surely is very strong to make such damage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment. The total number of killed has risen to at least 40. Marking [ready]. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian parliamentary election

Article: Egyptian parliamentary election, 2011–2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Freedom and Justice Party wins a plurality in Egypt following a revolution last year. (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.
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant development. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb needs to be improved, as written it implies the revolution just happened. --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
better? (although it was only months after the revolution, with continuing revolutionary demands, if you must.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb should be amended with the "Islamist-"Freedom and Justice" party. Also, the party didn't win a plurality - it won a majority. link. WikifanBe nice 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats pov, the article can say that, not the main page. even if understood it sets another agenda.
Also "coalition led by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood won 47 percent" thats not a majority.Lihaas (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well then it would probably be better to just say that Islamist parties win 75% of the vote in the elections. It is a bit misleading to include only one party when the entire bloc dominated the elections. WikifanBe nice 00:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there's no love lost between the Salafis and the Muslim Brothers. It's not correct to lump them together. They're rather rivals than allies. Couldn't we write that Freedom&Justice won, and the Salafis came second? Btw, it's not POV to say the Freedom&Justice Party is Islamist, it's a fact. --RJFF (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Ditto thats its not a bloc, ad who uses the islamist tag? the media does. At any rate, we dont pust "centre-right" /"centre-left", etc when we post elections. Let the reader judge from the link.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Two issues before this can be posted. What's the cleanup tag doing at the top? Needs to be addressed. Second, the table in the third stage paragraph needs to be filled in. --Tone 15:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Just needs the update.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nigeria attacks

Article: January 2012 Nigeria attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: Boko Haram claim responsibility for a series of attacks in northern Nigeria that killed at least 170 people. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I lost the source i was copying it from and a bit tired to find it now, should be easy if someone can just add that merged from newly created 1-l;ine pageLihaas (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Another devastating attack in Nigeria's conflict zone. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Reasonably sized article. Okay sourcing. Looks good enough for posting. WikifanBe nice 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant number of deaths. Shrigley (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Needs more expansion about the events. SpencerT♦C 23:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I concur with Spencer - this isn't ready because there is nowhere near a minimal update. As it is right now the article can't make up its mind what its subject is. The very first sentence tells us the article concerns the attacks of January 6 & 7. Either that needs revisiting or the latest attacks belong somewhere else, with a lot of expansion to be ITN worthy: currently there is one sentence in the lede and a section composed of a single sentence. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Very significant news story. Though the article needs work, I think posting this on the front page will ensure that work will be done very quickly. Owen (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not how ITN works. The article needs to be of sufficient quality before it is posted to the Main Page. (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I started some expansion of the article, and I hope those who also support its promotion will do more. I agree that posting it on the front page will not necessarily ensure that work will be done. Very little work was done on the Ma Ying-jeou election article since it was posted, even though that article is arguably more accessible than this one. Shrigley (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It is how ITN used to work, and it worked rather well. I don't see why it wouldn't now. As for this article and the election article, I think both cover the basics of their subjects well enough, but there is only so much information available at this time, and only so much that needs to be said. Owen (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Important story, and article looks OK to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The clashes are continuing with a death toll risen over 190.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Håkan Juholt resigns

Article: Håkan Juholt (talk, history)
Blurb: Håkan Juholt resigns as head of the Swedish Social Democratic Party after less then a year at the post. (Post)
News source(s): [13]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The head of Swedens main opposition party resigns after a number of "scandals" less than a year after being appointed. Feel free to change the blurb. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

obvious oppose in opposition and not ruling. he also only resigns as HEAD not from the party/parliament (if hes sitting)Lihaas (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Domestic incident of no greater interest beyond Stockholm. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, Juholt didnt even held his last news conference in Stockholm but in Oskarshamn a small town far away from Stockholm. Had this been the UK or USA it would have been on ITN already. Sad but true.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You've missed my point. There's no interest in a domestic politician stepping down. It's just trivial news for a domestic market. "Leader of UK Opposition Party stands down" would have no chance either. It's just not important enough. Sad, but true. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Opposition leaders changing is a regular occurence the world over. It is a natural consequence of being on a losing team. Unless a resignation is for a particularly notable reason, such as being maimed in a zoo rampage or deciding to pursue a career in pornography, it's not worthy of being posted here. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

January 20

SOPA and PIPA postponed due to Internet blackout

Article: Protests against SOPA and PIPA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As a result of the response from the Internet blackout on January 18, both the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act have been halted in the US Congress for revisions (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I do recognize that this may be a bit of navel-gazing (even after de-Wikipedia-ifying the blurb), though this still remains a hot topic in the news. But this has shown that the Internet protest was effective (and while it is about US politics, it was a global participation and with potential global impacts). --MASEM (t) 17:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support You beat me to it, I was coming here to post. The blurb isn't ideal, I was thinking "In response to opposition from (the internet?), SOPA and PIPA are put on hold indefinitely". Either update the existing post and move it back to #1 or make a new one. -- (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Regretful oppose at the moment, for two reasons. Firstly because if we are going to post this, the article would *have* to be renamed first. It's one thing to link to English Wikipedia blackout for the current blurb, quite another to claim sole credit for this achievement. Secondly pending evidence that media organisations more widely are concluding that there was a causal link between the protests and these decisions (although I consider that likely to happen). —WFC— 18:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I do support an update of sorts, I'm just very uncomfortable with the blurb drawing an explicit connection between the protests and the bills being postponed, however obvious it seems that one led to the other. I could get on board with a weaker statement to the same effect, such as "Following protests on January 18,..." —WFC— 07:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was doomed to fail at least a month before the blackouts. [14] Hot StopUTC 18:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "too many" SOPA and PIPA for this month, even if this is happening now, wait until more accion do happend--Feroang (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Update It was already posted, so why do we need to post it again, just update it, nothing else. Donnie Park (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, is there a 2012 SOPA Blackout article yet to link to? Google, Craigslist, Reddit, many heavies participated in some way. -- (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support an update to the exiting entry. Mtking (edits) 07:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Etta James

Article: Etta James (talk, history)
Blurb: Soul singer Etta James (pictured) dies at the age of 73. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times The Guardian CNN

Notable singer dies at age of 73. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support historically significant singer. Donnie Park (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support while the death was expected, her influence to the music field was too significant to pass up. Many key awards and achievements, was a significant influence to the rise of R&B music and for some of the biggest singers of our time, like Janis Joplin. Rolling Stone magazine called her the 23rd greatest singer of all time. Plus the article is in decent shape. Secret account 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Her legacy is huge, she's in the Hall of Fame and is respected by just about everyone who knows something about music. No issue whatsoever in putting on the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per above. Decent article with an image, and well known outside of her home country. —WFC— 07:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support cant add anything that has not been said above. Mtking (edits) 07:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggested blurb: "Soul singer Etta James (pictured) dies at the age of 73." (or a variation that meets our exhaustive guidance). —WFC— 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support Can you imagine how farcical it would be to have reported the death of a singer with one successful record to her name and then reject this major star spanning several decades? Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support as an undeniable legend, had a huge role in her era of Popular Music, was an icon to a generation of young women, helped break racial boundaries. Her most popular song is certainly one of the most recognizable songs of that genre and era and is used extensively by the media. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support great singer ♫GoP♫TCN 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
comment only 1-line on her death, can we get more. reaction perhas?Lihaas (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
...♫GoP♫TCN 20:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah...?Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this isn't updated. -- tariqabjotu 23:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Reaction added. This should be good to go now. —WFC— 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Reactions? Of course many were depressive; why do you wait for reactions? One sentence about her death is totally acceptable... And those reactions were just empty phrases or repetitions of what was already stated... --♫GoP♫TCN 09:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
ITN isn't a news ticker. Its primary purpose is to link to articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. As noted at Wikipedia:In the news#Updated content, "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." —David Levy 09:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if you answered to my comment, but I agree that reactions to the death of a person are irrelevant and trivial.--♫GoP♫TCN 12:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood. I'm expressing disagreement.
You stated that "one sentence about her death is totally acceptable", and I'm pointing out that our criteria indicate otherwise. A one-sentence update is insufficient.
Depending on the sources, reactions to a person's death can be indicative of his/her notability and impact in life and/or the impact of his/her death. —David Levy 15:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama turns down Keystone XL Pipeline

Article: Keystone Pipeline (talk, history)
Blurb: ​U.S. President Barack Obama rejects the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today New York Times

Article updated

 --Colipon+(Talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Looks good, I'm just missing the actual 2012 update. --Tone 15:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment From the article, I see phase 1 and 2 are already online. If only phase 3 and 4 were rejected, the blurb and article should make this clear. -- (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Absolutely massive news up here in Canada (who will now apparently be looking at China instead), and I suspect it is of some major interest in the United States as well. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose From where I'm sat, this appears to be something that few outside of North America had heard about, not being built. But even if the potential strategic significance overrides European ignorance, this looks more like political brinksmanship than a definitive cancellation. Obama's reason for rejecting it was being given a deadline (by Republicans) that he did not believe was sufficient to assess the impact of the project. —WFC— 07:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The point of this nomination was to showcase the article. Not everything in ITN has to be 'big news' if the article is in good shape and encyclopedic. Colipon+(Talk) 17:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I certainly recognise the quality of the article, but that alone doesn't override the need for the story to be of some significance. As I outline above, this boils down to a domestic political argument: the pipeline is far from dead in the water. —WFC— 05:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is of no interest or notability beyond a small column deep in a slow news day. I can't understand the thinking behind such a parochial nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The president stop the first step of something is not a news, the president build something yes is; "Today the president not nuke anybody" is not a news, anyway I am a foreigner and know nothing about it--Feroang (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Anonymous Attacks / Megaupload shutdown

Article: Megaupload#Legal case (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Department of Justice has seized and shut down the file hosting site and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, USA Today, BBC

Article updated

 --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous takes down quite a large number of sites with DDos attacks in response to Megaupload/Megavideo shutdown by FBI. The sites include MPAA, FBI, EMI and many others. This is one of the biggest coordinated attacks ever and is becoming major news... keep an eye out. -- Ashish-g55 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose some of the sites weren't even down, they just loaded slowly; although they claim it to be the biggest set of attacks yet, they do this practically every other weekend. SpencerT♦C 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Source? WikifanBe nice 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
here, and i know they do this often. i wouldnt have posted this if i didnt think that these are indeed one of the biggest attacks. just the shutdown of all Mega sites is a fairly big news -- Ashish-g55 02:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - While the retaliation is not so much of a big deal, the takedown of Megaupload is very much so. It has even greater ramifications than closing down Piratebay since Megaupload was considered a legitimate filesharing website. This is not news to be sneezed at.--WaltCip (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support MU shutdown news, oppose attacks news: The shutdown of MU is quite notable, since MU was a significant "file sharing" website, and that this action by the feds took a lot of people by surprise, it's currently hot news all over the internet. As for these "Anonymous" attacks, they really aren't that significant, because when isn't there some site being DDoSed by people claiming to be Anonymous? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support shutdown, oppose attacks. The shutdown is notable, and we posted The Pirate Bay. One of the top news stories, while the attacks were secondary coverage that was a footnote of what happened. Secret account 06:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support shutdown news, oppose attacks, I added the ITN box and a blurb. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per above but I don't think any file-sharing websites/hosts such as MegaUpload can (now) be considered legitimate for the obvious reason that most of the content isn't checked or filter, torrents were probably once legitimate too. Will be very interested in hearing the results of this case, it could be a revolutionary trial that may affect the future of the internet. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Megaupload seizure story, this represents a pathetic attempt by the "government" to pacify Hollywood/RIAA after their humiliating defeat over SOPA/PIPA on Wednesday. Speciate (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The Mega-Upload story is real, real big. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope this "support" isn't included in the decision making process. These arrests took months of planning and co-operation with international governments. This had absolutely nothing to do with the "SOPA blackout". -- (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I would drop the strong if the comment from "anonymous" is dropped from the lead. How the hell does a group called "anonymous" issue an official statement? Seriously. The oppose still stands, it's just a shut down warez site, happens all the time. RIP megaupload, mininova, torrentspy, et al. -- (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This isnt just some warez site. It was meant to be legal and FBI took them down without SOPA a day after protests. Attacks may not be newsworthy but at the time they did seem big and if they keep happening they might just be. -- Ashish-g55 13:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Script kiddies with a botnet isn't news, ever. As for the arrests, "SOPA" wasn't needed. The authorities in New Zealand legally arrested Kim and the others based on a request by the DOJ. There will be an extradition hearing before they're sent to the United States. The FBI has no authority in NZ, so for the arrests to be made, the DOJ and State must have made a pretty compelling argument that these individuals were deliberately and intentionally facilitating online piracy. The basis of this nomination is that it's somehow news that some international criminals were arrests by the mechanism of international law enforcement, and that simply isn't the case. Not news. -- (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous with an uppercase A. It's a group of hacktivists, not random people. Beyond495 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
And they have an official spokesperson who took credit for attacking websites with a DDoS net? -- (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Support posting the MU shutdown - that is major news; the attacks unless reported widely may be ignored for now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support significant in light of the SOPA protest. Beyond495 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You do realize that this had absolutely nothing to do with the SOPA protest right? -- (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I see consensus enough that I'm comfortable posting the shutdown, but what blurb should I use? Suggestions? Ks0stm (TCGE) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the blurb should also acknowledge the retaliatory action. While Megaupload is pretty big, such closures are relatively routine. The retaliation was the amplifying factor that made the media take more than a passing notice. —WFC— 18:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Please support conditionally then instead of opposing... -- Ashish-g55 23:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not support conditionally; I oppose the Megaupload story alone as routine by itself, but consider the retaliation to take the entire event over the threshold. Please stop badgering every opposer. —WFC— 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I havent badgered anyone... considering i nominated the item i have every right to refute opposes. And your comment sounds like you support if both were posted which you restated again. So i dont see how you dont support conditionally. -- Ashish-g55 17:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support without mention of "retaliatory action". The "retaliation" did not come from Megaupload, but rather a few kids with botnets. You may or may not feel that their action is commendable, but I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone with a little bit of common sense that this is far from significant enough to be posted on ITN. JimSukwutput 20:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree, but you're entitled to your view. I'm responding to protest the implication that there might be a correlation between those who consider the action notable and those that condone it. I would not accept that on the street and I do not accept it here. I'm minded to be more vociferous in my condemnation, but appreciate the possibility that may not have been your intended meaning. —WFC— 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support shutdown, as Megaupload was a huge site which was actually legitimate, and the imminent legal battle is, according to several sources, set to be one of the biggest copyright infringement cases of all time. --Dorsal Axe 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support...ish... because usually I would send Anonymous nominations in the fire of FAIL. This time, though, we have a framing narractive and a context, both of which give this nomination the kudos required for front page inclusion. In ordinary circumstance this would not be trusted with a watch match: this time however, I think we are justified in awarding it ITN status.
  • Support. Megaupload was a pretty big international website, but this event is also significant in the history of internet censorship in the United States. To WFC's objection, I saw many stories that did not mention the retaliatory action at all. Shrigley (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Care to share a couple? —WFC— 03:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support to the Megaupload part because it could end up having major reprecussions to copyright law. Strong oppose to mentioning Anonymous since all they accomplished was a few hours of overloading a website's servers. --PlasmaTwa2 22:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The only real reason to give attention to Anonymous attacks is that they could be used by SOPA lobbyists and end up doing more harm than good. Even though the damage done to sites was minimal but the sites involved were of very high profile. Now is that good enough for ITN... maybe. But looking at comments above i would say consensus is towards posting MU shutdown only. -- Ashish-g55 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for anonymous retaliation - One of their many retaliation attacks against governments is not notable nor significant. Since their establishment, they have taken down dozens of government websites and apparently all their attacks had a message behind it. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Really? Anonymous always respected Wikipedia and their sister projects because (and the SOPA blackout was an indicator), Wikipedia always been an example of a free Intenet. Other than a rouge hacker or two whom is more personal than political, I don't ever recall an severe hacking of the entire project. It has no substance. Secret account 04:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I never said I opposed anonymous' retaliation, I opposed the posting of the retaliation on ITN. Despite our subtle alliance, there have been several instances where they did attack a few of our articles but I guess that's the problem with an organisation with no leader. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted Megaupload shutdown. -- tariqabjotu 05:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the numbers here, to post one side's achievements and not the other's looks like US bias, because it is not reflective of overall coverage of the story. Google is of course not a definitive source, but compare [15] with [16]. —WFC— 07:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The two actions are hardly comparable, and I don't see how omitting one constitutes bias. -- tariqabjotu 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The other side is far easier to see for non-Americans. I happen to agree with the DoJ's action, but that does not make the post neutral. Starting from a blank canvass, this is one country imposing its law on a foreign entity, and opponents of that decision taking reciprocal action. Media from uninvolved locations gave balanced weight to both actions, and we should do likewise. —WFC— 05:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not interested in hearing points where the primary argument is "Well, because you're American, you don't understand." With your opening sentence as "The other side is far easier to see for non-Americans", you have lost all hope that I will consider your request. Go tell someone who cares. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
            • For the record, I regard the above as an inaccurate charactisation of racism, and would ask that another user look at the substance of what I have said in previous posts. In the interests of preventing further escalation, I will make no further comment for 24 hours. —WFC— 07:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

