Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 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.

June 30Edit

[Posted] June 2012 Mid-Atlantic and Midwest derechoEdit

Article: June 2012 Mid-Atlantic and Midwest derecho (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An intense progressive derecho across the eastern United States causes widespread damage and at least 12 fatalities. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

 --Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

well i certainly learnt something new today...and it is in the news. Havent tagged as a minority topic, but it could be construed as a tech topic..
I would suggest a "background" section for the terminology, etc.Lihaas (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I failed to notice that this article was already mentioned yesterday under "Disasters". FWIW, I found the news coverage of the event
frustratingly silent on the causes for the severe weather. The original version of the Washington Post article I linked characterized the weather system as
a Bow echo, which led me to Wikipedia. The NOAA Mesoscale Discussion for the event describes
it as a Derecho. These two appear to be types of Mesoscale convective systems, but are not linked from that article.

c 22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Small number of deaths, and the power outage is temporary (It would be more significant if it exposed a weakeness in the aging grid, ala Northeast blackout of 2003). --MASEM (t) 21:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I found the weakness of the communications systems interesting. In addition to the Amazon outage that made Netflix go dark, the 911 system is down in Northern Virginia. I don't have an article for these, though. --Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that this is the type of news story that would fail WP:NEVENT in that we have no idea of its long-term impact. Yes, there were deaths, but the numbers are small. Tehre was some damage, but I've seen tornado strikes with more monetary effect than this seems to have. It's a notable storm that should be included in something like Tornadoes in 2012, but not as a ITN or standalone article. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Except this wasn't a tornado, or a tornado outbreak. See derecho. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
True, suggesting at least to me that it would make sense to have some type of series of articles "Severe Weather Events in 2012". Certain events (hurricanes that make landfall, or the like, that have millions/billions in damages) would likely get separate articles, but for this current system, it still doesn't seem to be a long-term significant though arguably there's people that aren't expected to get power back for a week. I feel its not far enough in terms of total damage (both in human losses and financial aspects) to make it an article to start with. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The "blurb" listed before wasn't really a blurb at all, so I've written a new one. I'm not very tied to it however. Not sure whether the main article should link from "An intense progressive dereco" or causes. Standard form would be the former but I think we need a link to derecho in the blurb as most people won't know what that term means. LukeSurl t c
    I've also removed "derecho" from the list of articles to update, as this is a general article about the phenomenon that does not require updating with regards to this event. LukeSurl t c 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Lack of power in a large chunk of the US alone is a significant event in my opinion, especially when the temperatures in these areas has been in the 80's - 100's (Fahrenheit). 3+ million people losing power for a lengthy time period (over 24 hours) is a big deal. Front page media coverage in the international edition of CNN, as well as on BBC and Reuters, so this is getting coverage around the world, not just in the US. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 06:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Question Did we post, or even nominate, the giant snowstorm that hit the northeastern US last fall (where 1-2 feet of snow fell well before snowfall usually occurred)? I can't find it, and can't remember when it happened. That had similar effects as this storm for the New England area, with many people losing power for more than a week. Edit here it is: 2011 Halloween nor'easter; it was added to Did you Know, but not to ITN, unless I'm missing something. Despite that storm not making it, I would still support the posting of this. Does anyone remember if this was even nominated? -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 06:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Anc. Khazar2 (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - notable and unusual weather event; comparing it to the snowstorm doesn't work because you get snow every winter. You don't get storm complexes like this (I've seen it called "Chicago's Breath Weapon" in forums) very often. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I doubt a posting admin will consider deviating from standard practise in response to this comment, but I think it needs saying anyway. I consider it problematic to post this whilst the US Supreme Court ruling on healthcare is still there. Not because both stories are about the US (that is rightly a common occurance, given that the US is huge and this is the English-speaking Wikipedia), but because a convincing case can be made that neither story would have made it onto the page if they related to any other part of the world. The healthcare story in particular falls into this category, because it relates to the preservation of a status quo that we previously reported on. I would recommend that if this is posted, we at least seriously consider retiring the supreme court story early.

    All that said, I personally consider this to be postable: a highly unusual weather event resulting in major human and physical loss/damage, generating non-trivial headlines far outside of the region. —WFC— 22:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: WFC, I gather both from your comment and your spelling that you are not American. I'm also guessing that you know little about American politics, because you've completely misjudged the notability of the health care ruling. Common wisdom in the US is that this is the most important case heard by the Supreme Court since Bush v. Gore, and many scholars think that a ruling that went the other way would have seriously, perhaps fatally, damaged the reputation of the Court and set up a collision course between the Court and the executive; hence this news is highly significant in the US. The case is likely to be remembered for decades, and in fact is quite similar to another famous case from 1936 (the so-called "switch in time" case) where a similar dramatic shift (also by a Justice Roberts!!), saved FDR's signature New Deal social legislation and averted an all-out war between governmental branches. In fact, the health care ruling is far more significant than this piddly storm (and I say that despite having experienced it first hand) -- the latter will be forgotten about in a few months but the former remembered for decades. Benwing (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think this is significant enough. Lots of similar events happen every year in the US and most get forgotten about within months if not weeks. Doubt there will be any significant long-term repercussions. Benwing (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Lots of similar events happen every year in the US - The Bushranger One ping only 16:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That's kind of like saying that a tsunami isn't significant because the ocean always has waves. -- (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted I'm sure I'll catch some heat for this, but days were given to discuss this news item. The quality of the article has been sufficient for awhile, there was enough support for this to be posted, and the oppose points weren't compelling enough to overturn the support. -- tariqabjotu 19:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak ShamirEdit

Article: Yitzhak Shamir (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir dies at the age of 96. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Controversial chap at a controversial time in ME politics. Opposed the Egyp treaty and pullouts that were carrried out, feuded with the current prime minister and was also serving prime minister during the well as the gulf war. Article has 3 paras and several reactions,more int'l ones should follow soon.. --Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • The orange tags in the Political career section would need to be dealt with. LukeSurl t c 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The section is sorted...we usually go by that, no?Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The admins can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought stuff posted on the main page had to be fully orange-tag free? The fact there are no citations for the section about his premiership is problematic, especially as WP:BLP kinda.. still holds for the very recently deceased. LukeSurl t c 22:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that it is a problem, particularly for a political, and possibly controversial, article. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if the orange tags are resolved. He was 96. People die at 96. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Died of natural causes in old age. Thue (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Eh? Nora Ephron dint have a sudden death and she wasnt exactly young either. (71 is way past retirement (a decade off)) and we posted the first Lithuanian premier..Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
And none of them should have been posted either. Two wrongs does not make one right. Thue (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose he was not particularly notable among Israeli ministers, and Israel is sufficient on ITN without deaths of politicians. Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not notable among Israeli ministers? How much knowledge of Israeli politics do you have? Shamir served longer than any other Prime Minister but Ben Gurion. Shamir was critical in keeping Israel from getting embroiled in the 1st Gulf War (e.g. by not responding to Iraq's bombing of Israeli cities). Benwing (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support I agree with the nomination reasons but the article issues must be addressed. -OldManNeptune 04:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If we are going to put the IMO significantly less notable news about the Church of the Nativity here, we should certainly include Shamir's death. As an example of notability, the IHT (global version of NYT) had Shamir's death front page for over a day but never had the Nativity issue anywhere on the front page. Shamir was one of the main leaders of the "old guard" secular hard right of Israeli politics, which lived through the Holocaust and the 1948 war and which chose to react by refusing to compromise in almost any situation. His passing is symbolically important in that there are probably none of that generation left any more (Begin, Rabin, Meir and now Shamir all dead, Sharon basically dead). Benwing (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- One of the most important Middle-Eastern politicians. Old-age is not a death criteria. The only thing that matters when considering deaths is significance of the person unless DC #3 comes into play. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Like Bzweebl and some of the above.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Article: Minitel (talk, history)
Blurb: Minitel, the groundbreaking French online service, is discontinued after 30 years. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Time, Spiegel (translation)
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The close of a major project in technological innovation that had a tremendous impact not only in France, where it was used by up to 25 million people, but worldwide, where it pre-empted the online services (online reservations, online banking, online purchases, etc.) of the World Wide Web. --RA (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: The article is not updated yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    Last sentence of introduction. --RA (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    We normally require at least five sentences and three sources. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    Someone will need to comb through much of the article and put in into the past tense e.g. "Minitel is a service..." > "Minitel was a service...". At what exact time is it being switched off? Midnight? LukeSurl t c 17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    Midnight, I believe. --RA (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support in principal, but on the proviso that the references to it as the web's forerunner are removed from the blurb, simply because there are any number of technologies that predated the web and many that have a much greater commonality with it. This is ultimately the withdrawal of a telephone service and while I'd oppose the inclusion of such a story ordinarily (e.g. Telex, X.25, even Frame Relay) this is a widely recognised and distinctive service. That's just about enough to make it worthy of inclusion in my opinion. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC).
    Yea, I wasn't sure how to capture its relationship with the WWW in so few words (while still explaining its significance). Technologically, it is essentially unrelated but at a use-case level it captured a lot of what we today take for granted in the WWW. Any suggestion? --RA (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per the comments by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (nominator). -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 06:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Milestone for hugely important technology. Thue (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but still needs updating and has an orange tag. In terms of the blurb, how about we avoid mentioning the WWW altogether:
  • Minitel, the groundbreaking French online service, is discontinued after 30 years. ?Formerip (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Sounds good. I've modified the proposed blurb. --RA (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Seems a nice, neat tech story. I'm a little surprised the article merits the big, general "Citations missing" tag. Sure, not every fact is cited, but there's nothing terribly outrageous or contentious there. I think that it would be better to cut that tag and have people place [citation needed] tags where specifically they think the lack of citation is an issue. LukeSurl t c 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no associated talkpage discussion, so I boldly removed the tag. Formerip (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support if sufficient update is made (which it still hasn't been). Khazar2 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    Comment: What sort of update are we looking for here? It's been turned off. Can anyone describe what more needs to be said (or, better yet, add it to the article). LukeSurl t c 18:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The decision to shut down the service will not have been made in isolation - there will be some business case behind it. Explaining that would be the update. All we have at the moment is a single figure that 810,000 terminals were still in use at some point this year. How much were they being used? How does that compare to former times? How much revenue were they generating? How much was the network costing to run? That would be a sufficient and well developed update. "It's been turned off" and not exploring why it has been turned off isn't. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC).

June 29Edit

[Posted] Church of the NativityEdit

Article: Church of the Nativity (talk, history)
Blurb: UNESCO's World Heritage Committee votes to name the Church of the Nativity the first Palestinian World Heritage Site. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable as the first, and more so in light of the controversy. Dont knw if we can see who voted which way, but im looking for that. There is also an image to post with this, btw Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Whether this is the first Palestinian WHS is probably highly debatable (although - please - let's not), since East Jerusalem is on the list. Formerip (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Its been recognised as the first, and is the first attributed to "Palestine" according to sources and the UNESCO. And thats whats in the news. /(not my words)Lihaas (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not that debatable, if worded correctly. The State of Palestine became a member of UNESCO only last October. The admission of Palestine was noted in ITN then. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- What's special about it- that it's the first Palestinian World Heritage Site (not notable: we don't post every country's first WHS), or that the Church of Nativity was selected (not notable unless we have a precedent to post every time a new WHS is chosen)? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- per Bzweebl, but might be willing to change if this announcement gets major international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on the underlying controversy and growing news coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm satisfied the blurb is factually accurate based on the official UNESCO treatment. Ordinarily I would oppose something like this as pretty routine but Palestine's status does add a little notability. I'm still not madly enthusiastic about it but it seems worthy enough of a weak support. Update is good, this isn't a case of fudging the issue at or around the level of a minimum update but something considerably better developed. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Support Opposing routine recurring events which do not appear on ITN/R and are not notable in their own right is not actually a valid argument. In this case, the item is actually notable since it's the first UNESCO heritage site attributed to "Palestine". Palestine is a loaded term, expect harsh words from Israel and the USA. Further, we post firsts and largests all the time. First Spanish bank to get a government bailout, largest bank fine in the UK. Lastly, most nations with UNESCO sites had them long before WP existed, so the argument that we didn't post other first UNESCO WH sites doesn't exactly hold up. --IP98 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • However, it isn't like UNESCO just recognized Palestine. I don't think it has a such a large impact nor will US and Israel care greatly, unless it is the case that this is a way of recognizing Palestine. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"Israel and the U.S. strongly opposed the emergency bid, arguing that the church is not under threat, a position backed by a U.N. experts committee." [1]. First googled result, don't feel like finding more. Laptop is slow and old. We post other firsts all the time. --IP98 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
And in the following sentence "Israeli officials have said they don't object to the church being listed, but reject the "endangered" label which implies culpability of Israel". The suggestion is for the listing of the Church as a World Heritage Site, not as an endangered World Heritage Site, be posted to ITN. -- tariqabjotu 20:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I concede. Lots of other valid points. --IP98 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not their way of recognizing Palestine; they were admitted as a member eight months ago. -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Opposing routine recurring events which do not appear on ITN/R and are not notable in their own right is not actually a valid argument. I disagree; I think their points above are perfectly valid. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome (and encouraged) to participate in the long and confusing discussion here. --IP98 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no need to. I don't need to put Bzweebl's comments into a category or a box to determine their validity. There is nothing that he said that struck me as invalid. -- tariqabjotu 20:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support Kinda interesting, some controversy, and besides the robot that never loses rock-paper-scissors[2] and the possibly notable very recent earthquake in China[3], there's not much else in the news. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Strong support for the robot that never loses Rock-Paper-Scissors! --RA (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The update is obviously excellent, but I think it would be better if there were a little bit more support before posting. -- tariqabjotu 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support, much as per Unique Ubiquitous. It's an interesting place, a story with a few odd facets, and a very good article update. LukeSurl t c 22:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose UNESCO's recognition of Palestine was already on here, this is far less important than that. Hot Stop 04:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted I was waiting for some more remarks about this and Hot Stop's came after I already began posting the item. Nevertheless, the update seems exceptional (although a paragraph break or two would be nice) and the support appears sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 04:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Whats notable is that its listed as "Palestine:" and NOT the of-controversial "Satate of..."Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, it is of utmost importance that the church is listed as in Palestine, NOT the state of Palestine. Please change it to Palestine with a pipe to the incorrectly titled article State of Palestine. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
If you think the way articles are named on Wikipedia is wrong, initiate a move request. (If I recall correctly, this has been one of those perennial move requests, so I'd check out the history before doing so.) Palestine and the State of Palestine are the same thing in this context, just as Israel and the State of Israel are the same thing in nearly every context. But unlike with Israel, with Palestine that's often not the case. Palestine links to the article about the geographic region that includes Israel. As a result, we are to interpret that as meaning that "Palestine" primarily refers to the region on Wikipedia. We should not use Easter Egg links, especially when the meaning of the text would be ambiguous and misleading. Perhaps that's fine in the article, where more background is provided, but it's not fine for the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 14:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Its fine to link it to the Satte of.., but the wording should read Palestine as that is what is notable about this event. What Tel Aviv criticises as a move towards and what the Ramallah leadership are toasting it towards. Therein lies the controversy...note the monument on the list was not opposed by tel aviv as is, the circumstances made it so.Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Right, if UNESCO had stated the church was in the Palestinian territories or west bank there would have been no controversy, it was that UNESCO listed the church as being in Palestine, the state, that caused the uproar by Israelis and Americans as they refuse to acknoledge the existance of Palestine, the state. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a serious misunderstanding of the situation. Israel and the United States (among others; note that six countries -- none of them the U.S. or Israel -- voted against the church's listing) objected to the fact that this was fast-tracked, bypassing the normal eighteen-month listing process. They objected to the Palestinian claim that this needed to be listed immediately because it was under threat from the Israeli occupation. As our article concurs, the U.S. and Israel both thought the church was worthy of World Heritage Site status; they just objected to its endangered status. That being said, nothing in your comment contravenes my decision to write "State of Palestine" in the blurb; if anything, what you said supports it. -- tariqabjotu 00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The "circumstances" being that the site was listed as endangered. -- tariqabjotu 00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Finally notable news.--GoPTCN 10:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Notable event of international interest. P.S. I'm posting now just so you don't feel it was too early to post. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I notice this is already posted but I don't agree. The problem here is that the I/P area is the worst battleground in Wikipedia in terms of POV warriors (sorry not sure what the nicer term for this is) on both sides pushing their viewpoints in opposition of neutrality. One way this is happening is by taking stuff of questionable relevance and getting it on the front page. I/P issues are oversensationalized in general and so I think we need especially strong proof of notability when I/P "news" is proposed. Is this news front page on very many newspapers? If so, I haven't seen it. Benwing (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support since it is the first heritage site chosen in Palestine, which isn't a fully recognized or sovereign country/territory and the decision is also surrounded in heavy controvery. On the side, the Church of the Nativity is one of the holiest sites in Christianity, so I think it being chosen as a UNESCO site is an ITN-worthy item itself. --PlasmaTwa2 02:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Leap secondEdit