January 19

Freestyle skier Sarah Burke dies

Article: Sarah Burke (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Canadian freestyle skier Sarah Burke dies from injuries she received in a skiing accident nine days earlier. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Article updated

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support A sportsperson dying effectively in competition is big news. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment To help the blurb (space permitting), it is also worth noting that she was a pioneer of her sport, helped get it into the Olympics, and was a medal favourite for Sochi. Resolute 02:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support at least in Toronto it has been in the news almost constantly over the past week and a half, so there is certainly some significance here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tragic, but far from being notable. Death of an active sportsperson in freestyle skiing with decent regard and conspicuous silence outside the sport does not suffice inclusion. Freestyle skiing is a sport with wide variety of disciples, but superpipe is even not among the most popular in broader terms. In addition, the news was announced as a secondary sports news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. @ Kiril: "Death of an active sportsperson in freestyle skiing with decent regard and conspicuous silence outside the sport does not suffice inclusion." Why doesn't it? An Olympic athlete killed in a sports-related accident is not notable? What if she died from some rare event, like lightening or something? Very notable individual killed at a very early age supported by wide-spread international coverage. Seems to meet the threshold for inclusion. And considering the slow week it has been outside of the SOPA drama this would appear to be a solid posting. WikifanBe nice 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I think she's not so notable. It's true that she did a lot for the fast-growing popularity of the sport and the death came suddenly, but the notability is limited to a sports circle that is hardly popular among the other sports. On the other hand we used to be strict regarding the deaths of sportspeople in the past and other notable sportspeople in more popular sports, such like Kamila Skolimowska and Pavel Karelin were not included, so I don't see a reason why to do it right now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Who? (Simply making the point that I have heard of Burke, but not the others. Popularity of sports is obviously a matter of perspective.) Also, unlike the others, Burke's death came from competing. The others, while tragic, didn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. That's what I mean. It's only a matter of perspective, as everybody has own opinion. For me her death is not something very notable that meets the threshold and I provided my opinion for that, while for others it is and they provided their opinions as well. I don't accuse anybody for being right or not.:)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--four time X Games winner and freestyle world champion at one point, certainly one of the major figures in her field. C628 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, death meets interest level; she was young, she died practicing her sport, she was a pioneer. Also, slow news day. Speciate (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • She was considered to be a favorite to medal in the next Winter Games, and she was being compared to Shaun White, so the notability is there. Support Secret account 06:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the "X-games" is relevant, but there is a WP:RS which says she lobbied the IOC to have her sport included in the 2014 winter games, which gives her some notability in the field. I have some concerns about the article as well, comments like "in which she showcased her skills by sliding huge rainbow rails" need fixing. -- (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At the time of her death there were only 3 other wikipedia-languages with articles on her, and even the English one was very short. This tells me that she wasn't very famous at all. --Shanes (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if the article can be improved to a state where her death isn't occupying 1/3 of the page. From what I've seen on Canadian media it's clear that she had a significant effect on the sport. Plus her death was totally unexpected. Colipon+(Talk) 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per HiLo and SecretAccount. Beyond495 (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. At that young age, I think very few people would truly be significant enough to merit a post on ITN. We really don't post that many deaths around here, mostly only the kind of people that'd be significant enough to appear in the history books. JimSukwutput 20:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose - i just dont find it significant enough for mention on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Despite it being an Olympic sport, it is like BMX racing, still not considered to be in the mainstream, not to the level of ice skating or ice hockey, therefore classifying it as a minority sport. Donnie Park (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kiril. Recent deaths material. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Somebody nobody has heard of dies doing a minority interest sport - this is not front page material beyond a specialist or specific interest magazine. Not for Wikipedia's front page doktorb wordsdeeds 22:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Eastman Kodak files for bankruptcy protection

Article: Eastman Kodak (talk, history)
Blurb: Eastman Kodak files for bankruptcy protection. (Post)
News source(s): (Reuters) (BBC)
Article needs updating

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- Although it was extremely predictable and imminent, this is still extremely significant; the company was one of the largest in the 20th century and according to the article, it sold 90% of the films and 85% of the cameras in America in the late 20th century. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- While I agree with YuMaNuMa that this is far from surprising, it is still a very important event dealing with a major international company and brand with world-wide recognition. --Allen3 talk 01:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, a major sign of changing times. And Allen3 is right to broaden this beyond US borders. It WAS an international company, with a big cultural impact on people all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Important news related to a major international company and one of the largest in the industry. Every bankrupt sign for a such company is worth inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support historic company. Blurb could use some flavor. WikifanBe nice 05:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This one is more or less ready to post, I'd just like to have a longer blurb. For all digital-era kids, would it be worthwhile to mention what Kodak was producing? --Tone 07:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Updated blurb. Not sure if it meets ITN standards. Feel free to revert. WikifanBe nice 10:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
amended blurb, details are on the page. at any rate, anyone whos lived before the digital camera age knows kodak (and Fuji Films). They were like Xerox, a proper noun that entered hte normal lexiconLihaas (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong strong strong oppose the company has not stopped operating. Per the lead of the article: "On January 19, 2012, Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and obtained a $950 million, 18-month credit facility from Citigroup to enable it to continue trading.". If they go up for liquidation then sure, but not now. This exactly the same as American Airlines. -- (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Chapter 11 allows reorganization and protection from creditors during the process. Kodak now has 18 months to work out a deal to repay it's debt and become a profitable company. This is a fairly routine corporate maneuver in the US. -- (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we should only post these if it's closing or a liquidation, which chapter 11 is not, or if it's the largest bankruptcy of all time, a la Worldcom. --Golbez (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting story and turn of events for a not long ago really famous and important company. One wikipedia should give readers the background story and history of. --Shanes (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is in good shape. The ITN churn rate has been really low in the last week. Notable company. So why not. Colipon+(Talk) 14:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per Colipon and the fact company was a major player in their industry. Bankruptcies are common though, and it seemed like this was coming for awhile, so I can't give full support. Beyond495 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I see consensus but the article still lacks a sufficient update. Ks0stm (TCGE) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above. JimSukwutput 20:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the fact like Polaroid and Agfa, a historically significant photographic company who is heading the same was as those two. Donnie Park (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Article looks good and support is solid. Any reason for the delay?--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  Done Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

January 18

January 17

Kazakhstan election

Article: Kazakhstani legislative election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The incumbent Nur Otan wins a legislative election in Kazakhstan that for the first time had more than one party represented. (Post)

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.

 Lihaas (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] SOPA blackout

Given the particular problems that the blackout will pose for ITN, which generally takes a day to make up its mind, I have started this section now for discussion on whether/what we will post about SOPA action by Wikipedia and other sites. By getting ready now, we have 24 hours to ensure that we have a good, neutrally worded draft with broad support behind it. It would thus be ready to post when the blackout ends, provided that it receives significant coverage; in my opinion that is a foregone conclusion, as is the fact that the article will be significantly updated. For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not suggesting that we post before the blackout, merely that we prepare now. —WFC— 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have deliberately omitted a blurb; my suggestion is that we draft below and put the one with the most consensus at the top later on. —WFC— 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Should probably be mentioned that it is not currently clear whether or not there will be front page on 18th.
That aside support. This wouldn't normally qualify for ITN (has any news source covered it yet?), but if there ever was a time when IAR applied, this is it.
No particular suggestions about the blurb, but it should be focussed on SOPA, not the (likely) Wikipedia blackout.--FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Google shows some news hits, including the New York Times, and major news outlets. I would support the blurb added to ITN. -- Luke (Talk) 01:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
@FormerIP – there won't be a traditional main page on the 18th; the intention of this is to ensure that we've got our act together come the 19th. —WFC— 03:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
To follow up, now that Google itself will be part of the effort (not blacking out, but at least altering their main page for the day), I definitely think any blurb should be the coordinated effort, highlighting the WP blackout, but not solely about it. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's international news. It's number three news item on the website of The Age, a spreadsheet newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, normally regarded as a reliable source on almost everything. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Recommend that if it is added, the blurb can headline Wikipedia, but it should be noted several other popular websites like Reddit are also doing this as well. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Accusations of navel-gazing aside, there is no denying that this and other blackouts are receiving international coverage.--WaltCip (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting now, and specifically about Wikipedia's blackout as that is what appears to be getting the news coverage. Maybe we could consider that it's a case of WP:IAR and put up a blurb that doesn't actually link to an article (I don't think we have one relevant other than the SOPA article itself) — or even a blurb linking to the blackout notice/statement. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking from a notability standpoint, that's reaaaaally iffy (see WP:NEVENT). SOPA#Protest_actions is the better link section. Mind you, if after the blackouts there's significant impact, then a separate article might be warranted. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There probably will be an article, but the breadth and depth of depth at this point is hard to tell. Just WP's SOPA blackout? The general blackout with WP's aspect being more predominate? As an ITN item, the main SOPA page seems to be the best target as to not seem biased. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Remember that this is In The News. How many of the blackouts of other sites have made the news? HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair, any discussion of SOPA/PIPA has hardly hit the news until recently, unless you follow tech news sites. Per NEVENT, that's why we generally wait until after an event's played out to assess if an article is appropriate, instead of crystal-balling the significance. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but, if we post it on the day of the blackout . . . nobody is going to read about it in ITN. It'll be blacked out. So, I guess we'l be posting it now or after the fact no matter what. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw it mentioned below that Wikipedia mobile will be available. If that is true then we should post before the blackout for sure. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but post on the 19th, when there will have been much more coverage and the article will have been significantly expanded by then. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I support the posting of a blurb and as it happens, support the blackout too. No issues here. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Question Considering the fact that there's a big black banner at the top of the Main Page informing the readers about the blackout, why do we need to post the story on ITN to duplicate it? Or what exactly would the blurb be? Well, on 19th we'll see how big the thing got web-wide, we can run the story then. --Tone 08:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The mobile wikipedia will be readable, as I understand, and does not have the banner either. There would therefore be some sense to posting before we go dark. —WFC— 09:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait to see what the media interest is, oppose any self-reference at this stage. So far this has really only made the technology pages, but that might change. Modest Genius talk 10:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment this is now placing on google news. There is currently an AFD for 2012 Wikipedia blackout so who knows. Since the blackout will still allow visitors to click a link to continue to wikipedia, this can be on ITN on the 18th and be very timely. -- (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not true. The closing rationale stated that the blackout should limit both regular and editing access. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support Could this be seen as a COI? We are all editors who have a vested interest in keeping wikipedia running. Well, most of us I imagine. If a posting is expected to occur, I'd prefer we wait until it is over. It's not like there is some contract. WikifanBe nice 16:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
isnt it obvious that the blackout banner should just link to this?Lihaas (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support wp blackout is major news everywhere. Crnorizec (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support iff WP is not mentioned I'll support this but since there are quite a few websites doing this including reddit we can only mention something like "Multiple websites". If there is wikipedia mentioned in the blurb then i will oppose -- Ashish-g55 00:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
But that would not be reflecting the sources. Wikipedia's blackout was mentioned everywhere. The others very rarely and then only in tech pages or on specialist sites. To mention the others, even in passing, would take a fair bit of synthesis, which we shouldn't do. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't need self referencing of any sort, this is making news here in faraway India (I mean a half-page newspaper article, not a small mention); I suspect this is bigger news in the States, and there should be no dearth of sources whatsoever. On its own, I'd say this would stand a fair chance at passing in ITNC. Lynch7 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • We have half an hour until the blackout goes live. Do we have a blurb? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
    But we generally don't post events before they actually happen. -- tariqabjotu 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It happened. And it was big news. Jusdafax 05:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Suggested blurb

The English Wikipedia, along with many other websites, takes part in a 24-hour long shutdown of its website in protest against SOPA and PIPA. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that at least 6 congressmen reported changed minds on these bills as a result? --MASEM (t) 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - I feel Mjroots' blurb is fine as it is. But thanks Masem. Jusdafax 05:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant event that made headlines everywhere. Dough4872 05:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I am working on updating the article to reflect the early news. Be aware: it may change names to reflect the wider action across all websites (though giving the WP action its own section). --MASEM (t) 05:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I won't bold so as not to confuse the posting admin, but I support Mj's suggested blurb. —WFC— 05:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --slakrtalk / 05:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Misleading and frankly both the blurb and article are rushed. The current blurb makes it sound like Wikipedia was the ringleader of the blackout movement, and even if it didn't, the focus should be on the blackout, not on Wikipedia's participation. Something less self-involved would be better, like "Several high profile websites take part in a campaign to protest against SOPA and PIPA", and expand the target article to cover the whole protest, not just Wikipedia's action. Wikipedia is not the primary focus of the majority of news articles I've read, nor should its participation in a larger event be the centrepiece of our own coverage. There were a number of high profile participants in the protests, of which Wikipedia was just one. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, this blurb should be pulled until the article is in a decent (and less self-focused) state. We're not a newswire, we don't need to rush items to the front page when they're not ready. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • But do we need to link the blurb to English Wikipedia? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd say so, as the BBC would put it, "other language Wikipedias are available". Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
@TechnoSymbiosis: the blurb, itself, was somewhat rushed, and I was waiting for more consensus, but seeing as how it's also a minority topic on several fronts (despite it being a majority topic for Wikipedians), I combined the strong consensus prior to the blackout with the emerging consensus from the blurb. Furthermore, ITN was woefully outdated, even accounting for the blackout period. No worries, however; if a couple more people agree with your change, I/we can implement it. --slakrtalk / 07:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all, Slakr. I grudgingly accept that consensus is against me here, I just wish we'd considered the problems of self-reporting before pushing for an ITN appearance. I don't expect my suggestion to get much more support, to be honest, but I can dream =) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems kind of like a conflict of interest in a way, but a moot point, this was notable and it was up anyway. Beyond495 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

January 16

2012 Romania protests

Nominator comment: At least 60 people were injured after three days of anti-government riots in Romania. Support as nominator. This type of events are rare in Romania, most violent since Mineriads. EuroNews SofiaEcho Romania-Insider Press Tv Reuters - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: These protests don't seem to be very big, at least for now, according to Reuters.[17] Let's wait for now and see how it develops. Crnorizec (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait for now. The protests seem to be in the initial phase with not much echo.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once it's concluded once way or another. Impeachment at this level is ITN worthy. Beyond495 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment of Renato Corona

Article: Impeachment of Renato Corona (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The impeachment trial of Renato Corona, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, begins. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the second impeachment trial in the history of the Philippines, and the first time that a Chief Justice is on trial. The article will be updated once the trial per se starts. –HTD 03:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Wait until a final verdict is reached. Hot StopUTC 06:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not a good idea. The first impeachment trial was aborted. –HTD 09:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If this is the first impeachment trial with success in the history of the country, it is really noteworthy. Waiting for the verdict is another news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As stated above, this is the first time a Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt of the Philippines is placed on impeachment trial. GrayFullbuster (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

January 15

Mika Ahola

Article: Mika Ahola (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Finnish enduro rider and a five-time world champion Mika Ahola dies from injuries sustained during training in Girona, Spain. (Post)
News source(s):

 --Bruzaholm (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, just not significant enough in my opinion. This is a minor sport that we would not normally mention, and also a dangerous one (so it's not entirely surprising that there are deaths). Modest Genius talk 16:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