Article: Leap second (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A leap second is added to Coordinated Universal Time. (Post)
News source(s): [4] ‘Leap Second’ Bug Wreaks Havoc Across Web

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Coordinated Universal Time is the basis for all the local timezones, so practically everybody will have to adjust their clocks with one second. Leap seconds are added dynamically based on measurements of the Earths rotation, so this is news and not a predictable event such as summer time clock adjustment. The leap second will be inserted on June 30 2012 at 23:59:60 UTC. This is a big deal for people working with time coordinated systems, because most systems stupidly use UTC instead of TAI. There has been considerable debate whether to abolish leap seconds, as some systems might malfunction when a minute suddenly has 61 seconds, see fx (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose this has been done 25 times since 1972. Hot Stop 13:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Article is poorly source and not update]Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "not update"? What information is lacking? It has all the information it needs, and huge sections on the recent proposals on abolishing leap seconds. Thue (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, that article has a healthy "References" section. How do you argue that it is poorly sourced? Thue (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Inlin citations needed + IN updated need a couple of sentences ofprose to be updated as relevant to the current issue, NOT the topic as a whole.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
While not every sentence has an inline citation, there are plenty of inline citations in the current article. Unless you have a specific claim in the article which you dispute, I think the article is well enough sourced. And the article has the perfect amount of content for the current event - any more would be Wikipedia:Recentism, and following ITN guidelines for no other reason than to follow guidelines (and specifically not to make the article better). Thue (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, thats what an ITN update consistuties and has been asked for here too man atimes.Lihaas (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It does not follow from "this has been done 25 times since 1972" that it is not newsworthy. Many newsworthy things have happened 25 times since 1972. Thue (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - how many of us were here in 1972? But Wikipedia was a lot simpler in those days. (One might just read a whole news item in 25 seconds!) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Or 26 seconds if you did it around midnight. Formerip (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To me this follows the same logic as perfect games in baseball, which I oppose each time too. It's a notable enough concept but the fact that any individual occurrence isn't particularly ground-breaking or different from the numerous other occurrences means I doubt its worth as an ITN entry. GRAPPLE X 14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    I personally think that leap seconds are in a whole other class than baseball games. On a slightly related note, I think ITN is way to sports-focused, compared to the real world news events that are happening. Thue (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not directly comparing leap seconds and baseball (for a start, I understand leap seconds); but my reasoning for opposing both is the same—one individual leap second isn't really that consequential and has no lasting impact or fanfare; the same is not true of the concept of adding leap time in general, which is much more important. GRAPPLE X 15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Hey, whadaya mean they're in a different league? [5] ! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment if well linked this sort of item shines a light on a whole region of interesting areas such as Horology and Astronomy far more interesting than the sporting factiod or death of a celebrity or obscure general election typical of ITN. Leaky Caldron 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too procedural and, to be honest, dull. The only update to the article in question in relation to this story is an extra line in a table. If the system for adding leap seconds was removed or significantly altered that might be a good (minority topic) item, however this is simply the established system proceeding as clockwork (pun intended). LukeSurl t c 15:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The theory of timekeeping is not dull! Thue (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Have we included leap days? Those are rarer. -- (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Leap days are entirely routine and predictable, and as such not really news. Leap days are also not problematic with regards to clocks and computer systems, because they are predictable. Thue (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending update 25 times since 1972 is still pretty rare. Last one was 4 years ago. As I understand, opposing a recurring item which is not on ITN/R on the grounds that it is not on ITN/R and is not notable in it's own right, is actually not a valid reason to oppose. As such, this item must be posted. --IP98 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is completely updated as far as I can see. What "pending update" are you referring to? Thue (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The banner says needs update, and I couldn't find the minimum 5 sentences about this occourance in the article. Should be easy to write "A leap second will occour on X. It was decided by Y-body on Z-date. W organization has prepared for it with.... blah blah blah". --IP98 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Focusing on the consequences for this specific update would be recentism. But there are large amounts of information for the recurring issues for updates, which also holds true for this update. Thue (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This piece of news has little effect on anyone, so I doubt many people will care to click on the article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Will they give a tick? ;)Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"Who gives a tock" :( Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
‘Leap Second’ Bug Wreaks Havoc Across Web. Thue (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given above. It's something which gets the 'isn't science weird' treatment on the news every so often, and then it fades again. I know scientists think it's something which demands attention but, really, it's nothing far removed from administration. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as has already been noted this is a routine procedural matter. It was announced on 5 January so hardly qualifies as "news" now. I'm also struggling to imagine what we can include that would possibly bring this up to the required update: proposals to abolish leap seconds are a different story to this proposal. Finally I note that the nomination statement is incorrect - UTC is not the basis for all local timezones. The UK still officially uses GMT for example. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The second sentense of the GMT article is: "It is arguably the same as Coordinated Universal Time". Thue (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That is only true in looser usages. GMT tracks the Earth's rotation and as such has no concept of leap seconds which exist to keep atomic timescales in step with GMT (technically now UT1, but that is essentially a more rigorously defined GMT). This source explains the area reasonably well. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC).
Interesting. But doesn't everybody in GMT follow UTC in practice (or perhaps UT1)? There doesn't really seem to be a real source of GMT time for setting your clock after, other than going to Greenwich and seeing when the sun is directly overhead. Thue (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Greenwich is a lot less tropical than you might imagine. Kevin McE (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes yes, I mean overhead in a east-west sense :). Thue (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes a nom for a future event is shot down because it's only the announcement, not the event. Now you're arguing that it was announced in January so it's not news now. I'm confused. --IP98 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Many (but not all) of the opposes to this item was of the form of slinging mud at the wall, and see what sticks. Especially Lihaas going to the article and randomly putting a "Citations needed" on the article, seemingly without having the slightest knowledge of the topic or having actually read the article. Really depressing lack of debating skills, really. Thue (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
discuss the content thats otherwise NPA.
At any rate, where are the sources then? Per WP conventions (and every debate has conventions lest it be a slanging match) sections need cites!Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do you the "WP conventions"? According to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_and_why_to_cite_sources, the main rule is "In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Nowhere does it say that every section has to have cites. Thue (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Grapple X and lack of prominent international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Similar mention on OTD today...that should do good. Time to close this?Lihaas (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Now, just hang on a second ... Martinevans123 (talk)

June 28Edit

[Posted] SCOTUS on Health Care ActEdit

Article: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the majority of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforming health insurance in the USA. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Article updated
Already included below in US Supreme Court decisions. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment. It's hard to be sure not being in the US, but isn't that a bit of a slanted blurb? Might we not equally say ...providing access to health insurance for millions of previously excluded Americans? Formerip (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Confirming comment A highly slanted blurb. "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which required Americans to hold insurance, reformed the insurance industry, increased coverage for pre-existing conditions, and expanded access to insurance," or just lose "requiring" on forward. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree. We could also just not comment precisely, e.g. "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforming health insurance in the USA." --RA (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2012‎ (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by this, do you support the form in your comment or oppose it? I think it is neutral and provides just enough more information that non-US readers will understand. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
If the primary purpose of the legislation can be succinctly described then we could include that description. But I find it highly unlikely that the US legislature passed the bill primarily so as to impose fines. Formerip (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I may have been a bit confusing, I was referring to the blurb directly above my post "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforming health insurance in the USA." I feel that it describes what the Act did well without slanting to one side or the other. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, apologies. Yes, that sounds like a neutral blurb. Formerip (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As discussed earlier, a fairly big deal in a large, wealthy country. Cut the "requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty." part of the blurb, brevity is nice and it avoids accusations of bias. LukeSurl t c 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I disagree, we need to explain it in more detail for non-US readers. SPat talk 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that the purpose of the linked-to encyclopaedia article? LukeSurl t c 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I feel that leaving the information out would be like if we, in the current current events just said for Nora Ephron, to just say "Nora Ephron (pictured) dies at the age of 71.", leaving out information about her. (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This is a bit tricky, we have been focussing on the article Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, but it seems that the court has decided on NFIB v. Sebelius and mentioned Florida as a footnote (see here). Should we just merge all three articles (corresponding to dockets 398, 400 and 393) into the article on Sebelius? SPat talk 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd support merging, as this is what SCOTUS has effectively done with the cases. LukeSurl t c 16:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think both articles need the focus, since the decision does impact the functioning of the law. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unslanted. Strong oppose to the current blurb "requiring..." and "...Providing access to health...". Slight appose to the version presented by Hipocrite as too long and confusing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant. Would have been significant if it had not been upheld, and is just as significant that it is. --RA (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support* STRONG SUPPORT FOR INCLUDING "REQUIRED" Please do NOT cut the mentioning of the requirement, as it is one of the main reasons it is controversial. It requires most citizens of the United States to have insurance but as a penalty if one does not, an added tax based on a percentage of ones income will be applied or a fixed amount set by the government will be used, based on whichever is higher. (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not Wikipedia's place to legitimize the concerns of those who oppose the act. Wikipedia should remain neutral and allow readers to create their own opinion based on what they read in the article. It is non-neutral and not encyclopedic for us to do anything else. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • It is not for the purpose to legitimize concerns against the act, those are not opinions that I said, those are just facts. They are in the bill. To leave out the facts would mislead readers who have not read the bill. (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think we can be neutral but still point out how critical this was by saying "SCOTUS upholds the controversial PACA" (maybe "impacting health care in the United States"). We're not taking a side in that, simply hallmarking the law as one that is very diversive. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with that as a replacement75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Would pointing out that it was upheld in a 5-4 decision adequately show that it was controversial? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me! (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A landmark decision. Major domestic and international coverage. -- Luke (Talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a slightly shortened blurb. Huge decision that received life updated coverage from the BBC and other media sites.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Keep the blurb as it is correct.--WaltCip (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Even though it is not neutral? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The blurb as is may be correct but it is also unnecessarily picking and choosing (correct) facts. Best to keep the blurb to the absolute minimum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment should we link the reader directly to the decision? The article is incredibly long as it stands. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Do we need to link SCOTUS in this (the back to back links are nasty)? Or you could make it passive to break up the links: "The PPACA, which reforms health insurance in the US, was upheld by SCOTUS." (with the same linked terms as above). --MASEM (t) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The back to back links are nasty. I doubt readers will want to navigate to SCOTUS from the main page so removing that link will probably be the better option. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready seems to be overwhelming support above and update is sufficient. Hot Stop 16:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't consider it ready, there doesn't seem to be support for the current blurb. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'd take the blurb from below that states simply that the court upheld the constitutionality of the mandate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest this, from below... – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The United States Supreme Court rules in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, informally referred to as Obamacare, is constitutional.

  • Not accurate, as they ruled on the entirety of the law, not neutral, as "Obamacare" is what one side of a two sided debate calls it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Reform" is a bit slanted as we still have not seen the effects of the plan and whether or not it constitutes a positive change. I support the structure of Muboshgu's blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Reform" does not imply positive. The old form was old, the new form is different, it is reformed. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The OED is a bit better IMO. The motivation is to improve, whether it is actually an improvement or otherwise is to be seen. --RA (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have italicized the decision, what in the above, would be bolded? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the blurb should be as minimalistic as possible. Leave out words such as 'reform', 'penalty' or any mention of the individual mandate. Definitely don't use the word 'Obamacare'. The court upheld the entire Affordable Care act, not just the mandate. I think Wikiwind's blurb is good, or something similar.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't fault BorgQueen for posting this, given the support this time around. On that note, this article's success should serve as a reminder that timing is everything in ITN nominations.

      But while I'm not for a minute suggesting that this article should be pulled at this stage, am I the only one uncomfortable with the precedent this could set? Ordinarily we only post more than once on ongoing situations where the facts change substantially, such as the Bahrain protests or the recent conflict in Libya. Fundamental healthcare reform in the US is obviously worthy of posting, and I'm sure even the most sceptical about ITN balance would concede that. But we did post the law's passing [6], yet now we are posting it again despite (to my knowledge) no change to the status quo. —WFC— 19:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

      • I think the difference is that it is the Supreme Court Decision that is in the news. Perhaps National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius should be included and bolded since that is what occurred. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Agree with WFC, it's not a change to anything. Unlike WFC, I'm still concerned with the US-centric nature of this kind of "nothing has changed but we belong in the news" article, (e.g. fifth story on the BBC homepage after multi-million pound indiscretions of Barclays, after flooding in the north of England causing death, Bomber Command being recognised in their part in ending the Second World War etc). This story doesn't change anything in the United States, so why should Wikipedia consider it be the most significant news item of the day? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, the fact that an American story is even on the front page of a British website (not to mention a Canadian one, an Australian one or Chinese one) means nothing. Hot Stop 19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
            • We always have US "news" posted on the BBC website, but it's behind many other less significant issues. It seems this is a non-starter outside the US. Who cares? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
            • In any case, damage done, we've "posted" it based on the consensus. It means nothing to anyone outside of the United States, it means nothing has actually changed in the way the United States works, what a disappointing candidate for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
              • To be fair, this actually (as I've read the analyses) a major change in core US democracy is that because this was determined constitutional, this means that Congress can pass mandates like health care as a tax. (No comment if this is good or bad, just a comment). This does have influence above and beyond health care for future congresses. It also, as most political analysts are asserting, going to be a key issue in the upcoming elections as the Republicans are going to try to do everything in their power to vote out the Act. It's a small cog in the larger picture, but its one that the world has been watching for. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the considered response, much appreciated. I still fail to see how this is internationally (or "in the news") significant. Firstly it affects just "some" of the US, secondly it isn't any different from what it was yesterday. I know there are small cogs, big wheels and all that, but we're just here to represent things that are significant to the English-speaking world, and this, really, isn't. But that's my opinion, and I'm not American so no-one will really care, I accept that. Best to just let it run its course on ITN and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • WTF? Three hours and three minutes from nomination to posting? In a global encyclopaedia where many editors were asleep during that period, on an item that could hardly be regarded as rapidly changing, hold the presses, must-know-now, breaking news, that's ridiculously indecent haste. There was no need to rush. Much better to get perspective from people all around the globe. Oh, and I completely Support this nomination. But please show some patience. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This nomination was posted on Monday originally, scroll down to see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Then we still need much better editing conventions here. There was no formal link between the threads. How is any casual reader to be aware of the connection? Why wasn't this thread made a continuation of the earlier one? HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Seems like a standard US-centric pseudo-significant approach. "You don't get it, go look". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I posted the note that this was covered in the SCOTUS stuff from Monday (right at the top there) but people added to this instead of there. I think that's just an accident that we had both. We should definitely close out one when duplicates like this occur. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support-As the nom for this, I support the change to more neutral wording than my original suggestion "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty." Additionally, the blurb's "health insurance in the USA" should link to Health insurance in the United States.Smallman12q (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

June 27Edit

Bangladesh floods and landslidesEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​At least 110 people are killed and 200,000 people displaced as floods and landslides sweep Bangladesh (Post)
News source(s): BBC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I'm surprised there is no article on a substantial natural disaster as this. The effects may even spread into Burma and India Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 10:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

An updated article without an article? Seriously?Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

[Attention needed] [Posted] Battle of Gao/UPDATE: Destroyed World Heritage SiteEdit

Article: Battle of Gao (talk, history)
Blurb: Ansar Dine and its Islamist allies take over Gao and destroy other World Heritage Sites in Azawad, northern Mali after fighting with the MNLA. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Al Jazeera, MSNBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Takeover of the entire northern part of Mali from infighting and amid international concerns about the UNESCO sites in Gao and Timbuktu --Lihaas (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Would need a better blurb, as it simply says "Azawad, Northern Mali" without explaining the unique status of Azawad. Maybe replace that with "in the breakaway region of Azawad in northern Mali". --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem with that. I was also at a loss adding too much info (though necessary for context)Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
In combination with the others (asmenioned in the article) yes. Though the Gao one was particularly violent. It had casualties and regional takeover (which was why the Azawad was posted)Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we have a source. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
We do have multiple sources, see the update.Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Weak Support per Khazar2. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support The biggest fighting there since April, and a notable milestone in the conflict as the first time that the Islamists clearly have the upper hand. (Previously, the Tuareg nationalist forces were assumed to be the dominant force). But the situation remains fluid, and this would be our fourth or fifth Mali conflict story in as many months--hence the "weak".Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Khazar2 and Lihaas. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure yet. We have just two supports and two weak supports. Let's wait to see what an admin thinks. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
updare is ready though for the article ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE: 3 of the 16 sites in Timbuktu have been destroyed by Ansar Dine (who allegedly said they will go after the others too). That is notable akin to the Buddhas in Afghanistan...except that this is a Muslim structure taken down by Muslims.Granted well not have 2 WHS stories, but still..
The article is fully ready and updated and the AD are heading to take down more mosques/mausoeleums as we speak. Its all over the news.Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, with mention of the WHS destruction in the blurb and article. LukeSurl t c 11:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the part about the World Heritage site; BTW Gao is a further WHS. Khuft (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
UPDATE AD have confirmed (in certain terms) that the destruction was related to UNESCO's action. May want to include that.
This has been ready for over 24 hours and its not even stale as the destruction have renewed today and probs going on as we speak...can it be posted??Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Phew! But can we move it to the top as this is still ongoing.
Its ongoign today too [7]. Should at least be above Palesitine if not euro cup.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not going to keep getting moved up and up. It needs to be set at a date and stay there. The article puts it at between June 26 and June 27, so it seems to be in an appropriate location. -- tariqabjotu 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Barclays bank handed record fine over interest rate manipulationEdit

Article: Barclays (talk, history)
Blurb: Barclays is penalised with a record fine as a result of its attempts to manipulate interest rates between 2005 and 2009, while chief executive Bob Diamond (pictured) gives up his bonus for this year. (Post)
News source(s): Barclays to pay largest civil fine in CFTC history
Article updated
  • Oppose A bank in Europe is sure to garner heaps of "obvious support", but the FSA is only 11 years old, so the largest fine in the history of the agency isn't exactly a stretch. The update doesn't explain how the FSA fined £59.5 out of a total fine of £290 (who got the rest??). It's a big number, but consider that Goldman Sachs paid $550 USD 2 years ago in fines, it's not spectacular. --IP98 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IP98 and thin coverage (no mention on front pages of NYT, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc.). Khazar2 (talk)
  • Support A record fine, which usually ticks our boxes. Front page of the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, the I, The Times. Leading news bulletins at the time, and still high up in post-discussion shows. Remember, this is a bank which didn't just send out a few badly worded emails, it was manipulating figures for its own gain. Highly notable doktorb wordsdeeds 07:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. From what I've read, the market they were illegally manipulating had a theoretical value of greater than the entire total GDP of the world, it's certainly a big deal. The economics behind it are fiendishly obtuse though - which means it is exactly the sort of thing an encyclopaedia should be looking to explain. If someone who knows what on earth is going on can write either an article or a decent section for this scandal I would support posting it on ITN - currently I don't think this update is sufficient. LukeSurl t c 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per LukeSurl above. If the 'record fine' isn't considered that important, then stating '£290 million' would be fine. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree it would be excellent to have a full explanation of the technicalities, but the article is already sufficiently updated. This seems like one of the biggest examples of banking malfeasance in history. If the fixing was successful (which does not seem clear), then it appears to mean that the banks were effectively stealing from everyone in the UK with a loan. Blurb is too wordy, though. Formerip (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggested shorter blurb: "Barclays is penalised with a record fine for its attempts to manipulate the Libor and Euribor." I think I agree with FormerIP, we have sufficient detail to post as is. Hopefully an economist will see the post and improve the relevant articles to explain what this all means! LukeSurl t c 14:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wangdue Phodrang DzongEdit

Article: Wangdue Phodrang District (talk, history)
Blurb:  Wangdue Phodrang Dzong (pictured), four-century-old Bhutanese fortress built by Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, is lost by fire. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

-- (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I'd think that Wangdue Phodrang Dzong would need its own article before it could be mentioned on the front page. LukeSurl t c 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to support this one, but I tentatively agree with LukeSurl. Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but the article needs an update and the blurb is awful. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Lost by fire'? Did the fire own it or something? 'Burns down' maybe. Modest Genius talk 13:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but I'd say "400-year-old", leave out who it was built by, and say "lost to fire". --RA (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with changed blurb per RA. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] European Union Microsoft competition caseEdit