US/Israel military exercise

Article: 2012 US-Israel military exercise (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States and Israel postpone the largest joint military exercise amid tensions with Iran's nuclear program. (Post)
News source(s): AFP, Washington Post, Reuters
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Originally expected to be the largest military exercise between the two countries in history. Considering latest conflicts with Iran - dead scientists, etc. - it is clear this event is highly notable. The delay demonstrates the seriousness of US interests in the ME and general military policy. WikifanBe nice 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Its postponed, so its not happening yet. Even if it goes ahead, I doubt that it will be worthy of being posted as it is just another military exercise to frighten the other party into submission. Donnie Park (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment The postponement makes the event notable. WikifanBe nice 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh come on. That's just silly. Something's not happening, so we should post it? If there is something deeper here that you think we should all understand, please be aware that I certainly don't, but I'll assume good faith and ask you why something not happening should appear on ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm just the messenger. RS suggest this "postponement" is a response to the on-going "conflict" with Iran. The exercise was expected to be the largest among the two nations in history. And it was cancelled in a time where Iran is being subject to sanctions, etc..etc. Just read the sources. onetwo. WikifanBe nice 01:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm with HiLo on this one. Heck, from the linked article: "Capt. John Ross, spokesman for the United States European Command, said "It is not unusual for such exercises to be postponed..."". --Golbez (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Dakar Rally

The 33rd edition of the event concludes today. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Supportt Major automotive racing event with decent coverage and popularity.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a very pithy article in totality - it's mostly tables - and there is no update to speak of. I don't object to this in principle but a dramatic expansion is needed to bring it up to something ITN worthy. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC).
  • Support Per ITN/R but the article should explain why stage 6 was cancelled. -- (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Point of order This article has had less of an update than Republic of China Election 2012, which is being held pending a further update. —WFC— 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
by definition ITNYR only needs an update not consensus. I dont know much of this so i can t add to it, but when its done itlll obviously be posted.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the article in its current state, but the addition of some information from the Spanish article could easily persuade me to change my mind. —WFC— 06:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though I have nothing against this being listed and it may have decent coverage and popularity but apart from its cancellation in 2008, it is and will remain as a minority topic, it will never be as mainstream as F1, Le Mans, WRC, Indy 500 and so on. The only thing that makes it a major is that it is held in the time where motorsport occurring is at its rarest. Donnie Park (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment It's on ITN/R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Regardless if it is listed on ITN/R, I don't think that it is much of a big deal to be on ITN, like I said on my vote, beside the cancellation in 2008, it is only a big deal because it is held in early January when very few motorsport event take place at that time. Donnie Park (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
        • ITN/R gives an item a pass on notability, it's been pre-established. All that's needed is a good update. -- (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
In principle this should go up, but the article is still just one big table. If someone has an hour or two to bring it up to standard we can post it, otherwise this is going to go stale. Modest Genius talk 16:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

End of Fobos-Grunt and Yinghuo-1

Articles: Fobos-Grunt (talk, history) and Yinghuo-1 (talk, history)
Blurb: Fobos-Grunt and Yinghuo-1 crash into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Chile two months after a failed launch attempt to Mars. (Post)
News source(s): [18]

Nominator's comments: Finally re-entered and crashed. It was feared it would crash in Patagonia, but it didn't reach land (fortunately). --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 23:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - we posted the launch, we don't usually post for decays, and most of the reports speculating on the location of reentry were sensationalising the issue, and guilty of extremely bad reporting (such as ignoring huge error bars on the data). I also object to the use of the word "crash", which implies that the spacecraft were still intact before they hit the ocean, and it wasn't a launch failure, the spacecraft failed after separation from its carrier rocket. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 00:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - rather mundane event. I would support anything with an RTG but otherwise it's just space junk. -- (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The launch failure was notable. The final decay of the orbit isn't (and wouldn't be even if it did have a RTG on boad; what difference would that make, other than scaremongering?) Modest Genius talk 16:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 14

2012 Basra bombing

Article: 2012 Basra bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bombing targeting Shiite pilgrims kills 50 and wounds over 100 in Basra, Iraq. (Post)

Nominator's comments: At least 50 people were killed in the attack. -EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support and comment I took the liberty of updating Eugen's proposal though some of the format may have been lost. Here are some sources for the attack: 1, 2, 3. Attacks such as these have increased exponentially since the war officially "ended." It would be wrong of us not to post it pending of course an updated article. WikifanBe nice 13:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support It really seems to be one of the deadliest attacks in most recent time in Iraq, but less than two months there were another bombings in Basra with many people killed and injured.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment we have multiple bombs blowing up in Iraq weekly now. I am unsure how these should be handled ITN-wise. We would have Iraq appearing all the time in the main page should these attacks continue. I do not believe it would be good taste to consider notability based on body count alone. Just a thought there. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Certain White Cat. Bombings have become are still routine in Iraq. The first few after the US withdrawl was one thing, but now it's just routine killing. -- (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose per the IP. Bombings in Iraq are like rain storms during monsoon season. Not notable enough for here. Beyond495 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability of the event itself shouldn't be the only factor in our decisions. One of the main factors I consider is whether we have an informative, interesting article on the subject that tells readers something useful. Right now we have an article that contains a mere four short sentences about the attack, in addition to a paragraph about other unrelated attacks and a subject sentence. Nothing of value. JimSukwutput 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment That isn't the issue - articles can easily be expanded. Editors are opposing because it is a "routine event" (not necessarily true). WikifanBe nice 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
List_of_suicide_bombings_in_Iraq_in_2010 yes, I'm afraid it is. -- (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Not it's not routine at all. Such bomings in Iraq are commonplace, not routine. Big difference.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — Very significant terrorist incident, with a higher death toll than usual. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Not higher than the 5_January_2012_Iraq_bombings which didn't go up, and certainly not higher than the 22 December 2011 Baghdad bombings which did. Look, I get that there isn't a minimum body count which must be met, I'm just pointing out that a bombing that kills dozens of people is rather routine in Iraq right now. If something like the 2 November 2010 Baghdad bombings happens again, then I think that's different because it was a coordinated strike, but this is just another senseless tragedy in a country which has been plagued by them for a decade. -- (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose In the News is not an Iraq Death Toll ticker - these repeated incidents make each predecessor less notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The rationales for opposing are a very sudden and very dramatic about-face from precedence established wherein we posted practically every double-digit bombing that occurred in Iraq.--WaltCip (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Still don't understand. I imagine if 50 people were killed in a suicide bombing in the US it would be ITN the next hour. WikifanBe nice 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Response True, or Canada, Australia, Denmark, Argentina or a host of other countries where there isn't a weekly bombing. For better or worse, the consensus seems to be that violence in a country where violence is common is less newsworthy than where it isn't. Part two of that is how many bombings in Iraq are not making headlines. A bomb killing zero people in Vienna might still be news, how many bombs go off every day in Iraq? -- (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment Editor's personal views don't determine notability. An event covered by a wide-range of sources that continues to make headlines is rejected because it happens frequently in Iraq. Once a month or so these types of bombings occur. The large death toll cannot be ignored. Odd to see trivial frog news is okay, but massacres in Iraq are shrugged off. WikifanBe nice 01:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Response I'm not saying it's right, it's just been established. Other killings have also failed to make it up. I think this needs a discussion on the talk page to try and determine when this sort of thing is news. Also ITN isn't endless, it's only 4 or 5 bullet points, and WP attracts a wide range of readers. -- (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - bombings have indeed been commonplace in Iraq for many years. But, to my knowledge that's never stopped us from posting major bombings, even during the height of the Iraq War. Swarm X 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, purely on the basis that the article is a stub. Nightw 03:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is updated with all available information. Update meets the threshold for posting per WP:ITN.
  • Oppose The article seems to steal stuff from its sources, eg. "The attack occurred on the last of the 40 days of Arbain..." --Mkativerata (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Marmara blackout of 2012

Article: Marmara blackout of 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Parts of Marmara region suffered a power outage including including parts of Istanbul and Kocaeli provinces of Turkey. (Post)
News source(s): "İstanbul'da metro ve tramvay ulaşımı durdu". Hürriyet (in Turkish). Retrieved 14 January 2012., "Istanbul blackout leaves millions in dark -". CNN. Retrieved 14 January 2012.

Nominator's comments: Similar to Northeast blackout of 2003 Turkey just lost power in significant part of the country in most of Marmara region and many provinces of Istanbul and Kocaeli where vast majority of Turkish industry is located. I posted it here before the media so it may take time for the media to catch on or power lines to be fixed making the event less significant. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Blackout causing problems in most parts of Istanbul is an important news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is missing crucial details, like how long it took for power to be restored. Will support easily if updated. -- (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    It isn't restored yet. Such details aren't available at the moment. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've given it a copyedit, but the article could do with at least a paragraph more content. Things like reactions, estimates for recovery time, impacts on any significant events, etc are the sort of things I'd expect to see. Will happily support when expanded. Thryduulf (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Republic of China Election 2012

Articles: Republic of China presidential election,_2012 (talk, history) and Republic of China legislative election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected President in the Republic of China (Taiwan), and the Kuomintang is re-elected as the majority party in the Legislative Yuan. (Post)
News source(s): Taipei Times

Nominator's comments: This should be a no brainer, as with most national elections. Once the results come out (which is today the 14th) both president-elect and the new Parliament will be determined. Please note that the results are being tallied right now on the 14th so that the headline should be made today when the results are confirmed. --Yong (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support when results come in As per nom - election results are ITN/R and/or fast-tracked with almost no exceptions doktorb wordsdeeds 08:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Why propose now? It is ITNR, so the only grounds for rejection would be insufficient update. That being the case, proposing it before a sufficient update is logically possibly is pointless. Kevin McE (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said in the comments, the election was held today and results will come out later today, so I don't see the point of not suggesting it as part of the proper procedure to get it posted. Surely this might not have to be suggested to be posted but if this can be a friendly reminder then why not. --Yong (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Important note: Per the policy WP:NC-TW, the name we use when referring to the legislative council is Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China. The title of the re-elected president (Ma Ying-jeou) is President of the Republic of China. The incumbent party is known as Kuomintang of China or Chinese Nationalist Party. JimSukwutput 13:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I've modified the blurb according to this policy and to include the election results. While the counting is not 100% over, the winners have already been declared (but we still need to wait for the full results before posting). JimSukwutput 13:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for my obviously POV bias, but it was intended to be a rough start for the blurb. Thanks for any modifications and updates. From the preliminary results it is less unlikely that the KMT will achieve a majority this time, though everything will be determined when the results are confirmed. --Yong (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that very guideline says that we should use Republic of China (Taiwan) for the state, i.e. with the brackets, but use Republic of China in the president's title. wow this China/Taiwan naming thing is a mess Modest Genius talk 16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yea, nothing in the blurb refers to the state. "Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China" is an official name for the legislative council. JimSukwutput 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Added [Ready]. Both articles are updated. JimSukwutput 17:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I think a lot of readers are likely to be misled that there have been presidential and parliamentary elections in China, and the bolded article doesn't really work hard to dispel that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If some readers have misconceptions about the current political status of PRC/ROC, this is a good chance for them to educate themselves on the issue. Yes, there have been elections in China, the Republic of China. JimSukwutput 20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There have not been any elections in China, as WP:COMMON sees it. Modest Genius talk 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the article is missing some prose update regarding the results. There's just the infobox and the result table. Some reactions would be nice to see as well. Otherwise, when you agree on the blurb, I can post. --Tone 19:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Support obviously worthy of posting (although not ITNR as its a disputed territory), but the blurb needs to mention "Taiwan" in it so there isn't confusion that this is an election in China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:NC-TW states that for official names such as President and Legislative Yuan, the term "ROC" is used without any reference to Taiwan. If you can find another way to put Taiwan in the blurb for the ignorant masses, fine (maybe we can start referring to the United States as "America"), although the blurb is long enough already. JimSukwutput 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Fundementally I oppose until the blurb contains the word Taiwan so we can avoid confusing our readers. And therefore there isn't a clear consensus with only one support so removing the [Ready] tag.
      • If you think the blurb is too long then we don't need to spell out "parliament" as "Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
        • There is nothing confusing about the blurb. There has been two elections in the Republic of China, and we stated that there were two elections in the Republic of China, as our current policy guidelines demanded. No ambiguity at all. It's true that some readers may have the mistaken belief that the government of Taiwan island is known as Taiwan. That's okay; some people also believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that evolutionary theory is fabricated; Wikipedia doesn't pander to their ignorance. JimSukwutput 20:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
            • No, but it should seek to correct it, and to avoid expressing itself in ways that it knows will be misunderstood. Also, please don't use the word "pander", since this is likely to make people think of Chinese wildlife. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Jim, I've spent a lot of time looking at sources about this when getting China re-titled, and its blindingly obvious that the WP:COMMONNAME in English for the Republic of China is "Taiwan". Taiwan is what the country is known as to our readers, and people who aren't experts on greater China will probably assume that the Republic of China refers to the People's Republic.
          • I'm happy for the blurb to contain the words "Republic of China" as that is the current title for the article on the government of Taiwan, but we need to mention Taiwan as well.
          • The KMT article should also probably be linked without "of China" - no need to mention China in the blurb as that is confusing as well and the aritcle is located at Kuomintang. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Kuomintang of China is the name of the party, but I wouldn't mind using a short form. As for your insistence on including the Taiwan name, if you can find some way of putting it in the blurb without violating WP:NC-TW, that would be perfectly fine. But it is not appropriate to add (Taiwan) to the end of "President of the Republic of China". (I think your concern about the possible confusion is unnecessary; people are going to read the articles, and it'd be perfectly clear that it's not the PRC that's having an election) JimSukwutput 21:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
              • How about this? Shrigley (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
                • I would rather go for Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected in Taiwan as the President of the Republic of China, and Kuomintang is re-elected as the majority party in parliament, but I'm happy with Ma Ying-jeou is re-elected in Taiwan as the President of the Republic of China, and Kuomintang is re-elected as the majority party in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China and I'm happy to support either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • There's apparently some nitpicky distinction between the Legislative Yuan as a branch of government, and the defunct National Assembly as a true "parliament". If what you oppose is the redundant mention of "Republic of China", then I propose using simply "Legislative Yuan", as in the article, which makes things clear enough. Shrigley (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • The problem is that Ma Ying-jeou was not just elected by constituents on Taiwan island but also by people on several outlying islands belong to Fukien province. It does not make sense to say "in Taiwan" here in a geographical sense; "in Republic of China (Taiwan)" would be preferable, but that'd make the blurb difficult to read. JimSukwutput 22:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose To those who want the blurb to say China, stop playing politics. The common name is Taiwan. I will strike this out and add a Support comment when the word China disappears. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The word "China" only appears once, in the context of "President of the Republic of China", which is Ma Ying-jeou's constitutional title. "Taiwan" is mentioned as the area of election. Shrigley (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • What politics? Ma Ying-jeou was elected as the President of the Republic of China. It's not politics to state the title of the presidency; it IS politics to arbitrarily change the title of the office into something else based on your personal preferences. Furthermore, WP:NC-TW forbids any mention of the term Taiwan when referring to official names and titles that do not contain the term. If you have problems with the policy, bring it up at its talk page. JimSukwutput 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
        • At this stage the word China appears conspicuously in the blurb, the title of this section, and the name of the linked article. The presence of that name distorts this whole discussion. It certainly fooled me. It will fool others. Those including it are playing politics. It is NOT NPOV. It is promoting Taiwan's international political goals. I cannot possibly support it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Forgive my frankness, but it's not our problem if you're ignorant or obtuse. Our naming conventions dictate what names we use, and in this case there is no ambiguity whatsoever that we ought to use ROC or ROC-TW in the articles and the blurb (and certainly not the term Taiwan on its own). You seem to have a problem not only with the blurb but with the entire NC-TW policy and the naming conventions that we have been using for years (see the previous election articles). I'm sorry, but consensus rules, and your objection here is out of place. JimSukwutput 22:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I have problems with several Wikipedia policies. My reasons are rational and clearly stated above. If policy allows supporters of Taiwan to play politics here, so be it, but it doesn't mean I will endorse it. China is that huge country on mainland Asia, not this place. I still strongly Oppose. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
              • So you understand that your opposition is with regard to WP:NC-TW, and not this blurb. Yet you still choose to whine and moan here, rather than in the policy's talk page. You know that is disruptive, correct? JimSukwutput 22:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
                • No, my position is supported by Wikipedia's policy to use common names (which I can't be bothered looking up the proper name of, but I KNOW you know what I mean.) Using China to describe this country is non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • WP:COMMONNAME doesn't always apply (it states that we should generally use the most common name); that's why we have WP:NC-TW guidelines to specifically settle disputes about the PRC/ROC naming issue. This is the way it has been done for over 5 years; it makes no sense for us to diverge from it now just because you got "fooled" as a result of your ignorance. JimSukwutput 22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • If anyone gathered a coherent set of evidence about how the Republic of China is named, and managed to get enough non Taiwanese-partisans to participate in the move discussion then Republic of China would move to Taiwan per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE.
                    • It is certainly legitimate for people to be fooled about the Republic of China, it is literally never called that in English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
                      • This word, I do not think it means what you think it means. --Golbez (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting and saying "Taiwan" and nothing else, because that is of course how mainstream reliable sources are reporting the elections. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:NC-TW. Comments like this are tiring. It's not that hard to understand this: When there is an existing policy, we follow it. When you have an objection regarding the policy, take it to the policy talk page. Any other objection on any other location is completely worthless and valueless. Simply because you've never heard of the policy before is not a valid reason to object to it in one specific place and expect us to create a huge inconsistency. Please don't waste your time. JimSukwutput 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Tone it down a bit there, big fella. I am well aware of NC-TW, having argued against it in the past: [19]. You are downright wrong to call this a policy. NC-TW is not a policy, it is a naming convention -- a guideline -- to which exceptions "may apply". It is a "general rule of thumb", from which we are free to depart. We should do so here, because no-one is reporting this as the "Republic of China" election and we should follow, as always, what the reliable sources say. Have a cup of tea, take a break from your keyboard mashing for a while, and read WP:POLICY. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
        • It does not matter whether the name ROC or Taiwan is used more often in mainstream English media. Articles on ITN follow Wikipedia guidelines; how other news organizations report it is none of our business. Sure, you're right that we can "ignore all rules"; so far you've not provided a convincing reason to do so. JimSukwutput 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For reference, here is how ITN dealt with the Republic of China/Taiwan naming issue in the past. Shrigley (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment: With one exception, all references to the state (not the island) uses the term Republic of China or Republic of China (Taiwan). Seems like the precedents are pretty clear. JimSukwutput 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm in Australia. I just checked all our major reliable news sources. Every one of them used just Taiwan for this news, and didn't use the word China at all. Oh, except for one. It said "China-friendly leader wins Taiwan re-election". Clearly the name China is simply not used to mean Taiwan here. I don't think Australia is on any particular political or reporting extreme, and it certainly shows where my views come from. So, Wikipedia's or Jim's policies notwithstanding, I'm sticking with total opposition to the word China being mentioned. It's confusing, unhelpful, and political POV pushing HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting. Neutral on whether "Republic of China" is used, provided that (Taiwan) remains in brackets if it is. Either way, just get on with posting; there's no reason that this debate can't continue once it's up. —WFC— 23:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Even if considered only a Chinese domestic event, this is important news with international implications. Some people here make good points about the naming of Taiwan-related articles. They should join the active debates about this issue at Talk:Republic of China and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). But we seem to have worked the blurb so that it doesn't gratuitously mention the formal name of the state ("Republic of China"); so that it does so only once, before which "Taiwan" is mentioned first in order to clarify. Shrigley (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting, with names adherent to WP:NC-TW. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. A major election in one of Asia's leading economies, plus it may be decisive in relations between the ROC and mainland China. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and I support using the guidelines per WP:NC-TW. While only guidelines and not policy, they provide a clear reference on this issue that reflect WP consensus presumably. Wikipedia is not a news media outlet and is not required to follow the media in naming Taiwan. (If we didn't have such guidelines I would suggest we follow the media). We are also not required to follow the guidelines WP:NC-TW, but I see no compelling reason not to.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I don't think they do represent consensus and they certainly don't represent the reality of how Taiwan is covered in English language sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support speedy posting. And, please, use common name of Taiwan. The "In the news" section is for a general audience with casual interest, not those interested in Wikiguideline minutiae or refighting 60-year-old wars over China. Per the principle of least astonishment, we shouldn't fool some passersby into thinking China has suddenly started having elections. —  AjaxSmack  07:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Naming shouldn't come up as an issue at ITN. Leave that to a move request. One was recently done at Republic of China and the page wasn't moved. If that's the name of the article, that's the name we should be using here. Let's not set our own naming guidelines, stick to WP:NC-TW. Nightw 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously most people commenting here would not have been part of the discussion contributing to the claimed consensus at Republic of China. Ethically I think we have every right to comment on the inappropriate name here. Many have commented on it here. That cannot be ignored. A different consensus can validly arise here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It's different when there's a guideline in place for it. We can't ignore a guideline that a lot of time has gone into (especially for the Main Page). The guideline needs to be changed first. Nightw 09:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at that guideline and how it came to be? It's obvious the discussion involved a bunch of people with strong political interest in a perceived local "correctness", with no interest in the global common name. That part of Wikipedia won't change its view no matter what. That means it's a bad policy. I argue that this discussion can develop its own consensus among people with less of an obsession with a century of politics in that region. We really should be using today's globally common name. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
That's because there are more Taiwanese partisans interested in the guideline than either Chinese partisans or editors who don't have a "side" in cross Taiwan strait relations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Posting. The naming now should be neutral enough and in agreement with what we've used before. --Tone 13:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I am still missing a prose update. --Tone 13:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Republic of China presidential election, 2012 looks ok if you look at the Election Results and the Reactions sections.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm not sure that's enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I still completely Oppose this in its current form. This section name, the linked article name, and the blurb mention the name China three times, and Taiwan only once. Because of that it's a distorted discussion, so the merits of the topic have been buried under an issue of political correctness. The damage has been done, and can't be repaired. The proposer should acknowledge the issue, withdraw this, and start a fresh discussion with the far more widely known and understood common name predominant. Wikipedia should not be playing this ancient political game. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
There is clear consensus for posting and your argument here appears to be you don't like it, so it shouldn't go up. Try again. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It SHOULD be posted, with the name Taiwan. Any mention of China is just plain wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, posting. --Tone 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Costa Concordia