Article: European Union Microsoft competition case (talk, history)
Blurb: European Court of Justice confirms a fine of 860 million euros for Microsoft after rejecting the appeal for the abuse of its dominant position in the market. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: At the time of the judgement the fine set a record at 899 million euros, but now was only slightly reduced to 860 million. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. This is a minority topic (business/economics and/or technology), I have flagged it as such. LukeSurl t c 11:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. Formerip (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Major business found guilty of a major crime. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Neutral significant case, but this is the rejection of an appeal, rather than the initial conviction. LukeSurl t c 23:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill wasn't on the hook for actually paying the fine until the appeals process ended, right? --IP98 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    No, he wasn't. But paying this fine after the appeal was rejected is a must for Microsoft, unless they don't like to proceed with other sanctions or even to lose the market in the European Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This is the end of the case, and is quite a significant blow to Microsoft. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - (Likely) end of a major legal case and business story. Article is now updated and ready to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sinn Fein meets British queenEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness, meets and shakes hands with Queen Elizabeth II, becoming the first Sinn Féin politician to do so. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Highly significant meeting, almost as much so as the Queen's visit to the Republic last year which we posted. This has come about mostly due to that. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 04:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Admittedly an oddity, but the backdrop makes this seem a grand gesture on a geopolitically significant scale. __meco (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Significant for all manner of reasons - the killing of Lord Mountbatten might be of interest if people aren't sure why, for a start-off. HOWEVER, I would consider a better URL to justify the nomination, maybe the news story of the meeting, when it happens? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment which part of the encyclopaedia has been updated/added to as a result of this story? The point of ITN is to highlight how Wikipedia has been updated as a result of recent events. I'm not a fan of these "no article specified" nominations. LukeSurl t c 08:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a bit of trivia but nothing more. What possible long term impact could there be from a handshake? No bold link to check for update. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, because "(bits) of trivia" make the top headlines across the world (CNN International, CBS, Irish Independent, El Mundo, El Pais)… —Strange Passerby (t × c) 11:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Lots of stories at the top of headlines are rejected. Treyvon Martin is a great example of this. Maybe we should add a please do not for "Support a nomination just because it is in the headlines". --IP98 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current blurb per IP98. There's no lasting international impact from a handshake. Nixon's handshake with Zedong in his visit to China in 1972 might have symbolic, but the trip itself had far greater ramifications.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We're not even talking about a meeting of heads of government here. It's silly enough to me that the 'jubilee' was such big nwes. Once Elizabeth II can negotiate with Northern Ireland, I'll change to support. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    It is actually a head of state meeting a head of government; the Northern Irish Assembly is led by a diarchy including McGuinness. GRAPPLE X 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, I know McGuinness is a head of government, but I was focusing on the Queen in my opposition and failed to delineate. If he met with David Cameron, I'd consider it. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Mub. He has met with past and present British PMs many times, as has Gerry Adams. I'm not certain you know UK & NI politics that well if you think such a meeting would be more notable than meeting HMQ. Leaky Caldron 14:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly no expert on UK/NI politics. If he's had frequent meetings with UK PMs in the past, then I don't see why his meeting the Queen now means anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It is undoubtedly major news, although purely symbolic in itself the entire history of the Northern Ireland peace process, which is the appropriate article for linking, has always been noted for acts of symbolism and grand gestures. That article however seems to be badly out of date. Leaky Caldron 13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This hasn't even been a major story in its place of origin, with papers such as The Irish News relegating it to short mid-paper articles. The feeling here is that it's little more than a PR exercise and not anything truly groundbreaking. GRAPPLE X 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Would it be foolish of me to suggest that, in order to read about things that are happening today, you need to read tomorrow's edition of the Irish News? Formerip (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Biggest news story by far in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is where the event took place. You may be thinking about Republic of Ireland, a different country. Leaky Caldron 13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm thinking of the north, where I'm currently sitting, having read the week's papers. GRAPPLE X 13:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Nip out and get the evening edition of The Belfast Telegraph, or better still put BBC News, Sky News or the radio on. Leaky Caldron 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but only once there is a complete update compliant with NPOV. Are editors opposing for lack of significance just passing through on a visit from another planet? Formerip (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Symbolic, but only symbolic. Unless anything interesting happens during the visit, this will be recorded in encyclopaedias as only a minor event in the story of the gradual improvement in the politics of the region. While it makes a fairly decent story (on a slow news day), it isn't of massive encyclopaedic importance. LukeSurl t c 14:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Please try and see this in its context, it most certainly is a mile-stone and important. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Please explain the dubious notability of the handshake. For instance, United States President Barack Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama on February 18, 2010 was struck down unilaterally as an ITN candidate. Notability is not inherent - that logic is circular reasoning..--WaltCip (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • And furthermore, how does a royal figurehead and a deputy minister meeting improve diplomatic relations between two populations, which is what seems to be claimed here?--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Look at it this way: it wasn't merely a meeting between a "royal figurehead and a deputy minister", it was a meeting between the commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and a once-high-ranking IRA commander. The very definition of "never in a million years". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Added to which, on a personal note, the IRA was responsible for the murder of the Queen's husband's uncle when MM was a leading figure in the military wing of that organisation. Leaky Caldron 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose- Although I get upset when nominations are disregarded because they are merely the high point of an ongoing, gradual event, such as the present improvement of relations, I have not been convinced that this handshake itself was notable. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Even a few years ago, the idea that the Queen would shake the hand of a former IRA commander would have been fanciful. Her cousin, Lord Mountbatten, was assassinated by the PIRA in the 1970s. The long walk to the Good Friday Agreement was littered with dead bodies and blown up buildings. Every newspaper in the UK tomorrow morning runs with the photograph - it's not something, I concede, which might resonate around the world, but I suspect there are Irish Americans who didn't believe they'd see this as much as Irish and British people. It's notable, trust me on this doktorb wordsdeeds 22:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have not supported this, in part because the relevant article Northern Ireland peace process needs to be updated. However, with one notable exception, LukeSurl's, the opposes here should be disregarded by the closer. They are one of the worst collections of totally misinformed, non-encyclopaedic, ignorant statements. If people don't understand the topic at a sufficient level of detail I see no good reason for their opposes to be taken into account. Leaky Caldron 16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Most of the opposes show an understanding of the topic at hand. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Which ones and in what way? Leaky Caldron 16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that all except maybe IP98's show an understanding of the topic, but that isn't to say IP98 doesn't understand it, just that he didn't express it clearly. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I have read the news article and briefed myself on the history of the IRA and Irish-British relations. Any alleviated tensions between these two long-feuding parties would most definitely be newsworthy and notable. A symbolic handshake is just that - symbolic. It does not show that there is any trend towards unity, because the Republicans are by and large bemoaning McGuinness' act. More likely, this will go down in history as an obscure and long-forgotten PR move. If that is not so, then significant events will occur that are newsworthy and merit posting on ITN. That you lump in my oppose among "totally misinformed, non-encyclopaedic, ignorant statements" is woeful.--WaltCip (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, your extended explanation simply further justifies my comment. Yes, it is symbolic. But symbolism of this kind is precisely what so much of the peace process has been based on. Sinn Fein pointedly refused to agree to this gesture last year on the Royal visit to the ROI. It is being described by reliable sources as "history in the making" and "a powerful symbol of reconciliation". While it may be POV, I prefer their's to yours. Leaky Caldron 17:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A gesture that is possible because of what has happened over the course of many years, but not the goal to which those changes were oriented. Peace treaties are ITNworthy: the leaders of entities previously at odds with each other having a non-decision making encounter many years later is not. McGuinness is not the leader of the party, and other Sinn Féin representatives were involved in the Dublin visit last year. Kevin McE (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Provisional (fnarr) support if mention is made that McGuinness was also a former IRA leader; in this context, it's very newsworthy. As Huw Edwards has just said on the News at 10, it'd have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - A day after the event, "Handshake Wednesday" pops up on the BBC Northern Ireland page as an editorial.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is significant, but it needs re-writing to put it in context and for factual accuracy (he was not "the first Sinn Féin politician to do so", the Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel broke party ranks to greet the Queen in the Republic of Ireland last year). --RA (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but I think that McGuinness should be described as a 'former IRA leader' as well as a Sinn Fein politician. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. This is not an important event, some people following protocol. Speciate (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

June 26Edit

[Posted] Nora EphronEdit

Article: Nora Ephron (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Director, playwright and screenwriter Nora Ephron dies aged 71. (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter, EW, Huff Post

Nominator's comments: Ephron wrote and directed some of the most well known films; When Harry Met Sally..., Sleepless in Seattle and Julie & Julia. The Huff Post said she "pioneered a brand of writing and filmmaking all her own". I don't think her death was expected before today. --JuneGloom Talk 00:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- Article needs an update, but this meets DC #2. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A much higher quality candidate than most of our literary postings. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see much evidence that she meets our death criteria. She never won an academy award, for example, which would be a basic benchmark for criteria #2.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, only a BAFTA. And is her being noted as an author, journalist, and award-winning playwright all zilch compared to the winner of that Irish literary prize we posted but which no one can remember? μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The Irish literary prize you mention is evidence that a writer is 'at the top of his/her field' and recognized as such.' In the field of screenwriting, I don't see evidence that Ephron is more notable than dozens of other screenwriters.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll take that back; she's definitely getting news coverage. Still, the update needs to be ok.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The news's current top placement on NYT, CNN, and BBC testifies to her legendary reputation. Few screenwriters receive such treatment. Khazar2 (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support probably one of the most influential and well-known screenwriters of all time, especially in women's rights. A huge literary figure as well, beloved essayist. New York Times has a three page obituary written on her and discussing her impact which is an indication of clear notability. She was also active in her field until her death (Julie & Julia), and it was completely shocking as she kept her illness private. As for the Oscars, the movie industry has always been dominated by male figures and the Oscar voting usually aligns with them so it's a bit irrelevant, but she was one of a select few females who was on equal footing with them. As qualified of an entertainment candidate for ITN it can possibly get. Secret account 05:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    I would consider the lack of Oscars 'irrelevant' if there was a widespread consensus that she was denied Oscars because she was a woman. Is there such an opinion that she should have won an Oscar for, eg. When Harry Met Sally? Otherwise, I don't think the lack of such recognition can be ignored. The lack of Oscars has been cited as a reason not to post deaths of other Hollywood figures.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'm persuaded by Secret to support this nomination. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Her name seems to have been very big primarily in the United States. Her international impact seems much less significant. __meco (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The fact that she won a BAFTA seems to say differently. -- (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems to be getting a lot of press around the world. It's possibly because its an otherwise relatively slow news day, but still, as per Secret above, this death is a sufficiently big deal for ITN. LukeSurl t c 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending update Secret is right, but there should be some reactions by other prominent people in her field to back it up. --IP98 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support once updated. Rightly or wrongly, we celebrate screenwriters less than actors or directors and 71 is not young. Formerip (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Fairly big news here even, honestly it is not everyday we post about someone of her profession dying. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose how many people have seen any of her movies? Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is that a reason to oppose? And anyway, I have seen one of her movies. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just the three oscar nominated scripts grossed about US$405 million in the United States; so probably a few folk. That said it's not exactly a shock that a gravely-ill septuagenarian has died. Ephron's more than notable, but I wouldn't say her passing is. GRAPPLE X 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering her movies have made over a billion dollars at the box office alone, quite a few. -- (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and please note this is a B class biography. Somebody who made a difference but didn't try to get famous. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Algo Centre Mall collapseEdit

A mall roof collapsed in northern Ontario, Canada. One is dead, one was alive as of Monday, but there's ten missing currently. When they manage to get crews or robots into the mall's centre, and confirm causalities, can this qualify? There was no article on the mall before the collapse, and the article has 36 references so far, including an extensive section about previous issues in the mall, with the roof and parking on the roof.

Searches on Google News for "Algo Centre" in quotation marks bring up 12,100 results. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that, once they do confirm the casualties, the news story will have gone stale. And it's a nice article, but the cleanup tag will need to be removed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There's two other editors actively maintaining the article, and one of them just removed it, having made some additional changes. Would it be within parameters of ITN when the number of casualties remain unknown? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Article: Algo Centre Mall (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least one person is killed and several are missing after a roof collapse at the Algo Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario, Canada (Post)
News source(s): Toronto Star Huffington Post Canada (via Canadian Press) National Post Washington Post Montreal Gazette CBC BBC The Australian La Voz del Interior Miami Herald Houston Chronicle

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Thousands of articles in the media covering the collapse. Zanimum (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose- The magnitude of this collapse is too minor for ITN, but the article is very good. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Good update to the article (though I think that the collapse should be a subsection of prior issues, not the other way around). Wide media coverage. A rare event for the industrial world. Their Prime Minister has offered the armed forces, which has made it a national story. No minimum threshold for disasters on ITN. --IP98 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We'll certainly take that reordering comment under consideration. The last 24 hours have seen a great number of changes to the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The collapse was a subsection of prior issues, but I reversed the order, as the collapse is more notable than the prior structural issues, which would not be of note should the collapse not have occurred. I was also following precedent on other structural collapses articles which usually state the results of an investigation after the collapse, including prior problems in that section. But with all decisions, there is room for argument. I will look into the MOS for some guidance. Acebulf (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Alright, I seem to have a new idea for the layout that should fix the problems. It should take about an hour. Acebulf (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: New layout, same great taste. I just finished the new layout, which is more of a timeline of the mall's history rather than focusing on the collapse. Acebulf (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a single casualty. Nergaal (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support based on the quality of the update. Khazar2 (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough casualties, which sounds crass I know, and the blurb is hideous doktorb wordsdeeds 05:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't understand that logic. There was a major structural collapse of a large public structure. Deaths aren't the only thing making this notable. --IP98 (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I felt I should strengthen IP98's comment: not only is this structure public in the sense of a community landmark, but many governmental functions run out of this building. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Magnitude of this accident is too limited. __meco (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - making international news. The number of deaths is not important as the attention this has received. It is unique both because of the remote location (nearest city of any size is 100 miles away, nearest significant city is a days drive), the politicking in the rescue effort, the severity of the collapse (how often do we hear of cars crashing through a roof?), and the humanitarian effort to rescue people and ignore the meek orders of the Ministry of Labour. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I've changed the blurb to something more standard. As those missing are now unlikely to be found alive the magnitude of the disaster is larger than a single fatality, though still relatively moderate on an international scale. As per Floydian, there's more to this than simply a casualty figure, and the article update is very good. LukeSurl t c 12:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose imagine all the flak this would get if this happened at a US mall? Hot Stop 15:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support As IP98 meant, mall roofs don't collapse that easily, especially in such a developed country like Canada so this is clearly a unique case for ITN. I don't know if it's front page notable though thus the "weak". Secret account 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too localised and not really notable enough to be of a worldwide impact. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 22:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

June 25Edit

United States Supreme Court rulingsEdit

These nominations have been broken up into sections for the purposes of clarity. I'll leave it to the posting admin to determine whether they should be re-merged on the template if more than one goes up. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - The idea of ITN is to alert users as to how the content of the encyclopaedia has been changed or added to as a result of recent events. At the time of writing, none of these nominations have an associated article. These need to be assigned before the candidates can be assessed. LukeSurl t c 19:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am assuming the articles will be the cases themselves. That would be the only possibility that would make sense. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The United States Supreme Court strikes down parts of the U.S. State of Arizona's SB1070 in Arizona v. United States. (Post)
News source(s): [8]

 --Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support ACA ruling, oppose S.B. 1070; the Arizona case only has really national significance, slightly international. The ACA ruling will have international significance, and will change the tenor of both presidential campaigns no matter the ruling. Neutral on juvenile life without parole. Sceptre (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support SB 1070. Sets important precedent for other US border states, got wide attention in the USA and in Latin America. Waaaaa if no one cares in Europe. --IP98 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And as for the rest of the world...? HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the far more important healthcare ruling is coming, and even that is US-centric. Speciate (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose is this blurb even in English? What does it mean to anyone/anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No more confusing than "The 7th G-20 summit is held in Los Cabos, Mexico.", "The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt dissolves the country's parliament.", or "Jon McGregor wins the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award for his novel Even the Dogs.". You click the link, it's the blue text in the paragraph, and you learn about the thing you clicked. You didn't care to click the link, that's your problem. --IP98 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this is heading for the main page. It should be intelligible beyond clicking on abstract blue links. It's not "my problem", I'm asking what this actually means because we're a global website and this is not accessible at all. Please revisit the blurb and let us understand why anyone outside of Arizona should give a damn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Every year there are rulings more important than this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of purely local significance and ITN is not a legal digest. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The United States Supreme Court rules that juvenile offenders in the United States may no longer be sentenced to life-without-parole in Miller v. Alabama/Jackson v. Hobbs. (Post)
News source(s): [9] [10]

 --Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support of these three nominations this one strikes me as have the greatest long-term repercussions. The US is virtually unique in having permitted juvenile life with parole and has attracted criticism for the practice over human rights concerns. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose total 180 from Crispmuncher. Describes a small number of capital cases committed by juveniles in the US. Only of international interest as a way to pejoratively laud the US for finally catching up with the civilized world. Zero international repercussions. --IP98 (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the far more important healthcare ruling is coming, and even that is US-centric. Speciate (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose really not that significant in a country with bizarre sentencing regimes where people can be sent to prison for hundreds and hundreds of years. Another (albeit positive) glitch. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Every year there are rulings more important than this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my oppose above. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - iff the article gained +1000 words, rationale- the US maybe "finally catching up with the civilized world." Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The United States Supreme Court rules in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, informally referred to as Obamacare, is constitutional. (Post)

Nominator's comments: Ruling not yet known, premature nom --Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • See also Sceptre's comments on this on the Arizona immigration case (comments made before section broken up). Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Comment: It would seem that SCOTUS has delayed ruling on this until Thursday. --~Knowz (Talk) 15:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when it happens on thursday, the appropriate article would probably be Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. SPat talk 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose what does this mean? What is the "affordable care act"? Why is it newsworthy? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Of all the nominations, this is the most worthy of the front page. There's depth, breadth and history which works very well and this nominations ticks far more 'world wide' boxes than the others. Whilst accepting that the blurb might need a tad translation, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be put onto the front page. The other two are, in my opinion, just a tad too 'domestic'. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • But what is "affordable care act"? If someone could improve the blurb so this made sense outside of those interested in it in the USA, it would be beneficial to this nomination. What's the significance, I don't see this anywhere on the BBC website for instance.... Is this really "in the news" or is this just "in the US news"? I strongly suggest reviewing admins allow 24 hours (or at least time for Europe to wake up and read this) before posting, the blurb at least offers no indication to the significance of this story to anyone outside USA. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The decision won't be released for a couple more days - that is why it is not "in the news" much yet. When it is announced, I guarantee it will be covered around the world, likely as the lead story on BBC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, i don't usually do this, but why are you setting the bar higher for U.S nominations? I don't think anybody is ever this aggressive in discussing non-U.S items. I don't think Gary Speed was particularly well-known outside of football circles but users here were so charged up they were going to be "ashamed" or disgusted or some other strong emotion if Wikipedia didn't feature him on ITN. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Is this really a higher bar for U.S. nominations? I cannot recall us ever posting decisions by any other country's supreme court or equivalent. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Dissolving of parliament by Egypt's supreme court. Kidding, of course, that is a seriously big deal. I totally understand the need for explaining this to non-Americans, but I object to the idea that this going up would make ITN an "In the U.S news" ticker. To me it feels that every U.S item needs to be raked over coals to make it on the list and is subject to way more due diligence than others. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- A landmark case in US history. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with Bzweeb. Thue (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The ruling on universal health care is, to quote Joe Biden, a big fucking deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: how's this for a hook?
    "The United States Supreme Court rules in CASE that [part of/the individual mandate in] the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, informally referred to as Obamacare, is [un]constitutional."
  • Obviously can be edited. Sceptre (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - major "rich, developed, and democractic" nation refusing to care for their own people Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if it's ruled unconstitutional (similar logic to Unique Ubiquitous) but Oppose if it is ruled constitutional as 'not news'.EdwardLane (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose if the act is ruled constitutional, support if it is ruled unconstitutional. I agree with Muboshgu for the most part, but assuming no change to the status quo, we rightly reported the "big fucking deal" when it was signed into US law. —WFC— 10:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Unique Ubiquitous. Not news except for attacking US policies. PS: the "nation refusing to care for their own people" isn't on it's knees begging for EU handouts, so sucks to your socialism. --IP98 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait. We're putting the cart before the horse here. Let's see what the verdict is, see what the ramifications are (esp. in regard to the changing or updating of encyclopaedic content), then decide whether it is an ITN item. LukeSurl t c 21:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Update. Ok, the decision is out, but as we now have prove of not trying to parse complex opinions in 5 minutes, it will probably take an hour for the affirmation of the result. Preliminary reads (after the first 5 minutes) says the ACA is upheld, which is rather significant (it involves powers of congress + taxes, apparently), so this is likely going to be significant news. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I updated the blurb accordingly, but as more details come out, we may need to alter it some more. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose a law not being overturned is not news. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

June 24Edit

[Posted] Lonesome GeorgeEdit

Article: Lonesome George (talk, history)
Blurb: Lonesome George, believed to be the last remaining Pinta Island tortoise, dies aged approximately 100. (Post)
News source(s): [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Attracting reasonable amount of coverage and the extinction of a species must rank highly in terms of encyclopedic value. Has been used as a kind of poster boy by environmental lobbyists too. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: Highly notable in its field, I cried when I found out he had died :( --Τασουλα (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, a species visibly going extinct, highly notable, widely known. --Golbez (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
George was iconic enough that I won't oppose, but he is assumed to be the last of a sub-species, not of a whole species, and the article does hint at the possibility that there are others, either in Prague or among the tortoise population of a neighbouring island. Intra-specific hybridisation means that the Pinta Tortoise is not so much extinct as re-integrated with sister subspecies within C nigra. Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Besides being the last member of a now extinct subspecies, Lonesome George was a well-known animal and emblematic of conservation efforts. This should be a simple YES decision to make. -OldManNeptune 02:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Crispmuncher. Khazar2 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have nothing to add other than agreement with everything written above doktorb wordsdeeds 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There is clear consensus and article doesn't seem to have any problems. We don't have to wait for the timer to post this, do we? Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons mentioned. Also, George was something of a symbol for the Galapagos Islands and his death is a big shock. When can this be posted? -- Peter Talk page 07:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - the epitome of an encyclopaedic event. I suggest also linking the name of the subspecies, and including the word 'extinct' in the blurb. Modest Genius talk 09:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The posted blurb doesn't actually link to Lonesome George. --LukeSurl t c 10:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    Lonesome George redirects to Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni. —David Levy 10:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that when drafting the blurb which is why my proposed blurb was only single-linked. It would have been nice to get "Lonesome George" in there somewhere if only for name recognition purposes- it is probably what people are going to be looking for - but I'm not going to start kicking up a fuss about it. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC).
  • An important tortoise(Lonesome George) dies which Wikipedia correctly refers to as Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni. Some news agency uses a previous little used English name of the topic, someone edits Wikipedia to use the news source, someone seeing the article contents move the article ignoring relevant guidelines and then ITN copied new article name because ITN articles defers to the supporting article. Reversal of page move takes 7 days, leaving ITN error on main page for potentially 7 days. CrazyRegards, SunCreator (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I know what Lonesome George was, but Pinta Island Tourtise sounds like a layman response to "Chelono-what-is?". Mention the name of the tourtoise in the blurb and move the article back to the scientific name. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Rather than complaining about this all over Wikipedia, why don't you just move it back? -- tariqabjotu 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't move it back since, I'm not an admin. I did open a move request however. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you since your were the admin to create the problem in the first place? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No. I am 100% not dealing with SunCreator on this matter, as (s)he has made it very clear (s)he prefers complaining and pointing out a mistake rather than just fixing it. SunCreator's characterization of this has been consistently wrong. I didn't just decide today that I wanted the article to be called Pinta Island tortoise. The version of the article was clearly an article that should have been called "Pinta Island tortoise", as this common name was the primary name. And this was not just put in the article yesterday; it has been the primary and sole common name in the entire article since July 2010 (well before even the scientific name was changed and updated in March 2011). It has been the primary and sole common name in the body of the article since September 2007 (before the article was renamed from Lonesome George). Not until today did SunCreator make any effort to correct this, even though it's apparent s/he looks at and edits the article from time to time. And yet, for some inexplicable reason, (s)he has portrayed this as a mess I generated on my own for no reason.
Look at the date on the diff you posted - it's today. I've had no reason to get involved before as the article title has been for years in line with WP:FNAME guidelines. Where is your WP:AGF and why as an admin do you choose to ignore a main page error when it's pointed out to you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
And, even still, when SunCreator contacted me on my talk page, I said I don't particularly care if you move the article back. And guess what he said? My issue is not with the page move so much. I told him that what's on the Main Page should match the article and even after being told that again on WP:ERRORS, he still didn't initiate a page move (and, once again, claimed that my move was a response to something that happened yesterday). If SunCreator wanted this fixed, it would have been fixed. He either doesn't or is dragging his heels to gain more unwarranted criticism of my move and create an unneeded shitstorm. Either way, as I told him, if he wants to insult my intelligence, as he did in the discussion on my talk page, I'm not interested in helping him. There are hundreds of administrators on this site -- and he didn't even need one until an hour ago to reverse the page move -- and he chose to go this least productive route. I'm not sympathetic to him at all and, as I said to him hours ago, I don't give a damn where the article is located . -- tariqabjotu 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You got the sequence of events incorrect, I posted the error on the main page and later tried to talk to you and once you did not help opened a page move. It's not the article title that is the issue, rather that the main page is in error. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Or rather, rather than complaining about this all over Wikipedia, why didn't you just move it back? I see as of an hour ago, you couldn't move it because someone else added an edit to the page of the scientific name. However, since you dragged your heels about this and (oddly) continued complaining about it when you were told that you could move it back, it hasn't been done yet. A bit strange, but as I said, I'm not helping you with this. -- tariqabjotu 18:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
So in other words, you acknowledge that you screwed up in moving this prematurely and/or without investigation, but stubbornly refuse to actually do something about it? Sounds pointy. I'm not sure about SunCreator, but this is the only venue I have raised this issue at. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not what I said. But I see that, like SunCreator, you like mischaracterizing actions to raise drama. I have more important things to do on Wikipedia, and in real life, than sit around and be a target for shit like this. So bye. -- tariqabjotu 19:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I was actually trying to show that you were being a dick by acknowledging that you created an issue while refusing to correct it. You can take your balls and go home, but you've only proven the point and made it easier to correctly characterize you at future appearances. Good day to you sir. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I have deleted the redirect. I am ambivalent about the article's title, but I didn't want my well-meant edit to stand in anyone's way. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohamed MorsiEdit

Articles: Egyptian presidential election, 2012 (talk, history) and Mohamed Morsi (talk, history)
Blurb: Mohamed Morsi is elected President of Egypt. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Second article updated, first needs updating

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.

Nominator's comments: The first democratic presidential elections in Egypt. Winner was announced a few minutes ago. --Meno25 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just nominating. I suggest blurb is modified to "The election commission officially announces Mohammed Morsi has defeated Ahmed Shafik in Egypt's first free presidential elections." Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the original blurb. It is simpler, yet factually accurate. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It also makes it seem like normal/regular elections. This wasn't the case when Obama was elected [18].Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

contribs) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I hope it is put without delay. It is very significant.Egeymi (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support & Question: Is he instantly the new president or only president-elect right now? --~Knowz (Talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
He is still president-elect. He will take office on the 1st of July. --Meno25 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. --~Knowz (Talk) 15:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - first free-elected president.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Obviously notable, it's just a question of getting the articles/blurb correct. One thing of note, when the expansion of the military powers was announced a while back, it was nominated, but not posted, with some calls to incorporate that story into the election results story (this was before the results were delayed). So, the question is, do we add any extra details about the political situation in Egypt to this blurb, or simply stick to just reporting the result? LukeSurl t c 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - why does it say "article needs updating"? The whole article is the update (100+ line update :) ), and seems fairly up-to-date to me. Thue (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    Because it does need an update. Very little information is provided on the outcome of the election. -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    There is a huge section named "results" with a detailed table of votes. Plus some text both in that section and in the "results" section. Surely you can't call that "Very little information"? Thue (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    You frequent ITN/C, so I don't feel the need to elaborate further on why what is currently there is obviously insufficient. -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support First democratic election in Egypt the largest Arab country, major episode in Egyptian revolution and Arab Awakening. --17:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Al Ameer son (talk)
P.S. Prefer blurb that includes fact that this was Egypt's first democratic presidential election. Very important detail. Suggest "Mohamed Mursi elected President of Egypt in first democratic elections." --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Egyptian_presidential_election,_2012#Per_Governorate.2C_Second_round needs to be filled in before posting. SpencerT♦C 17:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but urge restraint in claims of this compared to previous elections. In conversation, I would happily describe this as the first democratic presidential election in Egypt, but in an encyclopaedia the standard of examination and neutrality to which such an absolute claim is subject should be very high. The election on 2005 was apparently flawed in many ways, but the US monitor certainly didn't denounce it as non-democratic. For us to say that this is the "first democratic election" requires us to assert that there has been nothing democratic at all about the previous ones: we might do so in conversation, but I believe that we can't do so to an encyclopaedic standard. Kevin McE (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    Agree. It's also arguably far from entirely clear that this election has been democratic. Formerip (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    A much more objective point (that implies the same conclusion) is that this is the first presidential election following last year's Egyptian revolution. I never was under any impression that "first free election" or "first democratically elected president" would or should be in the blurb. -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Al Ameer son, an administrator, had proposed it, and no-one had countered: many people had included it in their support comments, and reasons for suport are sometimes is reflected in the posted blurb. That's why I added the reservation. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Elections such as this should always be posted. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: A number of reliable sources support that Morsi is the first in a number of things. "first freely elected president Egypt has known" Reuters. "first freely elected president" Washington Post. "Egypt's first democratically elected leader" - BBC. "his nation's first democratically elected president" - CNN. "first president of Egypt since a popular uprising" "first time Islamists have taken the presidency of the Arab World’s most populous nation". France 24. "Egypt's first Islamist president on Sunday after the freest elections in the country's history" "The country's last four presidents .. all came from the ranks of the military. This is the first time modern Egypt will be headed by an Islamist and by a freely elected civilian." AP. It is also the top news story. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Mohamed, if you'd like to see this on ITN, do something about this section please. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I wish to help, but I don't know the norms of election articles. Thanks for posting this anyway :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The Mohamed Morsi article meets the minimum, so I'm going to bold it instead and post. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Ashton EatonEdit