Article: Costa Concordia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The cruise ship Costa Concordia, the largest ship built in Italy at the time of her launch, runs aground off the Isola del Giglio and capsizes with the loss of at least three lives. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Ship now showing on webcams as lying on her side. Biggest ship ever built in Italy. Significant maritime loss. File:Costa Concordia.JPG is available to use on main page. --Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support on notability but not entirely happy with the update - given the coverage this is getting surely we can do better than that. The section title grates in particular: I may not be an expert but is appears to be a complete loss to me from the TV pictures. Why then, do we need to quote the year of the grounding in the title as if it might happen again? Crispmuncher (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC).
    • I've changed the title to "Accident" for now. Might be a bit early, but it is looking as though she may be a total loss. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Three deaths (according to BBC news) in a transport incident is, sadly, nothing: they do not become more newsworthy because they died in a mode of transport only available to the wealthy leisured. Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The story is not the three confirmed deaths, tragic though they are, it is the loss of a modern cruise ship of 114,500 tons. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support major and unusual accident. Crnorizec (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - we should mention this chaps. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like it's a very unusual accident that should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious. Cruise ships don't sink regularly. The reports say this one went fast too. -- (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue | talk 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - can we change "killing three people" to "with three reported fatalities"? The BBC article I read said 12 dead with 3 jumpers. Also the timer in the template above needs to be reset. -- (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There are couple of pictures of the ship actually capsized in the article. Can we use one of those instead please -- Ashish-g55 23:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Those images weren't available when the article was posted. I've commented on WT:ITN re this request. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 13

[Posted] Kiribati presidential election, 2012

Article: Kiribati presidential election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: Kiribati President Anote Tong (pictured) wins re-election. (Post)
News source(s): (Radio Australia News)
  • Nominated by [[User:{{subst:Scanlan}}|{{subst:Scanlan}}]] ([[User talk:{{subst:Scanlan}}|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:{{subst:Scanlan}}|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BKiribati+presidential+election%2C+2012%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Kiribati+presidential+election%2C+2012&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
  • Updated by Scanlan (talk • give credit)

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: Major event for the country, which might be overlooked by outside media. Public Domain photo of Tong is located on the article's page for posting. --Scanlan (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, but the infobox needs some trimming. --Tone 15:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
ITNR so would be added when ready, the proseis quite poor (first para in result only mentions whats alsready in the result box.
infobox wont change as the palce the party is linked doesnt have mentions of this , seen this before but dont know how to fix it.Lihaas (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The infobox is ok now (it had some coding errors when I looked at it then). A couple of sentences more wouldn't harm, still. --Tone 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Marking ready die to timer above and there is the lil prose on the ipdate. dont think well get reactions here/Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, posting. Lack of input in this debate but it's ITNR and it meets the requirements, so I'll go ahead. --Tone 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment no objection here, but the winter youth olympics and the dakar rally had more discussion. -- (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
this is itnr AND updated with prose.Lihaas (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Winter Youth Olympics

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The first Winter Youth Olympics start in Innsbruck, Austria. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems a notable development in Olympic history. GreyHood Talk 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support but only on the basis that it's the first ever (we similarly posted the first Summer Youth Olympics). Other than that, it shouldn't be (and isn't) an automatic post. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Surprisingly how little coverage this event is getting from the mainstream media. Well, as it is the first time for winter youth olympics, I guess we can post. We'll see in years to come how it develops. --Tone 19:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL forbids us from using your philosophy doktorb wordsdeeds 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only because its the first one. Such little coverage for the first event will probably mean even lesser coverage for the forthcoming ones. I don't think it could hold its own on ITN if it wasn't the first one. Lynch7 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb needs to be retouched, as presumably without qualifier the first of something is always 'in history'. Suggest 'The first Winter Youth Olympics start in Innsbruck, Austria. --Golbez (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. This is an article about a new event and has decent size. GreyHood Talk 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The fact that it is the first event of any kind of Olympics with variety of sports competitions and mass participation suffices its inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not top level of sport: not widescale coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You will see it will receive more in future. ♫GoP♫TCN 11:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL: pure assumption. Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For a sports event with the word "Olympic", it has almost no coverage, seems to have barely any minimum level of entry for athletes, and the article is as scarce as it could be for the front page. Not convinced at all by its nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 23:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support an official IOC sanctioned olypmic event is newsworthy. I think it's worth noting that the opening of the summer and winter games, as well as the summer and winder paralympic games are already on ITN/R. The article is a good size, and all the links are event specific, such as "Speed skating at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics" or "Austria at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics". Also, -- (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • support - seems notable enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Where is the widespread coverage of this? It seems to me this has only gained any level of support because of the Olympic connection. We don't do notability by association elsewhere on this project, so why on ITN? There are two clarifications here that both restrict notability - it is winter sports specifically for youth. That lacks the prestige of the main summer games and as a youth event it isn't a top-line competition. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • How does seasons affect notablity? ♫GoP♫TCN 11:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The time of year that it is contested doesn't, but the range of sports covered does. Do you really doubt that there is greater interest in the Summer than winter games? Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support First event of a new olympic cycle. Precedent of the Singapore Games. Hektor (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Widescale coverage, top news, first ever. ♫GoP♫TCN 10:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No coverage, no news, first ever (which means that few have heard of it, and few care) /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Source for your claim No coverage, no news? We also posted discovery of a new frog species, and I doubt everyone would care about this news, except biologists... ♫GoP♫TCN 11:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No. It is the inclusion of items in the project that needs sourced verification, not the omission. There is nothing in Wikipedia about fact that my garden fence has a damaged panel, but I don't need a media source proving the lack of reportage on the state of my garden fence to justify the fact that it is absent from Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • and few care not everyone cares about frogs, but we posted it anyway. ♫GoP♫TCN 11:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Surprisingly little coverage. Don't see the significance yet. JimSukwutput 13:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not top level competition, and no coverage at all in my country, one obsessed with sport. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: hardly any coverage, article has 125 words of prose and the rest is incomplete tables. May support if there is a significant update to the article. Not sure why this was marked "ready". IA 22:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Rauf Denktaş dies

Nominator's comments:

Rauf Denktaş

Death of former presidents are normally notable. Northern Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, pretty self evident and prominently covered by mainstream press. Snowolf How can I help? 20:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as founder of a country. --Golbez (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as definitely being an important political figure in the foundation of Northern Cyprus.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but... I have been bold and corrected the spelling. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The reference tag needs to be addresed. Support then. --Tone 09:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    Fixed that (I think). :) -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking about all article, since most of the biography has no references - or at least no footnotes. Try to improve that as well. Regarding the comments Northery Cyprus is not internationally recognized, we often post events in other unrecognized enthities. --Tone 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if/when updated. A very significant figure in the history of the Cyprus conflict.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose though clearly I'm in the minority. A sitting president sure, but a former, sorry, no. Recent deaths without question. -- (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Northern Cyprus is not generally recognized internationally. Beyond495 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was actually about to support until I saw that Northern Cyprus isn't internationally recgnized, and only is by Turkey. It's be like putting the Governor of a province up here, which wouldn't fly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    Taiwan (Republic of China) is internationally not recognized (despite being a former UN permanent security council member) and yet we even show their elections on the main page. See above. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    Mind you the coverage in English alone is of great number. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    Even though it is not recognized, Northern Cyprus is still a state. And before the establishment of it, he had led the Turkish Cypriot community for years, see the article Cyprus dispute. Not only that, he is considered to be a national hero in Turkey, as he dedicated his life to promote Turkish Cypriot nationalism, which obviously satisfied Turkish interests. And a governor of a province would not receive that much coverage anyway. --Seksen (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Per precedence ITN posts this somethign pased on ITNC discussion not per ITNR,, nothing to oppose based on that, only based on cponsensus on its ITN-worth. we also posted kosovo elections (though deaths are never ITNR)Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Denktaş was a huge figure in the history of modern Cyprus. —  AjaxSmack  03:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
with all the support in the world this will NEVER be posted without a single line of update on his death...surprised its not done with the sourced here. its also poorly sourced.Lihaas (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a little more here. —  AjaxSmack  02:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
cool, marked ;)
lil short but its got an expansion, support and weve gone 48 hrs without an update
Any idea if turkey/cyprus/greece reacted?Lihaas (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support now that it is updated. Poeple saying he was only president of a state recognized by a single country are missing Denktas' significance in the Cyprus dispute, a long and sometimes bloody conflict that has involved NATO, the US, the UK, Turkey, Greece, et. al., and more recently the EU.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I have just added some details about his death and funeral and created a separate section for it. At the moment, his funeral is one of the main stories in the news in Turkey, see the coverage. If this blurb is considered outdated, maybe his funeral could be very briefly mentioned. --Seksen (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Posted. --Tone 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 12

[Posted] Burma-Karen peace talks

Article: Internal conflict in Burma (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Burma, government officials and the Karen National Union agree on a ceasefire to end an internal conflict that began in 1948. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera

It was the lead story on BBC World Service this morning, and NPR too if I remember correctly. BBC, CNN, Associated Press NW (Talk) 14:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Ends one of world's longest-running civil conflicts. --bender235 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but the article needs a considerable update. Also, the timeline in 2011 section needs to be improved. --Tone 15:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article, no substantial update this year, let alone of this event. Also, the blurb needs to make it clear this is only one of the many internal conflicts. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, highly notable, but yeah, article needs work. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending update. There is a lot to update here. Lynch7 03:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with Lynch. Article should be updated if it isn't already. Only a paragraph is needed IMO. WikifanBe nice 12:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I updated the article to reflect on-going news coverage and requests made by editors here. WikifanBe nice 12:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support End of an armed conflict that began in 1948 is a very big deal. It also strongly influences country's politics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs updating. At least the lead and the sidebar needs to be updated. Thue | talk 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The above reasons all swirl into my own - a very obvious candidate for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Posted --slakrtalk / 00:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Frogs

I'd say it's time for some science stories, the world's smallest vertebrae discovered. [20] --Tone 08:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And the stubby article is here as well: Paedophryne amauensis. --Tone 08:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Support, moderately interesting story, timer's red, and the article is decent enough. There's even an image! The blurb needs to be 'scientists announce' or 'publish', since the discovery itself was in 2009 but we've quite rightly waited for the peer-reviewed paper. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. It's also interesting to note that the previous record holder for the smallest frog, Paedophryne dekot, had been described just a month ago. Plus, there have now been three papers on the genus, each describing two new species, and each being published in an Open Access journal under CC BY. --Mietchen (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Support per nominator and Modest Genius. Currently four of five items in the ITN are about human deaths (#39 in total). The fifth is about alleged sodomy. Time for something positive, and the image is great. --Elekhh (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sodomy not "positive"? Keep your homophobic judgmentalism to yourself, Mister! (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Better you keep your misguided preconceptions to yourself: I was referring to the news item about the messy politics of unproven allegations, no intention whatsoever to be judgemental about sexuality. --Elekhh (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There are other images too. --Mietchen (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Support per above. GreyHood Talk 11:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The image is great, frogs symbolically taking over global economy. Hm... :-) Anyway, give me a good blurb and I'm posting. BTW, s there a quick way to protect images on Commons (I'm not an admin there) so that the files do not need to be uploaded here and protected? --Tone 11:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Support This is very interesting record that deserves posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Blurb attempt:
Scientists describe new species of frog, Paedophryne amauensis (pictured), that is now the smallest known vertebrate.
Feel free to rephrase as necessary. --Mietchen (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 12:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 11

Iranian nuclear scientist assassinated

Article: Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Iranian nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan assassinated in a car-bomb explosion, prompting calls in Iran for retaliation against the West. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, New York Times, AFP

The assassination produced a furious reaction in Iran; the kind of an event that makes some kind of a military blow-up between Iran and the West more likely. Nsk92 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Notable assassination which further deteriorates the already fragile relations between Iran and "the West", especially in light of calls for retaliation from within Iran (although I doubt they will actually retaliate). There has been a series of such assassinations - is there an article on that? May be worthwhile to link the same as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose Nothing particularly note-worthy. If posted, blurb should be truncated. No need to say "calls in Iran for retaliation against the West." Who are making these calls specifically? What is "the West?" Blurb infers the culprits are the "west" when the only country making that claim is Iran, so far. WikifanBe nice 03:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Question Exactly what makes this assassination rather than murder? HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the word "killed" to avoid this. Prodego talk 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
RS say assassination, murder, and killed. Considering the high-profile nature of the person and regional conflict "assassination" fits NPOV. Killed is more reserved for general deaths - i.e, suicide bombings. WikifanBe nice 04:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
To me it seems that the word 'assassinated' shows that the death is regarded as being intended, but the word 'killed' can mean that the man was just caught in the crossfire. So I think assassinated works better.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Then so would murdered. Why assassinated? HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Virtually all the news-outlets covering this event refer to it as "assassination" (see 1900+ GoogleNews hits here[21]), so I think we should use that wording. Nsk92 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 10

Scottish independence referendum, 2014

The Scottish Government announces that it plans to hold the referendum on Scottish independence in the Autumn of 2014 (BBC News) Mais oui! (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There's nothing new about this position - that has been the SNP plan since before they were elected. It's still a plan, nothing has been definitively decided, and no date has been set (though the SNP obviously prefers the Bannockburn anniversary). The current wrangling is just playing politics between the SNP and Westminster. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Modest Genius points out, this is a proposal for a currently unscheduled future event. Additionally, it is the results of an election that are important. Suggest nominator try again in autumn 2014 if and when results become available. --Allen3 talk 11:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"Bannockburn" !?! -> oh dearie me! Please do not swallow press work by certain political parties wishing to demean the referendum. The "Autumn 2014" date is new: it was only announced yesterday. The referendum, and its date, are big stories, worldwide. And if successful, it would be one of the biggest stories of the century. Even an unsucessful referendum will be a big media event, over a sustained period. You are doing Wikipedia a grave disservice by failing to report this on the front page. But I cannot say that I am remotely surprised. I have been around here long enough to know that we Scots ought to know our place. Mais oui! (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The referendum itself will certainly be posted, whatever the result. But the current announcement of intention is not the referendum. Politicians announce things all the time, that's neither as significant as the event itself, nor a guarantee they will even happen. (Oh and I didn't make the bit about the date up, it's been under discussion for ages. See Guardian) Modest Genius talk 13:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - far too premature. This is nothing more than a party political manoeuvre and distorted manifesto promise by the SNP. Leaky Caldron 11:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Try DYK for this, its more fitting and likely provided its a new article OR undergone mega expansion recently.Lihaas (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - political declaration of intention to do something in two years is just that. If it happens, when it happens, it will certainly be a big news. Crnorizec (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the news report on ABC News this morning there has to be more than some doubt this will happen in the way the the Scotish Premier would like. Mtking (edits) 23:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid that ABC News, and apparently most other agencies worldwide, have taken their info from their usual London/Westminster sources. This makes it virtually impossible to understand this story. I strongly recommend that you take a look at what Scottish newspapers (universally Unionist note) and Scottish journalists (almost universally Unionist) are saying on this topic. Then review the dud info you are being fed by ABC News. For example, here are the latest 2 columns by veteran Tory columnist, novelist (and rugby union fanatic) Allan Massie, and here is a column by his son in the Tory The Spectator. Are you so sure now about there being "some doubts"? --Mais oui! (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
My comment was relating to the nature and timing of any poll and not the result. Mtking (edits) 03:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless Scotland actually declares independence. Beyond495 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Khyber Agency bombing

Article: 2012 Khyber Agency bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bombing in Khyber Agency, Pakistan kills at least 29 people and wounds over 50 others. (Post)
News source(s): The Express Tribune

 --Mar4d (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support Article needs to be expanded before posting. WikifanBe nice 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, this is hardly a notable news any more, as there have been too many similar incidents in Pakistan in the recent past. Just look at this article: Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2011, and it becomes obvious there are too many of them for ITN. Crnorizec (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
True, but many of them don't have high death tolls. I normally only create articles for an incident when the number of casualties goes above 20 at least. This is the first major one after a long time (the last major one being in September 2011). Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Senseless killings that occur every couple of months, no matter how tragic they are, are not encyclopaedic material. They do not tell us anything beside the fact that religious fervor continues to be a danger in certain countries. JimSukwutput 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Your comment seems to be speaking more about your dislike of this trend of our incredibly comprehensive coverage of articles on bombing attacks than on the actual ITN worthiness but this !vote won't do anything to stop that. I mean, we had three bombing items at one point earlier last I mean...ehh, I can't conclude my point here. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is probably off-topic, but the bombing was said to have been due to more of a tribal dispute with a local warlord than by religiously-motivated militants. Mar4d (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alabama wins BCS National Championship

In American college football, the Alabama Crimson Tide win the 2012 BCS National Championship Game, defeating the LSU Tigers 21-0. Benjamnjoel2 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Simply not notable enough for front page inclusion doktorb wordsdeeds 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose. We have this discussion every year, and every year we come to the same conclusion. Sports stories at the university level are not significant enough for ITN. We post sporting competitions which are at the very pinnacle of the professional game in significant/popular sports, because they are the ultimate test of competitors in those sports. University sport does not meet that threshold, regardless of how many people watch it. (oh and on top of all of that, the participants in the BCS National Championship Game are selected based on subjective rankings by journalists, not actual sporting results) Modest Genius talk 16:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose per Modest Genius. Sports story at a university level doesn't even deal with a professionalization and is even far from the notability of a junior tournaments played in the most popular sports. Since this is college football, a variety of American football that I doubt that many people outside North America have even heard of it, it's clear that it doesn't meet the threshold. Even though you may consider it as an American football it simply doesn't meet the criteria. Posting only the Super Bowl is enough for these sports.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Summary of a lot of people's thoughts seeing this: what is BCS? Nergaal (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose per years and years of precedence.--WaltCip (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nearly every argument here is drastically over interpreted as in favor of 'oppose'. We have this argument every year and every year we reach no consensus after much argument. The 'no precedent' argument barely holds water. Again, it's not that there's a consensus that this shouldn't be posted, it's that there's no consensus either way. The NCAA basketball championship was posted the last two years (over many strong objections similar to those above), so there is some precedent for posting a similar sporting event. Many sporting events are posted at ITN that nobody in North America cares about (handball, netball, snooker, etc). This is a major event in North America. In fact, opposing on the basis that nobody cares outside N America or any other region is specifically prohibited as an argument. Frankly a lot of people seem close minded on this issue (e.g. 'no mater how many people watch it'); to quote another ITN editor here, the 'the opposers won't listen to any arguments'. And btw, Modest Genius, the finalists are not chosen by journalists at all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