Article: Ashton Eaton (talk, history)
Blurb: Ashton Eaton breaks the decathlon world record at the United States Olympic Trials in Eugene, Oregon. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is "a world record that is broken after a very long time period-" 11 years- and "in a highly publicized event," so it is ITN/R. Note that it only has to fulfill one of these to be ITN/R, so if you disagree with just one of these claims that is not enough. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • comment on my reading of ITNR it says the record must be broken after a very long time with a very large margin OR highly publicized, not long time and highly publicized. The prior record was 9026, this one was 9039. Some context for how big of a margin that is would be welcome. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not ITNR A very long time probably means decades, margin is not huge, and the event is not highly publicised in the same way as the 100m record is. No opinion on the notability of the story - couldn't care less about athletics - but it is highly inappropriate to assert ITNR so definitively on so shaky application of subjective criteria. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
  • The record was set before WP was around. How long do you want? This was one of the longer standing records in track & field. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whether this is ITN/R or not is a big gray area, but regardless of this, I don't see it as being significant enough to post, because as Crispmuncher mentioned, it's not a highly publicized event. Notable sports websites either have it buried into their Olympics sections, or have it as a little blurb on their homepage, and that's it. You have to search for "Ashton Eaton" to find it on NYT, Reuters, etc. (not on the homepage). According to Google Trends, Lolo Jones is a trending topic right now, but Ashton Eaton doesn't seem to be getting attention outside of Eugene, OR (his hometown) and for some reason he's popular in Estonia (maybe Google Trends is a bad reference), but anyways it doesn't look like it gets a lot of social attention. Unless someone shows me that he blew the previous record out of the water, or that it is more significant than I really think it is, I would oppose it. -- Anc516 (talkcont) 06:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I want to oppose this as sports trivia, but Bzweebl is right, it clearly passes ITN/R criteria for a broken record. If we can post some footballer scoring 60 goals in a season, we can post this. To the objections above: 10 years is a very long time. How is it not? What would be a very long time? 15 years? 20? The counter for this event is now reset to zero, do we have to wait another 20 years to consider posting to WP? The last one was in 2k1, there was no WP to post then, so a mens decathlon world record has by definition not been posted to ITN. We're not flooded with them. Since it clears the first hurdle, objections based on coverage are moot. --IP98 (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Interesting. Over the years that this record has been broken, the points increase (See article) has increased by a pretty clear margin, which indicates when someone breaks this record, they really DO break it. I believe all records being broken in major sports should be posted anyway. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm pretty neutral about this, but the update does not yet look sufficient. I'm also confused, from reading the article, as to whether it is the decathlon world record that has been broken or the 1500 metres record. Formerip (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The update is eleven sentences. That is sufficient. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support New World record in athletics that broke the previous one standing 11 years is a notable news. Moreover, news related to athletics usually receive decent attention worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see how breaking an 11-year old world record isn't newsworthy. Hot Stop 14:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Newsworthy record. The update looks sufficient. I have copyedited it for style and clarity and fixed the lead. As such, article is ready to post IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 23Edit

Syria shoots down Turkish fighter aircraftEdit

Article: Syria–Turkey relations (talk, history)
Blurb: Syrian air defences shoot down a Turkish F-4 fighter flying in airspace over Syrian waters (Post)
News source(s): [19]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Either a new article needs to be created or Syria–Turkey relations can be updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd support updating Syria-Turkey relations as opposed to creating an independent article about this incident. It seems to be a relatively minor occurrence in the grand scheme of things, so I'm opposed to putting it up on the main page. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but my position is almost entirely reversed to Master&Expert. Providing enough coverage to meet normal update requirements inside of Syria–Turkey relations would be disproportionate coverage in that article. I would suggest a fresh article is the better route although that does mean a much bulkier update than tacking it in somewhere that it doesn't really belong. I've not had a look around but I'd be surprised if no-one has done any work on this. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose for now. The incident doesn't appear to have had major consequences, and Turkey is taking a cautious approach in its response.[20] Khazar2 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support given continued media coverage and growing consequences. Khazar2 (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This is having a significant impact on the already suffering relations between the two countries. The article has now been updated. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is a cassus belli for NATO, although it doesn't seem to have legs. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless this turns into a major conflict, it seems to be very minor dispute, despite the fact that it's a hot topic. Both nations are trying not to enrage the other after what happened, and it doesn't look like they will start to clash as a result of this. Might become more of a tense situation if the pilots were never found or were killed as a result, but both sides are out looking for them now. -- Anc516 (talkcont) 06:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, no retaliation seems to have occurred. Speciate (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Penn State sex abuse scandalEdit

Article: Penn State sex abuse scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​College football coach Jerry Sandusky is found guilty on 45 counts of child sex abuse in the aftermath of the Penn State sex abuse scandal (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 Truthsort (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. One of the biggest sport stories of the previous year coming to a close today. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Lots of Media Attention. The scandal caused a chain of events that resulted in the firing of Joe Paterno and major damage done to the reputation of Penn State University, both of which were top sports-related stories throughout this year. -- Anc516 (talkcont) 03:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support major criminal case. Hot Stop 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support conclusion to one of the biggest sex abuse scandals and sports scandals in recent memory, we posted (though controversially) some of the fallout of the case before, but now that the trial is over the effects of it is clearer. Needs some updating though. Secret account 04:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's certainly not see this go up without more than three supports. This is a rather commonplace local story regarding a minor player with no international import. I watched the verdict announced myself and wept in joy when I saw it but it has no lasting import other than the pleasure of a well-deserved mob lynching. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Now that western Europe is awake, let's take another perspective. This story has not been reported anywhere, by anyone here, and as was the case when the nomination was railroaded through last year, there is almost no greater perspective. It's a sex scandal, yes, but there are (unfortunately) sex scandals of this kind all over the place without being put on the front page of Wikipedia. There's a story like this on the front page of my local newspaper, incidentally, and only WP:POINT is stopping me from nominating it just to prove the point. Let's not be so US-centric that a minor event concerning just one State in a country the size of the US is put on the front page. It would be highly biased of us doktorb wordsdeeds 04:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record, it's the second top story on the BBC News website when viewed from Asia. So I wouldn't say that it "has not been reported anywhere, by anyone here" — the BBC clearly are. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 04:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There have also been print articles about it in The Guardian, for what it's worth. GRAPPLE X 21:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I imagine there is an update, but I'd certainly like to see more support than this. There has been only about two hours since the story broke, so there wasn't exactly a long window to comment. This article was already posted back in November, so it's not like we haven't covered this story before. And, given the controversy about posting that last story, I'd like to see strong consensus to have a continuation of that posted again. -- tariqabjotu 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I am curious if we would ever hear an argument that a state court's legalizing "gay marriage" would ever be opposed except by a US conservative on the grounds it just involves one State? The fact that local stories happen locally is hardly an issue. To call stories from the US US-centric because the US has 50 states is simply special pleading. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Surely you're not responding to me. -- tariqabjotu 06:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
No. μηδείς (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like AFP reposed the Reuters post. LOL! That's not international coverage, it's the blogosphere! --IP98 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has already been posted once and nominated who knows how many times. This is primarily a US domestic story of little wider significance.
Yes, I say that even taking account of Spencer's comments - for a start you can always find an obscure international page nowhere in the site's running order covering a story internationally, that is simply the nature of the web. Here, the BBC's coverage is not British but in the US and Canada area of their international site. Many of the others are simply recycled newswires and two point to exactly the same page. A couple of the other appear to be little more than content scrapers of the form we wouldn't accept as sources. If this is the top international coverage such a lack of investment in covering it is actually indicative of a lack of international notability. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose of no significance outside the US. LukeSurl t c 10:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose reposting a wire story on does not make the coverage or interest international. I found a Times of India article for the Miami face eater. Oppose this story because while sad it's mundane and unimportant. Even in the USA the only reason the TV cares is because of some college football coach "Joe Pa". If it had been Ted Smith in Kansas city no one would care. --IP98 (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The major impact of this story was back when this shook up the football staff back in Nov (IIRC). This is followthrough without any major expected repercussions (compared with, say, the Rodney King trial where heightened issues of race were raised). --MASEM (t) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral but I think that, if this were to go up, it'd be much better to wait until he is actually sentenced. --PlasmaTwa2 14:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem (though I continue to be disappointed in how many editors apply a "front-page international coverage is required" rule exclusively to US stories). Khazar2 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was already posted, and its current scope is minimal. A guilty man gets convicted of a crime. This happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Sandusky himself isn't well-known outside of the scandal, so the importance of this isn't far from an ordinary case. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 22Edit

[Posted] Fernando LugoEdit

Article: Fernando Lugo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo is removed by an impeachment at the Congress of Paraguay and is succeeded by vice-president Federico Franco (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Nominator's comments: A national head of state, removed by an impeachment. Surely news-worthy --Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Strongly support, an impeachment of a sitting head of state is certainly ITN relevant. Khuft (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, it is certainly significant. Egeymi (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've added the succession of VP Federico Franco to the blurb, as we typically post the appointment of new heads of state. However the Federico Franco article is pretty light, with only one ref (currently inaccessible and probably in Spanish). LukeSurl t c 22:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Of course, but the newsworthy one is Lugo, not Franco (as this is not a regular change of heads of state due to expiration of mandate, but because of an impeachment of the leaving one), all main news reports will have Lugo in the headlines, and his article is the most obvious one for anyone seeking information about this event. It should be important to improve Franco's article as well, but that's secondary for this nomination. Cambalachero (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: I translated the Spanish article about Franco, so at least it's not just an infobox. I will see if I get more specific info about him somewhere else (that article contains no info about his political career). Cambalachero (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Done: I added more info about Franco's political career. Considering that we are talking about a politican who had not received any attention before some hours ago, I think it is reasonably acceptable. Cambalachero (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. This is noteworthy. Plenty of international coverage, too. ComputerJA (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Although the update is adequate in size, I would still like to see more. There are no reactions, for example. Formerip (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Done I mentioned a pair of international reactions. However, there's no official position of the UNASUR yet (everything is being discussed and talked while we write here) Cambalachero (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Formerip (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Impeachment of a head of state is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Damn... Guess this will be the last we see of Lugo on the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • How very unfortunate. What will we do without Lugo to refer to as our own meme? :( —Strange Passerby (t × c) 03:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support For reasons given above. (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh god no not that picture again... SpencerT♦C 04:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose photo. This is the wrong picture! howcheng {chat} 06:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support That was a bit of a shotgun impeachment. What's the deal with the photo anyway? I guess I wasn't around then... --IP98 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This might help? SpencerT♦C 21:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Sort of, doesn't explain the original meme though. *shrugs* I'm over it. Thanks. What's with the ! people put in front of vote? --IP98 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan TuringEdit

Article: Alan Turing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Events are held across the world to celebrate the centenary of the birth of Alan Turing, widely regarded as the father of computer science and artificial intelligence (Post)
News source(s): University of Leeds

Nominator's comments: Good Article updated in Centenary commemoration sectionRicherman (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Highly influential but historical figure. ITN worthiness has to be assessed on the notability of the events themselves, it can't be inherited from the figure they commemorate. On that basis this is well short. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC).
I note this is being added to OTD for tomorrow in any case. Surely one main page mention is enough? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC).
It doesn't appear to be on the main page at all - you have to click on June 23 at the bottom of the page to get to another page to see it listed. And are you really suggesting that at least 13 events over the next two days to recognise the centenary is not newsworthy? Richerman (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
It's newsworthy but minor news. Not front page stuff and not ITN stuff. The threshold for memorials of any kind is historically very high: the tenth anniversary of 9/11 comes to mind of one that was front page news worldwide and still didn't make the grade. ITN isn't bound by past precendent of course but this strikes me as orders of magnitude less significant than that. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC).
Also, yes, it has made the main page for today. On This Day means exactly that - not that things gets posted the day before they occur. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. Actually, I was looking at the proposed main page for the following day when I made that comment but the inclusion of Turing's anniversary was tacked on as an afterthought and not very prominent, and I missed it. Richerman (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Celebrations, especially anniversaries like these, are usually not newsworthy and do not belong in ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Bzweebl. Khuft (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Bzweebl. LukeSurl t c 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - a 100th birth anniversary would not normally qualify, but the fact that there are many events planned to commemorate him makes it more notable. Also his affinity with computer science. And his appearance at other ubiquitous net locations - he has pride of place at Google Search. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
His status within computer science is what makes him noteworthy, not what makes these events noteworthy. In any case why should we post specifically because of his status within the field? That, or the fact that other tech-orientated websites are marking this, does not mean we should. Almost the reverse in fact, we have to be careful over issues of systemic bias in an area it is generally acknowledged we tend to over-represent. Is this the top story on any general news website? Crispmuncher (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I disagree - his status within computer science is what makes these events noteworthy. So, slavishly follow the trend of "general news websites" and avoid at all costs copying our techy pals (so that we look more serious)? As I said elsewhere, when will we get the opportunity ever again to see him in the news or to celebrate him in person? It's not as if there were distinct dates for notable events in his life that would ever be the subject of news again? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It isn't a question of "slavishly following the trend", it is about differentiating between items of general interest and specialist topics. The anniversary (not the events that mark it) is being covered in the sci-tech and IT press but is attracting comparatively little interest generally. We post perhaps 10-15 items a week. Is this one of the biggest 10-15 news stories of the week on a worldwide basis? No. In fact it probably wouldn't even make the top 100 in terms of its actual significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The anniversary (not the events that mark it) is being covered in the sci-tech and IT press but is attracting comparatively little interest generally. Your propensity for making sweeping statements that show your complete ignorance of the subject in question (as in the recent Transit of Venus proposal) is astounding. The centenary has been featured by every major news agency in the UK, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail etc. and it was announced on the ITV and BBC and Channel 4 television news programmes. And in case you think that's a bit parochial, it was also the editorial feature in yesterday's New York Times see: [21] And as for "Is this one of the biggest 10-15 news stories of the week on a worldwide basis" I could ask the same question about the NBA championship. Is that the one of the biggest stories of any newsagency outside of the US? Richerman (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
NBA Finals has been reported prominently in all newscasts in the Philippines. –HTD 11:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I am aware of the influence of Turing, probably more than you are. Like all CS graduates from the old Victoria University of Manchester I can assure you I was made fully aware of the unparalleled contribution of that institution to early computer science, including the SSEM, MArks I & II, ATLAS and notable pioneers from the University including a certain Mr Turing. A position based on knowledge of the particular subject domain and ability to put it into context is not an argument from ignorance, quite the reverse.
If you want further illustration why not try comparing your mainspace contributions record with mine: you'll see extensive contributions to computing articles on my part, and a significant secondary block of astronomy and astrophysics. When I look at yours all I see are edits to the two particular stories you cite, this and the transit of Venus.
As for news coverage, yes, it made the BBC's ten o'clock news last night. 15 minutes into a 20 minute programme. For a story marking a British national hero that is basically nowhere. It's a similar story across the board. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
I was referring to your ignorance of the fact that it was being reported by every news agency in the country. As for your dismissal of my contributions you should try reading my userpage to see what articles I've created, and in some cases taken to FA or GA and then compare it with yours. In all your time on wikipedia you claim to have created one article which is a stub that is tagged as unreferenced four years after its creation. Typically, you are trying to rubbish my contributions based on a totally false premise. You haven't actually looked at what I've done or you would know that over the last few years I have made over 15,000 edits with contributions to articles in many different fields. How you have the gall to come on here rubbishing other people's work and opposing their suggestions within minutes of them being proposed is a complete mystery to me. And, as I worked at Manchester University for 7 years and UMIST for almost 30 years I'm really not impressed by you waving around your superior knowledge. Richerman (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to be drawn in this kind of "Mine's bigger than yours" debate, particularly one based on out of date and inaccurate information. If you care so passionately about your little trophies take them back to FAC or DYK, putting work into an article about an upcoming event does not automatically make it newsworthy, particularly for events that are forecastable years in advance.
You asserted I was ignorant and I pulled you up on it. You melded that into ignorance of coverage, "just like" the transit of Venus. That doesn't ring true either, hell, it wasn't even a point I raised there. It is clear to me that you are now more interested in attacking me than discussing the merits of this non-story. That's fine, I can handle it, but it doesn't help this get posted in the slightest. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Support - Front page of Google (the #1 web site in the world) with a unique interactive Google Doodle of the Turing machine Woz2 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As Bzweebl said, celebrations and anniversaries should go to "On this day" unless the celebration itself is an event that is newsworthy. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arbitrary celebrations are not the same as people or their accomplishments. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Celebrations and anniversaries, for a person of such notability in their field, are newsworthy doktorb wordsdeeds 04:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There is no need for any precedence when this person is in question. It's true that the events held across the world are only anniversaries, but this is something that receives significantly more attention than the previous cases. Moreover, the current year is dedicated to Alan Turing which is the fist case of this kind I've ever seen. I really don't like to stick on the criterion that anniversaries are automatically dismissed from inclusion, when there is another reason to support something.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Prime Minister of PakistanEdit