According to our article on the subject, BCS National Championship Game, they're chosen by ' media, former players and coaches, and [...] computer rankings' (emphasis added). And I'd bet that a large fraction of the 'former players and coaches' now work for media organisations. Modest Genius talk 14:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The the amount of influence any actual journalists have in that formula is minimal; though I suppose I said not chosen by journalists at all which is incorrect. Ironically, the journalists-selected Associated Press (AP) College Poll was dropped by the BCS because the AP journalists didn't want to be associated with the BCS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess a journalist randomly drawing names from pots should be a better way of determining sporting matchups than however the BCS comes up with.
You can predict who are the people that'll oppose a U.S.-centric event and what their arguments will be, no matter how, to borrow HiLo's words, dumb it is. Frankly, I'm more surprised there aren't enough opposes on this nomination... or that an ITN n00b(?) nominated this. Perhaps some ITN regulars don't have the energy to go through this crap. –HTD 18:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
there should be ITNR/Snow for recurring nominations that get opposed every year and got no chance. -- Ashish-g55 21:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
John, you seem to have a very little of arguments to compare this with handball. For netball and snooker it makes more sense, but only on the base of its popularity. On the other hand, you apparently omit the fact that this is far from being a professional sports event and even if we consider it a variety of American football its popularity is limited to barely 50 countries with official federation, while for handball it counts more than 130. Only as a college football I doubt there is an independent governing body. For HTD, please calm down when blaming somebody for permanently opposing U.S.-centric stories. If I do it third year in a row, it does mean that the event is simply not sufficient, but surely not because it's a U.S. story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
John, you say "there's no consensus either way" at the time of your post. You must have misread. Not only is there strong consensus, there is unanimous opposition. What a strange post you have made. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me... the BCS National Champion doesn't get included in ITN? It should be ITNR. This is one of the biggest events in the US... We have room for every two-bit Rugby championship... soccer title... or cricket match. But probably the fourth or fifth biggest sporting event in the US doesn't merit inclusion? What a bias.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you see Nergaal's post above? Do you realise it still hasn't been explained. Do you think non-Americans should ignore such mysteries and just accept this because you say it's important? How about trying to educate (this IS an encyclopaedia) rather than just foaming at the mouth? HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
which cricket match are you referring to? please specify -- Ashish-g55 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
maybe it was another sport. Cricket is posted rarely in these parts... –HTD 01:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw Negrall's post... meaningless. Billions of dollars are spent in America on College sports every year---and while college sports may not be "professional" elsewhere, they are pretty much so here. With the most rabid fans outside of a British soccer stadium---and intense bidding for the rights to carry the event. This is one of the big news stories of the day---over 24 millions people watched the game setting records for cable viewership. And every news source in the country covered it in great detail.
If this isn't included, then it is proof that ITN has a definitive anti-American bias. This is one of the biggest sporting events in the country. But the fact that it is not included, is a clear message to just about everybody that this bias exists. The fact that it isn't ITNR is a complete joke.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 02:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the second biggest sporting event in Canada was rejected just last week, so I don't see much value in your hyperbole. Those "two-bit championships" you insult are usually fully professional, almost always the highest level of their particular sport and often the most important competitions in their countries... not the fourth or fifth. Such is life. Resolute 02:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
so @Balloonman is the lead in the article wrong when it says The game had the lowest TV rating, 13.8, in the 14-year history of the BCS National Championship game. ? Sorry but this is just not very significant, two hand picked teams play one game to decided who is the national uni champ. Mtking (edits) 02:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Mking, that tv rating will still make it one of the most watched sporting events in the world for the year. I don't know off hand but I"d speculate it'd be in the top 5.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@Johnsemlak - are you sure it will be in the top 5? cos I can list at least 6 other sporting events (2012 Olympics, 2012 Indian Premier League Final, UEFA Euro 2012 Final, 2012 UEFA Champions League Final, 2012 FA Cup Final, Super Bowl XLVI) that will get bigger world wide viewing numbers than this. Mtking (edits) 04:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you're kidding, surely. Checked the cricket ratings in India lately? And Balloonman, it's really hard to say something polite if you truly think nergaal's post was meaningless. It was a question. WTF is BCS? Nobody has explained the abbreviation. The lnked article doesn't. This really does seem like one of those appalling cases of "I know what it means. You must be stupid if you don't." But nobody outside the USA could reasonably be expected to. So again, what is BCS? HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody really explained what the hell the Khyber Agency is (it's actually a place, not some "agency") but nobody's bitching about that... The cricket ratings are probably true, though. Chinese ratings in games involving Yi Jianlian shouldn't be that far behind, right? –HTD 03:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, misread the post re Negraal---I read the anti-american diatribe above it and missed the signature. So my response was really towards Kiril Simeonovski whose post was pure anti-american bias.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, I dunno if there's any US-centric ITN nomination that he had not opposed. Heck he'd probably support KHL and oppose the NHL lol –HTD 05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems like I should end my participation in this discussion after being accused of a "pure anti-American bias", even though I did not mention such things in my posts. I really don't appreciate to call any of the admins to resolve this issue, so please at least remain civil when blaming me for things that are not helpful for the discussion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The crux of the opposition is that people outside of the United States don't want collegiate sports to be major news events. This, however, does not mean that these are not major news events. Not wanting them to be major events, and them actually not being major events, are completely different things. The fact remains that this is the national championship game of a very popular sport in the United States. The incidental facts of the sport, regarding where it is played, etc. is completely irrelevent to its importance. Expressing incredulity that the sport is popular doesn't instantly make it unpopular. Why do we not let the news sources speak for the newsworthiness of the event? That seems to me to be the most important argument, not whether or not we want college sports in America to be a big deal. Remember, not wanting Americans to care so much about college football doesn't make them not care. --Jayron32 03:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's OK if this really is a big event, but so far too many of the American posts have just said "This is big. Stuff you if you don't understand." Surely hoping there's at least one American somewhere who is capable of actually explaining the less obvious aspects is reasonable. So, once more, WTF is BCS? HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
BCS=Bowl Championship Series---it is the governing body which determines the national championship. Sorry about my comment re Negraal's post... I misread it... I thought he wrote the diatribe above his post relative to college sports/professionalism... and thought that is what you were referring to. As for it's rating... the BCS just redid it's contract. ESPN outbid the major networks and agreed to a half billion dollar deal to carry the event. So while it used to be available on the major networks, ESPN outbid them. While this is the second lowest rating championship; it is still the second most watched cable show ever---second only to last years BCS game in viewership. But ratings were down because of how dominant Alabama was---it was a boring game---yet 24 million people watched it[22]+ 500K online.[23][24] Last years NBA, which was "more popular with viewers than any of pro basketball's ultimate series since 2004" averaged 15.34 million viewers or a Nielsen rating of 8.0.[25] The final NBA game garnering 24 million and best viewership in 10 years[26]. So the lowest BCS championship had more viewers than the best NBA title in 10 years. How about Major League Baseball? With the exception of 2004 only two game seven's in the past decade have had a higher viewership than the lowest rating BCS championship.[27] What about Stanley Cup? Not even close 10 fold difference![28]. The Rugby World Cup? 6 Million viewers[29] Sorry, but this is one of the premier sporting competitions in the world... and if Wikipedia refuses to put it on the front page, then it shows a clear anti-America bias---simple as that. This year may have had the lowest viewership ever, but that is more relative to the medium (ESPN) and poor game (21-0 blowout) than the popularity of the event. Even with its lowest viewership ever, it still had more than most NBA/MLB/Stanley Cup etc championships. And more than most non-US based sports---which are included on ITNR.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That helps a lot. It's obviously big in the USA. Just be careful with global comparisons on numbers of viewers. As already mentioned, cricket in India and Basketball in China obviously have huge audiences. And a BTW, I know what it is, but I reckon 99.9% of people in my country will have no idea what the Stanley Cup is. I suspect the same applies in India. The world's like that. Vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The Stanley Cup Finals were watched in numerous countries. In Canada alone, the final game averaged 8.5 million viewers, and over 18 million watched it at least in part. That, I would mention, is greater than half the population of the country. [30] The Rugby World Cup also has a far greater worldwide draw. Is the BCS championship one of the premier competitions in the world? No. Not even remotely close. It is doubtful that many outside of the US gives a damn. One of the premier in the United States? Absolutely. But there is no "anti-American" bias involved in the concept that single-nation sporting events that are not at the highest level of their sport is not worthy of ITN. As I said, the second most important tournament in Canada - the World Junior Hockey Championship (which obliterated attendance records at over 570,000 tickets sold) wasn't listed. It wasn't anti-Canadian (or anti-Swedish, since they won the gold) bias that led to that result. Balloonman - if you wish to initiate a discussion on changing the criteria for such things, feel free. But drop the invective. It is hard to take you seriously when you are playing the victim. Resolute 04:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the Stanley Cup has a better viewership in Canada than it does in the US. The viewership is still greater for the BCS championship... that 24.3 million is the average viewership. So 2 million US viewership + 8.5 million in Canada + 2 million elsewhere---still half the viewership of the BCS Championship.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Making up numbers isn't helping your cause any. That said, looking at the "home country" alone - Over 50% of Canada's population watched that game 7 in part, and a little under one-third watched it in its entirety. 24 million viewers in the US is well below 10% of your population. As a percentage of the nation watching, this game was comparable to the Gold Medal game of the World Junior Hockey Championship, which saw 600,000 Swedes watch that game despite the fact it was played in the middle of the night where they are rather than prime time. Resolute 04:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
And yet it is still the second most popular sporting event in the US... and it is the highest level of amateur (or jokingly semi-pro) football out there. The second most popular sport to almost half of EN.WIKIPEDIA? Per the link provided below, EN.WIKIPEDIA has almost half of the users from the US. And this is the second most popular sporting event to that half of users. Even those who don't watch the sport (ala my wife) are interested in this event. So, let's just assume that only the Americans are interested---that still means almost half the readers here would care. What about the World Junior Hockey Championship? Let's assume that 100% of Canadians and 100% of Swedes care, that's just 6.9%. I don't mean to be disparaging against Canada/Sweden, but from a baseline of interest for the readers of EN.WIKIPEDIA, it is obvious this should be included.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ironic that after all your complaints of a "anti-American bias", you are now insisting on a pro-American bias. Resolute 14:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not what I've pointed out. What I've pointed out is an argument for parity---almost 50% of the users on EN.Wikipedia are American. A major news story like this which is of interest to nearly 50% of Wikipedia's readership has to be included. Even if only 50% of Americans care, that's still 25% of Wikipedia's audience. No offense to the 11 people who died in a balloon crash, but how long is that going to be ITN? This is one of the premiere events. If it isn't on the main page, then it is a glaring omission.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 14:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The point is, that this is arguable one of the 2 or 3 biggest sporting events in the US---which is where about 40% of EN Wikipedia's users come from. Basketball may be huge in China, but what percentage of readers use EN.Wikipedia? How about India? Cricket may be huge there, but again, not as many users come to EN.wikipedia come from India. The fact that such a major news story from the American perspective could be omitted due to "it not being important enough" is simply laughable. Sorry, it is---and yet we get a news story about a hot air balloon ride that killed 11 ITN? I watch these pages, but I don't contribute here often---but failure to include this ITNR does nothing more than prove the notion that ITN has an anti-America bias.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Argumentum ad nauseum is not an effective debate technique. You keep complaining about "anti-American bias" as repeating it over and over and over again makes it true. I'm sorry that something you are truly passionate about wont get posted, but that's life. It's happened to me more than once. Resolute 04:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: If anyone wants to check out which countries view the English Wikipedia, see this. –HTD 04:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, so I under estimated the percentage of US involvement in EN.Wikipedia. 46% not 40%. So the second most popular sporting event to almost half of en wikipedia doesn't deserve mention?---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 04:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If this truly is the US' 2nd largest sporting event, it's a grave injustice that it's excluded while Ireland's 2 largest sporting events are included... and that includes all 0.7% of Wikipedia's audience. If we'd include 2 Irish events there should be like ~90 US events there lol –HTD 05:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not know this before, but this is an interesting factoid: The United States is unique in that eighteen of its twenty largest stadiums are home to a college team, not a professional one.
An interesting philosophical question. Should the USA have half the items on ITN because it has half the readership? Being just one country vs dozens of others would seem to render that inappropriate, but I'm not presenting a case here. Just thinking out loud. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple of similar questions are: Should the U.S. have the same proportion of ITNR items as Ireland, the smallest country that manages to have at least one domestic event on it? Should other countries that don't have listings in ITNR that have a larger audience than Ireland be given at least one? –HTD 05:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I would argue against it, because there are events that are notable that would be missed and not covered. But one of the principles of writing/editing is to know the audience. The audience of en.wikipedia is largely American---and this is one of those stories that appears on the cover of just about ever newspaper/magazine/news show etc in the US. It is one of those things that would be virtually impossible to be in America and not encounter. For Wikipedia not to include this in its ITN section, shows an utter misunderstanding/bias/or whatever you want to call it towards 46% of the people who are involved here.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
But, the consequence of that logic is that the USA SHOULD have half the items on ITN because it has half the readership. Maybe it should. It would save you a lot of effort. But let's make it official policy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That is NOT what I said. But the argument that something is solely of interest to the US is countered by this fact. The challenge comes in identifying those stories whose omission would be glaring. Omitting the winner of the BCS Championship is a glaring omission. I think that if you talked to non-sports fans in the US, they would be surprised that BCS Champion is not mentioned and yet a number of other events are.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
But that's back to simply opinion. Your "numbers of readers" theory is fact. But if those facts are relevant here, logic says it should always apply. You ARE saying that numbers of readers prevail over countries here. You have to believe that it should always apply, otherwise you're just an obsessed football fan. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh? You're once again ascribing reasoning that I've rejected and projecting motives without foundation. Should readership be taken into consideration? Yes. Should they rule? No. There is a difference between being a controlling factor and an influencing one. As for your hypothesis/projection... in order for me to be an "obsessed football fan" you would think that I would have made more than 100 edits on football articles in 5+ years. No, I'm here because this is an event where the ommission of the BCS Championship in the ITN section is a glaring omission---a joke.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Meh. I've been told before that there are too many people who don't really comprehend logic beyond its most simple form for me to expect it to always apply in a debate. That seems true here. I surrender. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just like old times... you don't understand somebody elses position... so you resort to personal attacks. Oh I should note, this "obsessed football fan" did not watch the game... hasn't watched a college game in over 2 years... and only watched a handful of pro games.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 13:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Could I suggest that everyone involved in this debate should observe WP:STICK at this point? The 'discussion' is no longer helpful. Modest Genius talk 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(I just did! Didn't you notice?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There was an Aussie on each team: international enough for me. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty poor argument for it being international, and that's not one of the criteria anyway. Modest Genius talk 15:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. If some admin think he can bully his way across a nomination by insulting everyone else and calling them "anti-Americans", he's wrong. I can't believe how far fundamental standards of civility and mutual respect have fallen in the last few years. And I can't believe that someone who thinks the "fourth or fifth most popular event in the U.S." somehow merits automatic inclusion on ITN is accusing us of being biased. You've got to be kidding me. Simply because Americans form the largest audience on Wikipedia does not mean that we have to give significantly more consideration to American events. ITN is not a provider for interesting news; when we evaluate a nomination, we look at long-term significance and encyclopaedic potential (where we can write about it in an encyclopaedic way, rather than simply reporting the news). This event does not have either; therefore it would take an extraordinary amount of interest for us to include it. Being only the "fourth or fifth" most popular event in the U.S. means that it shouldn't even merit consideration. End of story. JimSukwutput 13:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"ITN is not a provider for interesting news" eh...
From WP:ITN#Purpose: To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them
HTD 14:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me rephrase what I meant - ITN is not solely intended as a source of interesting news for Wikipedia readers. It's a very giant leap from "pointing readers to interesting subjects" to "being obligated to report every recent event that might be of interest to its audience." JimSukwutput 07:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Doomsday Clock moved one minute towards midnight

The editorial board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has declared that the Doomsday Clock has been moved one minute closer to "midnight" — global disaster — on account of the lack of global political action with regards to a number of eminent threats. (Or something like that.) --Mr.98 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (but willing to be swayed) — I'm not convinced we need to be putting it up every time the clock changes. This is about the fourth or fifth time it's moved in the last year or so. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 09:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope, the last time it was changed was in 2010. This isn't a common thing. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A claim of dubious nature made by an alarmist magazine does not newsworthiness make.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose - nothing more then a claim.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Back when this was a serious attempt to measure the danger of nuclear war by actual "Atomic Scientists", I would possibly consider supporting such a nomination. Today, the Doomsday Clock is maintained by non-scientists (including activists) and is no more than populist, sensationalist nonsense, much of which is completely opposite to scientific consensus (such as the hogwash about the danger of nuclear energy, rants about the "exploitation" of nuclear workers by free markets, and unsubstantiated diatribes against the supposed dangers of "GM foods".) JimSukwutput 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not sure what your sources are, and what do you mean by non-scientists (Leon M. Lederman ?, James Hansen?), but my reading was that the process involved in deciding the time is a serious one, overseen by a venerable board of scientists, Nobel laureates and others. I can't find anything in the announcement about "GM foods" either. --Elekhh (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • There are a few notable scientists guiding its reports on climate change, and what they're doing does follow scientific consensus; I have absolutely no problem with that. I was merely pointing out that there's a significant number of political scientists, marxist historians and activists masquerading as "atomic scientists" on the board, something that seriously diminishes the credibility of its work. JimSukwutput 14:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
        • That still seems to be your very own opinion, not supported by evidence: I can't find anybody described as activist among the authors. More importantly, I find it obvious that nuclear risk has not only to do with physics (nuclear energy on its own) but also with society and politics (i.e. how is nuclear energy handled), so an interdisciplinary group including social and political scientists appears to me as far better qualified to assess such risk, than a group of narrowly focused atomic physicists. --Elekhh (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
          • How utterly naive. Let me quote one of the articles published on the bulletin: ""The attitudes of those working in the life sciences contrast sharply with the nuclear community...Many neglect thinking about the potential risks of their work."" This article was written by an anthropologist, much of whose work are unabashed attacks on scientists. When you see this kind of interdisciplinary rivalry being endorsed by the Bulletin, do you really claim that the group is "interdisciplinary" in any way? Oh god bless those hapless nuclear scientists, who've been bought out by the big corporations and the evil U.S. government! Only anthropologists can truly understand the risk of nuclear energy!
          • Oh, and yes of course this is my opinion. Just as everything I've ever written on WP:ITN/C is my opinion. What an utterly useless comment. JimSukwutput 12:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Wow, beautifully taken out of context and misinterpreted. --Elekhh (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For every reason put forward. This is a curiosity, but not a front page story doktorb wordsdeeds 23:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too subjective on its own. Beyond495 (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 9

[Posted] Death of Malam Bacai Sanhá

President of Guinea-Bissau, Malam Bacai Sanhá dies in office at age 64. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, a death of a current office holder is ITNR. The article would benefit of some more update, though. --Tone 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
its not ITNR, i tried something about a death criteria at talk there but it was rejected.
Also theres not a chance in hell of this going up with the update that there is. Currently reading that he died today with a source that just quotes a headline.
UPDATE article is lookingmuch better now, but only relis on 1 source for the section on death (Excluding illness). Another source or 2 would make it ready for posting i think)Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • support - current office holders death is always for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The update is good now. Can I get some more feedback before posting? --Tone 09:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me like a sufficient update.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Support in principle on significance grounds, but I would rather see more than just the one reference in the updated material. Surely there are multiple news sources covering this? Modest Genius talk 16:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Added two more references. I checked a little, the ones used in the first place were apparently the most detailed. Posting. --Tone 19:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials

A verdict in the sodomy trial of Malaysia's opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim will be handed down today: [31]. I suggest the following blurb:

Posting it here a few hours early to see if we can have something ready to go when the verdict is handed down. I think it will be ITN-worthy whichever way it goes. There's already international coverage in anticipation of today's events. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Leaning support I'm comfortable presuming that there will be an update, although given that it is a political story I'd have expected to see more about this than I have to date in my part of the world. Nonetheless, given the historical back-story I'm confident coverage will come when the verdict does. I support the nominator in putting this up for discussion early, in light of how long it has taken recent stories to get from nomination to Main Page. —WFC— 22:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Follow-up: I'd say that I weakly support in light of the acquittal; the coverage is still pretty international. I do however note that the update is pretty skimpy given the information that's out there. —WFC— 06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if the article gets updated adequately. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There should be a bit more there in the update now. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, this is a massive story in southeast Asia and certainly if this were in any major Western or even Arab power (opposition leader cleared of politically-motivated sex charges) it would receive much more attention that it currently is doing on ITNC. Article seems decent. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Major political news; A lot of buzz throughout the asian region. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - this is definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Ready to post. However, I feel the blurb could be better, any suggestions? Also, do you think that sodomy should be linked? --Tone 13:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think sodomy is a well-enough understood word that we don't need to link to it. But I don't care much either way. I think its time this went up... --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 20:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Line 8, 9, and 15 of the Beijing Subway

Article: Beijing Subway (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Beijing Subway expands with the opening of Line 9 and the extension of Line 8 and Line 15. (Post)
News source(s): China Daily

Nominator's comments: On January 1, 2011, we posted the opening of the Changping, Fangshan, and Yizhuang lines of the Beijing Subway on ITN. This year saw another significant expansion of the system on New Year's Day: Line 9, Line 15, and Line 8. This amounts to 36 km more tracks, and 19 brand new Subway stations in operation. In addition, although this milestone is not mentioned in English-language media, the new addition of tracks now makes Beijing Subway the third-longest system in the world, surpassing the New York City Subway for the first time. Last year during the ITN post, we discussed the dearth of infrastructure coverage on WP's ITN. With that in mind I submit this blurb. --Colipon+(Talk) 15:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose — if this occurred on New Year's Day, this is hardly news any more, especially as it is (unlike the South Sudan clashes) not ongoing. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec) Leaning towards oppose. The last time, the 3 new lines represented a 50% increase of the track length while this time it is significantly less. Would support if the expansion made it the largest system in the World, but I guess it won't catch the Shanghai metro at this rate. --Tone 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak support in principle. I thought about this for a while, and was concerned that if there was a similar extension to the underground systems in e.g. London, Paris or New York, we would post that. But the new line is (currently) fairly short, and as the nominator noted these sorts of expansion are happening every year in Beijing. Then again it IS a minority topic. But unfortunately the event happened on 1 Jan, so this is now stale and couldn't go on the template anyway. Modest Genius talk 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Amir Mirza Hekmati

United States citizen and alleged CIA operative Amir Mirza Hekmati is sentenced to death by Iran for spying. DarthBotto talkcont 08:15, 09 January 2012 (UTC)

January 8

January 7

[Posted] 2012 Carterton hot air balloon crash

11 people were killed. The deadliest air disaster in New Zealand since November 1979. Support as the nominator. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support air balloon crashed don't get bigger than this, sadly. --Nutthida (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Unfortunately, this was the second deadliest hot air balloon accident on record. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because it was a complex accident and because it is a compelling human interest story. Also there's nothing else in the news. Article has a picture of the balloon involved. Speciate (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, 2nd deadliest balloon accident ever. Image is on a FUR so won't be useable. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because it's a very unusual sort of accident and surely an unexpected event.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support get it on there. A decent article exists and it's a notable and newsworthy event per many of the explanations above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FBI Rape Definition

Article: Rape in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The FBI updates it's definition of rape for the first time in 83 years to include men and non-forcible rape. (Post)
News source(s):