Article: Raja Pervaiz Ashraf (talk, history)
Blurb: Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is appointed as the Prime Minister of Pakistan after the disqualification of Yousaf Raza Gillani. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Recent update. Mar4d (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Yousaf Raza Gillani's case is still in ITN. So it can be given as an addition to the event.Egeymi (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Just update the blurb. It's already close to the top, so this will stay up for enough time. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - good one for itn,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - That's a pretty thin article for a Prime Minister. LukeSurl t c 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable development in the dramatic chain of events in Pakistan. Will this guy also be thrown out by the supreme court if he refuses to investigate the corruption cases against the president ? Anyway, we can update the blurb and bump it up to this date. Article's decent enough IMO. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support updating the existing blurb (to a double bold if necessary) and bumping it to the top of the list. Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is now updated to a degree adequate for mainpage bolding. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 NBA FinalsEdit

Article: 2012 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In basketball, the Miami Heat defeat the Oklahoma City Thunder to win their second NBA championship (Finals MVP LeBron James pictured). (Post)
News source(s): ESPN

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.

 --Albacore (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Someone's very quick on the draw, 4th quarter just started! Anyways, ITN/R, the most significant championship in professional basketball, and very large media and social attention. Although the blurb should be more like "In basketball, the Miami Heat defeat the Oklahoma City Thunder in the NBA Finals (Finals MVP X pictured)." so that the Oklahoma City Thunder get some credit for getting this far, they definitely deserve it. (Nevermind, you got it!) -- Anc516 (talkcont) 03:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support No rational needed, this is the NBA final after all. Oops I just gave a rational. Silly me. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this nomination not showing up in the index for everyone or is it just me? IS this a formatting issue? I added a title+header so it shows up now. Hooray for me. Evidently the user WAS in a hurry to get this up because they missed it out. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Damn, you beat me to it! -- Anc516 (talkcont) 03:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Game 5 will need a text update (after the game finishes, 1.21 to go, Miami 18 point lead as I type). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Game is Over! Just needs an update and it'll be ready for posting. - Anc516 (talkcont) 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is unproductive. This already meets notability standards because it's on WP:ITN/R. How about working on the article instead? It doesn't even have the score for crying out loud. -- tariqabjotu 04:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm working on it, same with other editors I'm sure. Calm down. -- Anc516 (talkcont) 04:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • "Calm down"? I'm sorry, I didn't realize we weren't supposed to talk about the quality of updates here. I thought waiting forty-five minutes to mention the lack of progress on an update would have resulted in less defensiveness from respondents, but I guess I was wrong. -- tariqabjotu 04:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The game just ended 30 minutes ago. The MVP announcement came 15 minutes ago. The update is in progress, give it time! -- Anc516 (talkcont) 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict × 3) [For the love of God, please use the Preview button.] Three quarters of the game were over by the time it was nominated. Most of an update could have been completed by that time or by the time the game was over. It didn't have to be, but there is no point to adding supports to or nominating an ITN/R item when there's no simultaneous updating. It's not a badge of honor to nominate articles for ITN. It's not about showing how excited one is about the game. And, frankly, the fact that the article didn't have something so basic as the score more than ten minutes after the end of the game is a sign of slow updating. -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Some of us enjoy actually watching the game, not spending it typing in front of their PC instead of watching the game on TV. The necessary update was given to the article, you posted it, and all is well in the world of ITN and the NBA. As someone who devotes as much time to Wikipedia as you do (I really do appreciate all the work you and the other admins put into Wikipedia, by the way), if the fact that the score of the game wasn't added as fast as you would have liked, you could have added it on your own. -- Anc516 (talkcont) 04:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
              • It's not the score that's important; it's that it's indicative of the speed of the update. People tend to jump over each other to be the first to update the score for big sporting events (and with the Super Bowl, commentary is sometimes updated in realtime), so when that hasn't been done -- yes, even after just 10-15 minutes -- it bears repeating that the article update is what's important. (Note that last year, the score was in the article before it was nominated here and before the game ended.) You waited until the end of the game, and that's fine, but others did not. And if they just decided during a commercial break to come to Wikipedia to nominate the item or offer up support (perhaps as a way of expressing excitement about the outcome or being first to "call it") and then go back to watching the game, that's really not helpful. It's already on ITN/R, so its notability is already established. It's great that you updated the article, but I don't want to encourage a culture where simply supporting the notability of an item on ITN/R is seen as moving an item a step closer to being on ITN. In some situations, even with such goading, it takes ages for a prose update (beyond just a score) to materialize, and then we get complaints about why the item hasn't been posted yet. To be honest, the fact that you updated it so quickly is a bit remarkable. -- tariqabjotu 05:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 2012 NBA Finals Updated! Ready to go, but I'll continue to work on it! -- Anc516 (talkcont) 04:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

June 21Edit

[Posted] 2012 Indonesian boat disasterEdit

Article: 2012 Indonesian boat disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ninety people are missing after a boat carrying roughly 200 asylum seekers capsizes in the Indian Ocean between Java and Christmas Island. (Post)
News source(s): The Age, BBC, Hindustan Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A serious and significant maritime incident with significant loss of life. --Mattinbgn (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. My condolences to those who died in such an untimely manner and their loved ones. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, a notable maritime disaster. Article will need to be expanded beyond the stub it currently is. LukeSurl t c 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable disaster. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above with expansion and a different blurb. IA 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - with expansion on the issues that arise from the ABC blog - not yet mentioned in article SatuSuro 09:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has now been updated with the latest info and is ready to be posted, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I don't disagree that this is ITN, I do have concerns when articles like this are created without considering long-term notability per WP:NEVENT. I'm offering more discussion on the talk page. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Romanian Ex-PM Adrian NăstaseEdit

Article: Adrian Năstase (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Romania's former Prime Minister Adrian Năstase attempts suicide, hours after the High Court of Cassation and Justice throws out his appeal against a two-year jail sentence over corruption. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times Yahoo News BBC CNN Reuters.

Article updated
  • I've changed the blurb to indicate that the suicide attempt was unsuccessful. LukeSurl t c 10:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. A judgement over a former prime minister is notable. Thue (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Both the verdict and his unsuccessful suicide attempt are certainly notable.Egeymi (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: The article has orange tags. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Mmm, and it's BLP of a controversial figure too. Really should be in good shape before being linked from the main page. LukeSurl t c 17:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- A good two-pronged blurb for an intriguing story. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when ready I agree with the above. Judgment + suicide attempt = ITN worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when article is better sourced - Agree that this is a fine candidate for ITN, but also that the article needs work in the sourcing. The tag is merited, in my view. Jusdafax 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

June 20Edit

United Nations Conference on Sustainable DevelopmentEdit

Article: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development is currently being held in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the future of sustainable development. (Post)
News source(s):
  • This is ITN-worthy, but the post should either be associated with the start or end of the conference. As we've missed the former, I suggest we wait until the conclusion. LukeSurl t c 22:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Support if Anything actually substantial comes out of this. There's been loads diddy-daddling (AIN'T I SOOO TERRIBLY POASHHHH) going on with nothing of substance really being put forward, disagreements all around and a general lack of cooperation at such events among countries. If something rather special comes out of this, you have my support. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now as nothing has happened. If something does, it can be discussed on its merits. Hot Stop 03:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
support major intl summit that is NOT just state parties...more noable than the ITNR ritualised crap.Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • support agree with Lihaas. Thue (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- The success of the meeting should not have anything to do with the importance of it. It is also the biggest conference in UN history.[22] However, as FormerIP pointed out last week, the article is updated but of very poor quality. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you just found a new motto for the UN "importance doesn't mean success" Hot Stop 16:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These conferences are huge but they mean less and less. Most Norwegian environmentalist groups abstain from traveling there this time for that very reason, figuring they will do more to protect the global environment by not expending the resources it takes to travel to Rio and back. __meco (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
That might be more a comment on how much attention is paid to the groups in question, rather than the importance of the conference. Support posting at end of conference (if only to avoid the self imposed nonsense of declaring it's opening in the present tense). Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose What is the impact of this conference on the future of sustainable development? Any commitments from the global players? Any tangible outcome expected, besides the nice time in Rio on other people's money? Crnorizec (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is what those "people" get paid for. What editor here gets on ITN for showing up to work? μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] 2012 Toulouse hostage crisisEdit

Four people have been taken hostage in a bank in the French city of Toulouse by a man claiming to be linked to al-Qaeda. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • This story is still developing, we can't expect Wikipedia to be a live news tracker on this sort of story. Suggest doing an ITN nomination once the situation is ended. LukeSurl t c 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if he claims to be al-Qaeda, is it really that notable? Far greater acts of violence than a four-person hostage-situation happen every day all over the world. It is just not important in the big picture. And al-Qaeda doesn't really exist as a card-carrying organization - everybody can claim to be a member of al-Qaeda. The fact that he only took the hostages when his bank robbery failed strongly suggests that this is just a random maladjusted person, and not a part of an elaborate al-Qaeda plot. Thue (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I fully agree with Thue.Egeymi (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Incident now over [23], resolved without loss of life. Signs suggest al-Qaeda link likely a fantasy of a mentally ill man. All in all, a fairly unremarkable hostage situation. Article is also single-sentence, possibly even an AfD candidate. LukeSurl t c 15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

June 19Edit

Ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak "clinically dead"Edit

Article: Hosni Mubarak (talk, history)
Blurb: Hosni Mubarak, ousted as President of Egypt in last year's revolution (pictured), is reported "clinically dead" by state media. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph CNN
Are you seriously comparing Vaclav Havel to Hosnia Mubarek? The former was a poet, a revolutionary, and a Czech, beside being a prime minister. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously comparing to a 30 year long head of state and far more notable "in the news"? Hvel was notale no doubt, but his tenure in the news as leader of a country and more last a little over 10 years if that.Lihaas (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this guy has gone the full circle. Air Force Commander, President for 30 years, survived 6 assassination attempts, his government brokered the 2008 Israel Hamas ceasefire, then heavy state corruption, protests, violent crackdown, resignation, trial and humiliation and now this is where he is. In terms of notability I'm afraid Vaclav Havel will be overshadowed by a long shot. But yes, on the issue at hand, we can wait until something clearer emerges. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If 'clinically dead'

If 'dead':

  • Support Notable person in (recent) history passes our criteria doktorb wordsdeeds 21:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • When Mubarak does actually die it should be a pretty straightforward, uncontroversial ITN item. However being in a coma is not the same thing, no item. LukeSurl t c 22:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Doktorbuk.--WaltCip (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Even though he is not a current head of state, his death would influence current events tremendously, hence fulfilling death criteria 3. However, to even be having this discussion is quite premature, as no news website is even considering that Mubarak may be dead right now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support If he has kicked the bucket. As in you know, dead. Like, really really dead. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose even though the press will squak and flail, in the end it doesn't matter. He was "convicted" by a "court", ousted, who cares if he's dead. Murdered in prison would be ok, but not this. --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Are you serious? He's a significant historical figure that will forever be etched into the history of Egypt. The fact that he was or soon will be convicted by a court makes him even more notable regardless of your political views, his death is and/or will be of great note to millions in the Arab peninsula and northern Africa. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if actually dead, obviously. But oppose if it's anything less than that. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's not quite dead. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Query I haven't seen this in any source yet. Is he "Ariel Sharon' dead? or "Peter Sellers' dead? Or Monty Python 'dead' dead? If he's as dead as Francisco Franco, I am in support. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I literally laughed out loud on that one. Glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His gangs have been touting his alleged bad health so many times, and he was reported to be in coma just after the revolution only to emerge just fine. I don't buy it until he is actually in a coffin. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that his condition has become uncertain, I suggest this nomination be withdrawn for renomination at a later date. --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, wait til they bury him. That will be ITNworthy whether he is live or dead. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Prime Minister of PakistanEdit