 -- (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. As far as I can tell, this is just a change in a definition of crime as used by a particular law enforcement agency, and doesn't actually change the law. And even if it did, I'm not convinced this would be significant enough anyway. (oh and this is certainly no more unpleasant than the suicide bombings and murder trials which are already on the template) Modest Genius talk 15:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Neutral for now - it's something that has been pushed for for years, but this doesn't actually change any laws. I believe this is the definition of rape they use for statistical purposes. So significant in its own right, but I'm not sure if it's significant enough. Swarm X 02:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unless I am not reading this correctly, this is just the the FBI updating the definition it uses for statistics collection and nothing more as per the BBC link "The new definition will increase the number of people counted as rape victims in FBI statistics, but it will not change federal or state laws." then this is not that much of a deal in real terms. Mtking (edits) 03:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Barely covered in the news. Definitions change all the time. WikifanBe nice 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 6

2012 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships

Nominator's comments: World Championship/international sports event --Bruzaholm (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak oppose Oppose. Although I'm a big hockey fan myself, I don't think we can justify posting a youth tournament. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose. teenager championship that happend every year is not a big sport news.--Feroang (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. Youth tournament or not, it is still held to very high regard on the international stage. This is a big competition, especially between Canada, USA, and Russia. There is no World Seniors Tournament that I am aware of. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The Ice Hockey World Championships are held every year, and every four years the Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. Both are on WP:ITNR. Modest Genius talk 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a hockey geek, so I support, naturally. Would it help to note that it was Sweden's first championship at this tournament in 31 years? Resolute 17:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the most honest posts here. Pure POV, but even honest about that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose I know we're slow on news and I can see how important it is held by supporters but...I don't think there's much weight behind a minority event doktorb wordsdeeds 18:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Support In many parts of the world this is the international event of the year for hockey. Even though it is the junior version it tends to be more followed in some parts of the world than the senior event. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a junior event -- do we ever post them? -- and the sport is already well enough represented at ITN/R. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Junior or senior does not matter when we speak about ice hockey. Both are notable events. ♫GoP♫TCN 19:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Junior or senior makes no difference? That's the most wrong post I've seen today. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No HiLo user has just as much right as you to express their views. So chill.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Supporters need to provide sources that show that this youth tourney is anything other than a boring game played by children. Speciate (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • How about 6000 Google News hits from the past two days alone? Is that enough? -- Scorpion0422 20:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • [32]♫GoP♫TCN 20:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      The hits I see there are hockey sites not significant newspapers. Going today (just for an example) to the Washington Post's sports section, I cannot see any coverage at all. There is the latest NHL news, but nothing on this event. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Wait... Canada's largest newspaper is not a significant newspaper (and I see lots of other newspapers in there... Mostly Canadian, but that doesn't matter)? Still, let's not get pulled into the "blank is/isn't covering it" debate. My point is that there is a lot of interest in the tournament. -- Scorpion0422 22:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - If we post results from other sports events such as Rugby, cricket etc etc with much less overall global appeal then we can certainly post this too.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you counted cricket fans lately? You can start with 1.3 billion in India..... (Oh, and I would be surprised if there are any ice rinks at all there. So, that's 1.3 billion people who don't give a rat's about ice hockey.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Have you counted cricket fans lately HiLo48? You can personally vouch for the entire population of India? Maybe there is just one who doesn't give a flying fuck about cricket? Maybe only 1.299999999 billion people in India care, and the other one can be counted among 307 million Americans, 141 million Russians, 34 million Canadians and I don't know how many Fins, Swedes, Ukrainians, Danes, etc who care a good deal about hockey. We posted some celebrity football pageant in Japan, even though it wasn't on ITN/R. This event broke attendance records, and six different bids were placed just to host it. Did you even read the article? Or did you simply see "junior hockey" and proceed to berate anyone who supported the nomination? -- (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment How many youth versions of those sports have we posted in the past? I would wager none. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesnt matter. You see, we post news on sports that have less overall global appeal almost every month from the sports mentioned above. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I cannot perceive of any circumstance where an age-restricted sports event should appear here. There are FIFA U20 and U17 World cups in alternate years, and these events, in a far more internationally important sport, have never been on ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If memory serves, the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics were covered on the main page. We can hardly help it if the U20 or U17 World Cups don't make ITN (though in all fairness, I think they should). But in this case, the World Juniors is the second largest annual international hockey tournament, and in some areas its coverage rivals the largest (the Ice Hockey World Championships), so it's not like it's some minor tournament. -- Scorpion0422 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support it's garnered a fair amount of attention, including more than some of the ITNR crap we post. Hot Stop UTC 05:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
How well positioned are you to truly judge that? I just did a search at our major media sources here in Australia. Nothing. Not a sausage. Now, because US news is so readily available to our networks, we get masses of it, mostly quite irrelevant to our daily lives, but that doesn't say much about this event. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken to assume that ice hockey is "U.S. news." The article has seen plenty of views at the duration of the event. It's a fair bet they're not Americans... maybe Canadians? –HTD 10:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I assumed nothing about the USA. That was just the route by which I would have expected Australia to get this news, like we get lots of other international stuff. And we didn't. We do get American Football news, for example, which isn't played here at all. But no Junior Ice Hockey. Sorry my explanation wasn't clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That's because you don't go to U.S. news for ice hockey news, just as you'd not go to Aussie news for the latest news on American football... which was my point. –HTD 12:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you've still completely missed my point. We still got zero news on this event in Australia, a country obsessed with sport. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, with 9 teams and a 12 year history, the Australian Ice Hockey League clearly demonstrates how the public is clamoring for more hockey down under. -- (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if updated. It needs a referenced paragraph-long summary of the final and preferably some text of the stages up to the final. It's a world title. Hockey of all forms is huge in Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia and other places. It may be a bit below are usual standards but it's really slow for news right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Another garbage post. (I've been told to not call such posts "dumb"). It's a JUNIOR world title. That's the issue. We don't post them. Haven't you realised that yet? HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We get that you don't think much of a JUNIOR tournament (that drew a half million spectators), but the only posts that are garbage here are yours. Grow up. Resolute 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to have to point this out to you, but it's not just me. The sole opposition to posting this, from many editors now, is that it's a junior tournament. For User:Johnsemlak to post if if it wasn't a junior tournament was just plain silly. That I sometimes write my comments a little more firmly when I see silliness like that is purely in the interest of getting other editors to actually think before they post. That is not garbage. It's aiming for a higher standard of discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yea, SHOUTING really encourage civil discussions. So does rehashing the same arguments. And attacking people for a perceived US bias for supporting a nomination involving Sweden and Canada. Hot Stop UTC 22:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing in that post that improves the quality of this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am quite aware of the vote and everyone's rationales, thanks. I have no issue with people opposing (or supporting). The issue is your behaviour. Specifically, calling people's positions "garbage" for the sole reason that you disagree with them. Also, using the fact that you were told not to call people's opinions "dumb" as a means to do exactly that in a backhanded way did not go unnoticed either. Oppose all you want - we both knew from the start this would not get posted. But consider this a warning: further comments designed to belittle or run down other editors may result in a block. Resolute 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
And yet again, an inaccurate post. I am not "calling people's positions "garbage" for the sole reason that (I) disagree with them." I'm doing it because they are demanding something unreasonable, and have explained very well, along with every other Opposer here, why it is unreasonable. That people still keep wanting to post this without negating the extremely sound and multiply stated Opposition reason shows a very low quality of discussion. I care too much about Wikipedia to not call people on that. My goal is simply to make this a better place. If you're more concerned about niceness than logic, we have a problem here. How about also condemning the repeated ignoring of the logic of ALL the Opposers? That's actually quite insulting behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Because there is no reason to condemn them for their position. You have your argument, I had mine, others have theirs, and an admin will judge the consensus. If you trusted your logic, you wouldn't be so anxious to shout down anyone who disagrees with you. Like I said, I never expected this would get posted (especially not as the blurb was presented), but your attitude is not making this a better place. Resolute 01:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hilo there is no justification for calling other editors' contributions to Wikipedia 'garbage', or 'dumb' as you've done earlier.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
HiLo claims that the sport is not enough notable, while at the same time the user is spending alot of time condemning anyone who think it is notable. I think HiLO needs to chill and learn that opposing views is OK and is not a reason to go overboard with the comments.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A junior tournament? Not unless nothing else--and I DO mean nothing else--happens today. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ice hockey is a very popular sport, but it doesn't mean we should post every particular tournament. Posting the conclusion of ice hockey U-20 tournament compared to football equals posting of all U-World Cups. If I should choose after the senior World Cups and the NHL, my first choice without doubt would be to post the conclusion of KHL.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Modest Genius talk 19:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Syria suicide bombing

Article: January 2012 al-Midan bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Syrian officials report a suicide bombing in Damascus, killing 26 and wounding over 60. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, BBC

Article needs updating

 --NW (Talk) 14:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree that it needs its own article, and I certainly support mentioning this on ITN. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think the blurb should mention that the state-controlled media are announcing this. Something like 'State media in Syria announces a suicide bomb killing up to 26 people has detonated in Damascus.' It's not great, but better than the current, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Amended blurb per request. AP has apparently interviewed named witnesses, confirming the suicide bombing. The only problem is the death toll, which for now cannot be verified by independent observers. Source. I can create an article. WikifanBe nice 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
cleaned it up, but someone needs to add to the background section (copy+paste from prev bombing article?) and add to the domestic reactions beyond the lead.Lihaas (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - new horrible development of the Syrian conflict - suicide bombing.Oleg-ch (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Swarm X 02:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

January 5

[Ready] Iraqi bombings

Article: 5 January 2012 Iraq bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 73 people are killed in a series of attacks in sectarian violence in Iraq. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera

 --NW (Talk) 14:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - First series of bombings in Iraq during 2012. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 16:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support — Very significant news, should be mentioned on the main page. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very tragic. WikifanBe nice 22:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:Consensus is not vote counitng. Because its tragic (as is other news) is not notable. (sure it maybe notable, but not under such reason)Lihaas (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, I think he was just commenting on the depravity of the situation and did not intend for it to be interpreted as his rationale for supporting inclusion on ITN. Wikifan12345 has been active here for a long time, which would lead me to assume that he's aware of how consensus is judged on Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Not commenting to you ;) and based on the 2nd part, its all the more reason to give a reasonLihaas (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment didn't we just post some Iraqi bombings? -- (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Baluarte Bridge

Article: Baluarte Bridge (talk, history)
Blurb: Baluarte Bridge, the highest cable-stayed bridge in the world, is inaugurated in Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The Age

 --Tone 08:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Both the bridge article and List of tallest bridges in the world need to be updated (the bridge expanded, as well), but this is a nice engineering story to feature on ITN. --Tone 08:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some refinement is needed here. The article Baluarte Bridge says "...the Baluarte Bridge is one of the highest bridges in the world." This nomination says just plain "tallest". What is it? HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the difference is that one is about the height of the pylons and the other about the elevation. For example, Millau Viaduct is now the second tallest and the 12th highest. In any case, much work is needed before this one is good to go. --Tone 09:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak support in principle, but the article needs significant work before it can be posted. Oh and 'highest' isn't related to the elevation, it's the maximum clearance between the deck and the ground (or water) below. Modest Genius talk 12:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to be the highest cable-stayed bridge in the world. According to the List of highest bridges in the world, Si Du River Bridge is higher but is suspension bridge not cable-stayed. GreyHood Talk 12:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support impressive structure, and would help balance the perennial disaster/deaths bias with something constructive. Updated the blurb to be more accurate. --Elekhh (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd really like to post this, as a new posting is long overdue and this isn't a bombing, but the article really needs to be updated. I also think because the bridge is not completed, it probably shouldn't be posted at all, if there were better options. Prodego talk 08:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the article and nominated it for DYK, which might be a better alternative. Prioryman (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
DYK is a good idea. Now the article is in a great shape. We can still consider posting it when it's open for traffic. --Tone 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. I'll bring it back here when it's been opened. Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

First Chimeric Monkey

Article: Chimera (genetics) (talk, history)
Blurb: U.S. researchers created the world's first chimeric monkeys. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

 -- (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support iff a suitable article and update is provided. A significant advance in genetics. Modest Genius talk 16:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - If updates is provided --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - If updated. Makes a change from the usual deaths and elections that usually grace ITN. -- (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

January 4

January 3

[Posted] New President of the Marshall Islands

Articles: Marshall Islands presidential election, 2012 (talk, history) and Christopher Loeak (talk, history)
Blurb: Christopher Loeak is elected president of the Marshall Islands (Post)
News source(s): [33] [34]

One or both nominated events are 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.

 --Coasttocoast (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an article on the election? thats the itnr postings.Lihaas (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Would support if the article existed and the president's article was considerably longer. --Tone 12:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The nominator doesn't appear to be very active, so I don't see this getting posted unless someone here has a go at the article. It's a pretty unsurprising appointment anyway. The parliamentary election article is here, although Loeak's article is probably better suited. Nightw 13:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have significantly expanded Loeak's article - Dumelow (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Neat, i just added sections and cleaned the refs.
Also Marshall Islands presidential election, 2012 was created today.Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! Good to go? --Tone 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The election article is too short to bold-link. But if the Loeak article is bolded, that should be OK. Modest Genius talk 10:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was the idea. Posting. --Tone 10:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not saying that the item should be removed, but Christopher_Loeak#President is as bare-bones as it gets. Does someone want to add a little more information? SpencerT♦C 00:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove. Immediately. I haven't posted here in a while but -- is this a joke? ITN is supposed to feature quality content. This article has, what, 50 words? The idea behind ITN should not be to come up with a "news" event that you personally find interesting or important that is so obscure that no one has bothered to make an article for it, and then put a few sentences together. The idea should be to find quality, recently updated articles on subjects that are getting a lot of interest and media attention, such as Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Please, you and I both know that the Iowa Republican caucus has no chance in hell in being posted, even though it was on newscasts oceans away from Iowa, right? –HTD
      • Exactly. Anyway, let's save that discussion for another day and take down this other thing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I dunno but the current version of the Loeak article looks good enough for the much maligned DYK section so it's good enough for ITN. –HTD 06:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove. I must agree wholeheartedly with Mwalcoff. The bolded article is not suitable for ITN. The standard for a new article is three well referenced paragraphs. This article falls well short.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly the reason why the president's article is bolded, not the election one. That one is long enough per standards. --Tone 11:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Tone, excuse me. I mistakenly referred to the link bolded in the nomination. Sorry.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Of course I wouldn't post that one. --Tone 13:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The president's article is 6 paragraphs long, not including the one-sentence intro, has 5 sources and has only been updated with one sentence. I'm sure there are many other current events we can feature that have better content. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's long enough. For new articles/articles built from virtually nothing the ITN requirements aren't that enforced. The fact that there are other better articles is irrelevant. –HTD 02:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Two people have been convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence

Article: Murder of Stephen Lawrence (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two people are convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the crime that led to a landmark change in UK double jeopardy law. (Post)
News source(s): [35]

 -- (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support (as nominator). This is one of the most high-profile murder cases in UK history. -- (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd be willing to support this on notability grounds: given that the British laws on double jeopardy were altered, the MacPherson inquiry was set up, and other surrounding controversies were a direct consequence of this case the notability criteria must surely be fulfilled. However, there is nowhere near a minimal update at this time, so little to consider in terms of an ITN posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
mention the UK (or an article pertaining to the law./justice in the uk) as its notability for precedence was in the UL.Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Highly notable in both Law, Racism, trials and social aspects. --Nutthida (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
highly notable, but still regional not global.Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Being 'global' is not a requirement. And interest in this case certainly extends beyond the UK. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. The case introduced the concept of "institutional racism" as (I *believe*) it is currently understood internationally. And the introduction of double jeopardy in England and Wales is surely of interest to many people who don't actually live there. I'd like to see a better article, though not as a requirement for posting. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Not just notable in London but the whole UK, and importantly the high-profile nature of its consequences should be of relevance and interest to others. A highly controversial case which deals with the criminal justice system, racism and policing. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak support due to the legal and social significance of the case, though the convictions actually make very little difference to that - those things have already happened. I'm not convinced by the blurb, which should probably mention the inquiry. No time to draft an alternative though. Modest Genius talk 10:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • support - definitly a important judgement.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The proposed blurb is too long. Also, Dobson and Norris apparently do not have separate articles, do we then need to mention the names on the Main page? Seems to me that the important fact here is that the trial was brought to an end. --Tone 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've shortened the blurb. This is my first time nominating an article, I hope it looks alright now. -- (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Can we make the blurb one sentence? SpencerT♦C 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I tried to merge it but I'm not thrilled about "bringing about". SpencerT♦C 00:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The change in law was not brought about by this trial but by the original murder, so the blurb is inaccurate right now. How about '18 years after the original crime and following a landmark change in UK criminal law, two people are convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.'?? -- (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion: "Two people are convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the crime that led to a change in UK double jeopardy law." —WFC— 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that blurb misses the elephant in the room. Well, at least, the way the BBC has reported on it, they've said that the police force was found to be fundamentally racist in the subsequent inquiry, with the initial investigation so bad that the first trial completely fell apart, and that the police force is much more sensitive toward racial issues. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no separate article on the Macpherson inquiry (that redirects to a section of the murder article), so we might be better off letting readers find that out in the article. Otherwise the blurb will be far too long. And the term is 'institutionally racist'. Modest Genius talk 11:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've updated the blurb to something short and sweet suggested by WFC. This case has too many facets to include them all. The blurb gives a taster of what the reader can learn about when they click on the article. Surely this is ready to post now?? -- (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2

Death of Kiro Gligorov

The first president of the Republic of Macedonia dies at age 94. Support as nominator, was president between 1991-1999. Guardian - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is quite ok, though the update needs to be a bit longer. Support in principle. --Tone 15:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Firstly I was ready to oppose this and that's the reason why I did not nominate it by myself, but I got really surprised with the circulation of this news and the tribute given to him not only in Macedonia. However, the article is in poor shape and should be substantially improved until this gets posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
cleaned it up, but the death section needs expansion...perhaps with the reactionbs. As in Fadlallah's death that i added to.Lihaas (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 1

[Withdrawn] 2011 Los Angeles arson spree

I am withdrawing the nomination because:
1. My article is probably going to stay a redirect
2. The other article is a mess beyond repair
3. The nomination is getting shot down (although it seemed to me it was a battle about how US centric ITN is)
BCS (Talk) 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2011 Los Angeles arson spree (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The arsonist that caused 55 fires in California, costing $2 million dollars in damage, is arrested. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated
 BCS (Talk) 05:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No significance whatsoever - no injuries, barely any property damage. Thousands of wildfires occur every year around the globe, many of them natural and essential to ecosystems. Even if arson is responsible here, that does not make it any more than a routine crime. Nominations like this are what gives ammunition to our resident "U.S.-centrism" trolls. JimSukwutput 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC) A combination of negligence and confusion led me to believe that this had something to do with wildfires. It doesn't. Still, my opinion remains that crimes with no casualties and relatively trivial economic damages are not for ITN. JimSukwutput 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
It is probably a couple million dollars damage BCS (Talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose I agree with Jim. Nothing here is notable. Fires in California happen all the time. We should consider this only if this incident grows into unprecedented levels of disaster (and I hope to God they don't). doktorb wordsdeeds 09:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I don't care if this gets posted or not, but it appears necessary to point out that these fires have nothing to do with wildfires. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor story of local interest only. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I live in New Jersey and this was on the front page of the newspaper. This was one of the first stories on the TV news. On CNN, (national news) this was the first story. This is getting coverage everywhere in America. BCS (Talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Explanation - The proposing author did a terrible job of explaining the underlying story. Over the last three days, an arsonist (presumed to be a single person) has set at least 39 fires, mostly in cars, around the city of Los Angeles. It is the most significant spree of arson to hit LA since the 1992 riots, and has resulted in at least $1 million worth of property damage, though so far there have been no injuries. Dragons flight (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A terrible job, eh? Fine. Change the article yourself. The reason I wrote this was because there was no article about it. BCS (Talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pretty sure we wouldn't post it if it happened in, say, Hong Kong. Local story. HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
But in Hong Kong there would be more deaths and more damage... BCS (Talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
If there were 55 fires in Ireland and they were arson, people would be bitching here already on why it's still not posted. :P –HTD 04:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now that we know the actual story....I still oppose. The amount of damage is terrible for those people living there but it still strikes me as an isolated, local story which is not remarkable enough for front page inclusion doktorb wordsdeeds 11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For all of you saying "local news" this story goes across america... Just because you haven't heard it in your local news, doesn't mean it's not ITN-worthy. I had only heard about the Kim Jong-un blurb before I looked at ITN today. News doesn't travel alot over borders. Go to Google News. As I am typing this it is the second story on the page, and was the first yesterday. People have said it makes the second biggest city in the US "feel something like a war zone." And is that not worthy enough for you? Is that more important than Samoa and Tokelau moving over the date line? BCS (Talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You really can't compare those two events. That's something totally different, also, changes of time zones happen really rarely. Regarding this one, I'd suggest waiting a bit because not much is known at this point. --Tone 15:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. But arson to this extent is also rare. Everything is known except the arsonist, but I think that the police have him. Here's an article about him BCS (Talk) 16:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment the "local interest only story" argument is as offensive as it is stale. I don't give a good god damn about Jamaican elections, the security council, dead authors or Christmas Day bombings. Arson sprees don't happen every day. List 5 others, anywhere, in the last 12 months? Anyone? I don't care if it's in LA or Hong Kong or Madrid or Kolkata, 21 fires within 5 hours is news. I would change to support but the article is very weak. Needs a table listing all the fires and what kind of property (car, home, apartment, garbage can, etc). The same stale old arguments against, however, are paper thin. -- (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC) (Stop China Now).
When was the last similar incident in Kolkata? Don't know? Then you're talking garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment it is of only local interest (In terms of being American, not just Californian) - Point out to me where it is a major headline on an international news source, tbh. (I tell a lie, it was just on BBC news) However, that is not a reason to exclude it from ITN - if it's notable in its field, for instance. I think it could be. It's certainly not like the fire outside of Austin this summer - that made headlines there - where some homeless guy started a huge blaze when he was trying to cook some eggs. --Nutthida (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to I'm sorry, but did you even bother to read my post? I made it very clear it being localized and mostly (only was a bad choice of words) US-based, with only minor coverage outside the US. I did not say it was a reason to exclude it from ITN - which isn't what we're discussing here? And about the Homeless man who started a fire, that was HUGE, and in the wider-US News - and I was NOT making a comparison between the two, I casually mentioned how much news coverage that got - READ - 2011 Texas wildfires Christ, maybe you should actually pay attention to when someone is mutually supporting you? >:( (Oh yeah, I noted notable in its FIELD, as in unusual, compared to the accidental fire caused by that homeless guy - It's irrelevant as to how the fires started, Bum or not, they were sugnigicant and the start of a bad fire season for Texas - being unusual, unheard of, ect ect = ITN? Maybe? O_O) --Nutthida (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's from a variety of sources from english speaking countries:
Canada-The Mark
South Africa-iol
How about these? (I got a laugh from that story ;P) BCS (Talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Article says "The fires are believed to be arson. There have been no reported injuries. The amount of damage is currently unknown". Not very convincing ITN material... at least wait till the suspect is confirmed and see what happens. Even then without any injuries i doubt this would make it. -- Ashish-g55 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is arson, and the amount damage probably won't be known for days. ITN is not a death contest. Because an event has no deaths doesn't mean anything. BCS (Talk) 21:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
An event such as arson without deaths or even injury does lower notability by quite a bit, that should be common sense. If damage was ridiculously high or someone important was involved then we can assess but that wont be known for days as you say... so whats really notable here. -- Ashish-g55 22:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the biggest story in the US right now... and being covered in almost every newspaper and web news site in the US and also a few mentions in other countries. See above. BCS (Talk) 22:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Because of its domination of western culture, US news also dominates. Material on events in the US is always available to foreign news services. The opposite isn't true. And is this really bigger than the Republican caucuses? (I would actually hope it was.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Picayune. The Tom (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Au Contraire. This is a big event in the US, getting coverage in other countries, too. BCS (Talk) 22:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Then why are you the only person substantively contributing to a Wikipedia article about it? The Tom (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
There are two reasons: 1: The article is an orphan (working on it) 2:The media doesn't keep a consistent name. I thought of a ton of names before deciding on "2011 Southern California fires"... which got moved. I googled various things, and the best I got was 7th result on the page for typing "2011 Los Angeles arson". Also, I'm not the only one anymore; more people are contributing. BCS (Talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lots of reports about it due to an otherwise-quiet holiday weekend, but it's history as of Monday morning. No injuries, and the only damage of note is that a house burned down that someone famous lived in almost 50 years ago. This isn't the biggest story in the US, by far—that would be the Iowa caucuses. DoriTalkContribs 00:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I said 'big' not 'biggest' but you are right... and probably shouldn't talk about Jim Morrison that way! That man is a legend... BCS (Talk) 02:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Diff: biggest. And no disrespect from me for either the Lizard King or the house on Love Street. DoriTalkContribs 02:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Article is not stable, the article is a redirect now (after no discussion) and the whole mess is at AfD but should probably be at AN/I. I am considering withdrawing a nomination but here is what is known about the attacks themselves: The arsonist was arrested, probably no more fires, $2 mil in damage, this is a big story in LA and on national news but is starting to fade away from the spotlight... BCS (Talk) 02:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The fact that it's fading away from the spotlight so quickly, despite the fact that it's an ongoing event, should tell you much about its notability. I don't blame you, since this is probably your first nomination, but this event is really far, far below standard significance relative to what we usually put up. JimSukwutput 10:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually my first DYK was about a Colombian landslide in November and I thought this was more notable than the other one... This is fading because the Iowa Caucuses are today, and there is no clear front-runner... BCS (Talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I see there's an article about wildfires in Chile in the Current Events. I guess that's more important, because it isn't happening in the US. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
But how can Chile have fires? It's so "Chile" ;) er, I don't think so - what's that to do with...ITN anyway? Wait? Of course, current events, durrr, =.= --Nutthida (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I will withdraw if the mess isn't figured out by tomorrow at this time. BCS (Talk) 03:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article as linked in the header is now a redirect to 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks, the version as of now is totally unacceptable to be linked to from the main page. The page is ripe for WP:AfD under WP:NOTNEWS as it fails to explain the lasting significance of this event. Mtking (edits) 03:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That AfD (if you can call it that) was more a request to merge rather than testing for policy adherence, unless something major happens and this turns into a significant event then it is going back there at some point. Mtking (edits) 05:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Hockney appointed to the Order of Merit

Articles: David Hockney (talk, history) and John Howard (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Artist David Hockney and former Australian prime minister John Howard are appointed to the Order of Merit by Queen Elizabeth II in the New Year Honours. (Post)
News source(s):

Article needs updating

 --FormerIP (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support ...I guess. This IS news. Two VERY different appointments. While never a fan of John Howard's, this will stoke the fading fires over his Prime Ministership, and because of the controversy, may even help the Republican cause in Australia. The Age tells us that the award "is to be given to such persons, subjects of Our Crown, as may have rendered exceptionally meritorious services in Our Crown Services or towards the advancement of the Arts, Learning, Literature, and Science or such other exceptional service as We are fit to recognise." So, Hockney got it for his services to the arts, and Howard for having "rendered exceptionally meritorious services in Our Crown Services". It wouldn't have been in the other fields. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I guess I agree with HiLo48, the article has 2 very appointments. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support David Hockney turned down a knighthood some years ago, so this is of interest and is notable. I agree that the appointments are interesting and as a 'curiosity' fits well with ITN criteria doktorb wordsdeeds 09:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I simply don't believe that the award, which is relevant only to a very small minority of countries worldwide, and anyway commands no power, only prestige to individuals, is sufficiently notable to be mentioned here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
If I was to oppose the 2011 Los Angeles arson spree above with the comment "is relevant only to a very small minority of states in only one country" would that be an acceptable oppose ? I think not. Mtking (edits) 02:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I believe we never post such appointments. --Tone 14:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
They're very rare. When was the last one we didn't post? HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If I'm correct, the last time we didn't post it was Neil MacGregor in 2010 and last year there was no award. Also, since 2000, there were 15 appointments, therefore it's not that rare in fact. --Tone 08:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith but, given that there's only supposed to be 24 living recipients at any one time, that's very surprising. How did it come about? HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the archives, I don't find any nominations related to the recent appointments of the order. On the other hand, it is sometimes cited as a notability proof when posting deaths of individuals. In comparison, do we post any other comparable appointments? And what would those be? Maybe becoming a member of Académie française, there are always only 40 members. We never post those. --Tone 12:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor award. agree with Tone.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting comment. It's about as high as you can go in the Imperial Honours System. (That's explained right at the top.) Did you really mean to say that the Imperial Honours System is a minor system? HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose What about the many other significant people who get theirs, some will say how is Hockney more significant to others. These appointments appear twice every year. Donnie Park (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Um. No they don't. Can we obliterate ignorant posts? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The last three Opposes, that is, all but one of the Opposes here, are based on ignorance and an incorrect understanding of what this award is. This is not my opinion. It's simple fact. They are just plain wrong! Those three opposes should be struck from this thread, or totally ignored by a posting Admin. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, I was original neutral on this (hence no post), however seeing the Oppose !votes above has convinced me that actually this should be supported, like it or no the British Honours system is, by its pan-national status is significant, and given that this award is limited to 24 holders and is in the personal gift of the Queen then it is worth a post. Mtking (edits) 02:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ghmyrtle. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment--Those of us unfamiliar with the Order of Merit's significance probably have a hard time judging this award's notability, and to be convinced may need some independent evidence of it. I've checked the BBC News website several times regarding this one and it's featured on the page but below the fold. I checked the Sydney Morning Herald and didn't see mention of this on its front page. Given the lack of prominent placement of this story in media that one would assume would be biased towards it, I have to say I don't see evidence that this award is all that significant. Lots of people are knighted. Jony Ive for example. How is Hockney's or Howard's OoM more notable? I appreciate that it's limited to 24 living people but I don't believe that's enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The award is limited to only 16 countries, with the total population of 135 million. Insufficient international impact and significance. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply Why do you see exclusivity as being non-notable? It surely tells you the opposite? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That's absurd. Generally, the greater the number of potential competitors for a particular award, the greater its prestige. That's why being a national champion in a particular sport is less prestigious than being an olympic champion in the same sport. By your logic, a staff award in an office of 10 people is more prestigious than a Nobel prize - surely the former is "more exclusive" as only 10 people are eligible for it. What really matters is selectivity (applying high standards to a wide field of applicants), not exclusivity (which is limiting the number of people eligible for an award) . Nsk92 (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Was on the fence, but this reeks of systemic bias. Yes, it's important in the British isles, but there's no significance elsewhere. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Dumb comment. You clearly haven't read (or comprehended?) the thread. John Howard, one of the two recipients under discussion was a very controversial Prime Minister of Australia. Why do these threads lead to so many uninformed comments? HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] New UN Security Council members

Article: United Nations Security Council election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, and Togo join the UN Security Council (Post)

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: Should be straightforward, ready to post right away as far as I can see. --Modest Genius talk 17:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • support - straight to ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R. Very notable doktorb wordsdeeds 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue | talk 17:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually BorgQueen beat me to it by 30 seconds. Thue | talk 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Aum Shinrikyo

Article: Aum Shinrikyo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​One of the three members of Aum Shinrikyo wanted for involvement in the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway surrenders to police. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Figured I throw this one up for debate. --Hot Stop UTC 15:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, could be an interesting addition. I'm not a huge fan of the first half of the history section though, and my reason for supporting this blurb is far more based on our articles' quality than the event itself. So, I say oppose, at least until the article is improved. NW (Talk) 06:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is 2012, not 1995, meaning what was a significant old news is no loner relevant, plus the one that was more important is awaiting death sentence, also there are plenty of wanted people who gives themselves in, why can't we have them in ITN, becasue ITN will be cluttered with such case. Donnie Park (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Chen Shui-bian (User:BorgQueen)
  2. ^ Cross-Strait Relations (User:BorgQueen)
  3. ^ Typhoon Morakot (2009) (User:BorgQueen)
  4. ^ Typhoon Fanapi (2010) (User:Tone)
  5. ^ Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (User:HJ Mitchell)