Article: Yousaf Raza Gillani (talk, history)
Blurb: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani of Pakistan is discharged from office following a contempt of court conviction by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Breaking news. Mar4d (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • No comment on the nom (it sounds important though) but this isn't ITNR since he's head of gov't not head of state this is probably more a comment on the sillyness of ITNR than anything else Hot Stop 12:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
wait for repercussions...if it means anything a new PM will come up soon and thats more readilt ITNLihaas (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with an update. A serving PM being stripped of office in this manner is notable without wider repercussions. Much more of an update is needed though. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Support, this is definitely a big deal, for Pakistan and the region. Nsk92 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Major development. The top news in the subcontinent now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This is no small matter for the region and could easily have repercussions, so post now. Article is updated and ready. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Dramatic developments. Prez nominates textiles minister as new PM. Judge orders arrest of textiles minister a day after nomination.[24] Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Assange Seeks Asylum From EcuadorEdit

Article: Julian Assange (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During his extradition proceedings, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange seeks asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in the UK. (Post)
News source(s): [25]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Breaking news. Crnorizec (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Seeking asylum is not ITN worthy. We'd need something more significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose getting asylum maybe. Strong support though if he comments on freedom for Myanmar. --IP98 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop soap-boxing.Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is nothing. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Assange is a scary example of how extendible a justice system can be in a Western democracy (Sweden, now UK). Also, there is allegedly a secret indictment against him in the US. Bradley Manning has been held in a US prison for two years without a verdict for the same case. Now, a fourth state is involved, Ecuador with the likely granting of asylum. So in my view, whatever happens to Assange is very important indication about the level of freedom of information and the workings of the Western legal systems. Crnorizec (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
A secret US indictment against him? Citation needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, things that happen to Assange are important. This is not something happening to Assange, this is a request that may or may not be honored by Ecuador. At this point, it's newsworthy, but it's not an ITN-worthy story or update. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless actually granted, which would be notable enough. Otherwise this whole story is simply descending into soap opera. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose- Surely his request isn't as notable as it actually being granted. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is just another twist in an increasingly tedious soap opera. The entire story is notable and deserves front page coverage; these little incidents do not. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not worth a ITN post. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - fairly trivial on the grand scheme of things, just happens to be occurring to someone internet culture cares a lot about. --LukeSurl t c 21:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - when/if he is granted Ecuadorian asylum.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Close this discussion. It's premature to make a judgement on this, because of how unsure we are of the outcome. Furthermore it seems likely that Ecuador will take days to decide. The discussion of whether to post will be contentious and complicated enough for a posting admin, without the added complication of trying to work out whether early opposers were against posting if Assange is actually granted asylum. —WFC— 22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stop feeding the troll. (Assange, not the OP, whose good faith I don't doubt.) As and when he's tried in Sweden, the verdict will be noteworthy. Until then, he can stay off our front page for all I care. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

June 18Edit

[Posted] G-20Edit

Article: 2012 G-20 Mexico summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The seventh G-20 summit commences in Los Cabos, Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): MSNBC

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: ITN/R and particularly important this year because of the European sovereign-debt crisis and Syrian uprising (2011–present). --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Personally I'd prefer we wait for an end-of-summit statement. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting now but not at the end. I think we do a better service to WP readers by posting this at the start, so that anyone who becomes interested can follow as it progresses. --IP98 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Salman bin AbdulazizEdit

Article: Salman bin Abdulaziz (talk, history)
Blurb: Salman bin Abdulaziz is named the new Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Update to the current posting, no nom as a fresh posting. Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- Reasonable update to the blurb; we can just move it back up to the top with two bold articles. The article update is almost complete. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Seems sensible to update the item with this development. LukeSurl t c 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support yes, agree that the blurb should be updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What's next? "Generalissimo Nayef Rancisco Franco's still dead"? Is this the post everlasting? At least move it back down to the bottom where it belongs.μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing so--and helpful of you to add back Nayef. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

IBM SequoiaEdit

Article: IBM Sequoia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The American Sequoia overtakes the Japanese K computer to become the fastest supercomputer in the world, calculating at a rate of 16.32 petaflops. (Post)
News source(s): ComputerWorld, PCWorld

Article needs updating

 BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, as nominator. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, I don't see why nationality is relevant here. Taking that and the nominator's comments into account, I would suggest
The IBM Sequoia becomes the fastest supercomputer in the world, calculating at a rate of 16.32 petaflops.WFC— 17:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when article sufficiently updated with WFC's blurb (brevity is best). Wouldn't this be a minority topic? LukeSurl t c 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there was one 100m race every six months, and the world record was broken more often than not on these occasions, we would not post such records. That is essentially the situation with the TOP500 ranking system. It is of the nature of technology that it improves and supersedes its previous performance. We frequently reject proposals of records simply because they are records, and this is no different. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • As noted by above, this is like a record that is broken maybe every two years (maybe even moore's law 18 months, but...) so it's not a frequent changeover. But importantly it is not a individual record but the fact that numerous agencies came together to fund and construct the computer, something that takes a lot of time and money to complete. To try to compare it to sports achievements is a weak analogy. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • That's 4 times in 6 meetings of TOP500 ( a little over 2 1/2 years), not "maybe every two years". The proposal is to post the breaking of a record; if the noteworthy achievement were the completion of a collaborative project (a claim totally unsupported by the article), then surely it should have been proposed when in went into use. Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • To respond to your original post, this is every bit as big a deal in the tech world as Monaco and the Indy 500 are in the sporting world. Your other point is irrelevant. If this should have been posted a couple of months ago, and is receiving even more coverage now than did then, then it's a stroke of luck that we have waited until now, the optimal time to post. —WFC— 21:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • So what newsworthy event occurred on 17 June? Certainly not this machine's "becoming the fastest supercomputer in the world", as it was no faster on that date than the day before. So the news item is that a ranking list that is published twice a year has been published, and for the 4th time in 6 editions of the list, it has a different name at the top of it. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
            • This is In the news, not Important events. If a story is being picked up by many sources, and represents a milestone of some type, it qualifies for ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
              • No it doesn't. The nomination is a press release, not an event, and certainly not news. Yes, it's picked up my many sources, but a new flavour of coffee at Starbucks is guaranteed a dozen spots in tabloids, and we ain't touching them with a bargepole. I understand that this press release isn't even current, making the nomination even less likely to pass doktorb wordsdeeds 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
                • Technically, the Voyager I story a few days ago was all from a press release by NASA. Yet it gained wide coverage across numerous news sources because those sources felt it was a significant merit of human achievement, even though it wasn't a true "event". Now, I am well aware that press releases can be taken as commercial ads (for example, with Microsoft's introduction of the Surface tablet yesterday, I refuse to accept that that would be considered as an ITN since its basically an ad for MS), but we're talking about something far from a commercial endevour, but as a scientific advancement. And just because its some time after its announcement doesn't mean its not "in the news" if other sources are just covering it now. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is such a no mark, mundane and flippant story. Technological advance in the 21st century as news has to be pretty more impressive than the computer equivalent of a horse race winning by a neck. I would have more sympathy with technological nominations were they not so much naval gazing and masturbatory. On the basis of what has been nominated, explained and considered, there's no way this should go anywhere near the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 20:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think it is noteworthy news. -Abhishikt (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with a strong preference for my shortened blurb. —WFC— 21:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending update with WFCs blurb. --IP98 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This is not just noteworthy but an important record as well. However, the update is insufficient, so I changed that in the template. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable development, decent news coverage. Article needs to be fattened a bit. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see any real milestone having been breached here: it doesn't represent any kind of order of magnitude improvement, nor is it revolutionary on a fundamental basis. Which computer is fastest is something that alters rapidly - 15 times in the last 19 years - as part of the regular performance gains seen by computers generally. The "news" element here does not relate to a matter of substance - i.e. it becoming the fastest non-secret computer - but its place in the TOP500 rankings, which are only updated every six months. We have a tendency to post far too many computing stories here as it is: we should be more selective, restricting our coverage to game-changers or genuine milestones. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
  • If its posted let's drop the 'American' label and just call it the IBM Sequoia. Computers don't have passports.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose new technology is faster than old technology? Who knew. Hot Stop 12:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand the opposition to this. These are exactly the type of items that the minority topic "technology" is meant for. Not some idiotic apple gadget, but a 16 petaflop super computer. It took years to develop, build and test. It's also not an incremental update of the previous K computer, it's completely different. These high speed computers are used in weather modeling, astrophysics and various geo-political struggles (ie cypher breaking) and have a substantially greater impact than 60 football goals in a season or 100 test cricket centuries. It will probably have a greater impact on the course of human events than the bailout of a worthless bank in a failed state. I thought this would be an easy pass... --IP98 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think HotStop sums it up pretty well. New technology > Old Technology is not front page news, is it? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The logic that "new technology is always better than old and therefore not news" basically means any story about science and technology - always advancing on previous work - should be incapable for ITN. And by similar logic, there will always be a winner in an election, or a winner in a sports event, so we should never cover those as well in ITN. We need to get out of this mindset that ITN must be current events. It needs to be about current stories but that need not necessarily be about events from the last week or such. We also have to recognize that when scientific progress is highlighted by non-scientific sources for the layperson that that means that there's more to it than just standard scientific progress. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
        • A large number of stories involve some sort of quantitative metric, with the story being that X is larger/smaller/longer/shorter than has been achieved before. A similar example is reporting on the World's Tallest Building. Such stories need to be evaluated on their own merits rather than dismissed out-of-hand. In this case the computing record isn't broken that often, it represents a significant advance, and the machine itself will be used for significant things. LukeSurl t c 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Commnet: fastest computer in the world could be linked to TOP500#Top 10 ranking. BobAmnertiopsisChatMe! 17:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: The IBM Sequoia article will have to be improved significantly before it can be put on Main Page. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Incremental. Speciate (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this was ITN notable, we'd have to report this every six months. Because basicaly every time there is a new TOP500 No. 1. --bender235 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seriously. What next? The new Number 1 in the Top 500 vacuum cleaners? Khuft (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Protest in SudanEdit

Article: 2011–2012 Sudanese protests (talk, history)
Blurb: Anti-Austerity protest continues for the second day in Khartoum, Sudan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Article needs updating

 The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose at the current time, Reuters report does not suggest a greatly significant protest. Worth keeping an eye on in case of escalation. LukeSurl t c 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, no update whatsoever to article. You made an empty section and expected others to fill it in for you. Bad form. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- However, no need to criticize the nominator. It could be that he didn't have time but wanted a potential updater to have a section and was concerned that the update would be put somewhere else. Or perhaps he was planning on doing it later, but didn't have time at the moment. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Egypt: expansion of military powersEdit

Article: Egyptian presidential election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As the votes of the Egyptian presidential election are counted, the Egyptian military grants itself broad powers over any elected president. (Post)
News source(s): NYT BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Another significant part of the coup-in-progress. A few days ago they dissolved the elected parliament (which we posted ITN). Now as it looks like the military's candidate for president was losing the election, the military have made the president post powerless, seized control over the budget etc., and seized control of the council writing the constitution. Thue (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support This is a major coup in progress that is occurring the one of the most important Middle Eastern countries. We may also want to mention the preliminary results of the election. Eiad77 (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Time to start 2012 Egyptian coup and get that ball rolling. --IP98 (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously if it is in fact a coup. We should avoid the temptation to post every new development in this. --IP98 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't we post every major development, as long as each individual development is notable enough? We can just update and top any existing blurb; as long as we don't have more than one item about Egypt ITN, I don't see a problem with it. Being up-to-date is a feature, not a problem. Thue (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Military appoints X president. X suspends Y. Protestors gather and complain. Z people are killed protesting the suspension of Y by X. A suspends relations with Egypt. etc, etc etc.... --IP98 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As long as we post only the really groundbreaking moments, then I have no problem with that. I agree that the bar should be somewhat higher than if the event occurred isolated. The alternative is to keep historically important developments off ITN. Thue (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's see where this coup goes first, if a major protest occurs and is met with a hostile military response then will support stickying this item otherwise posting(when it gets the adequate number of "supports") it as a regular ITN item should be fine - for now. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Who is calling this a coup? Surely not ITNC alone. That wouldnt merit a posting on its ownLihaas (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it fits the texbook definition of a coup - does anybody argue that it isn't a coup? And to quote the linked NYT article: "The military’s charter “really does complete the coup in many obvious ways,” said Nathan Brown, an Egypt expert at George Washington University, in an e-mail message. It brings back martial law and protects the military from any public, presidential or parliamentary scrutiny. And it perpetuates the generals’ dominance of the political system.”". Thue (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to nomination. Thue has been around long enough to know what policy is, and there is nothing exceptional about this nom to suggest breaking that policy. We don't post without an update. If Thue feels so strongly about it there is nothing to stop him doing the work needed. As it is official results for the presidential election are not yet known so how the hell can we post this? I would also be hesitant about throwing the word "coup" around as potentially problematic - how can the current government mount a coup against itself? Crispmuncher (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Comment - Although it quacks like a coup as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer to avoid enshrining that name in an article title until we've got a bit more hindsight to go on. So I say Wait and post something along the lines of X is declared elected President of Egypt, as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces restricts the powers of the presidency. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The BBC are slightly more qualified with their language. It would be worth taking a look at a wider range of news sources, rather than reflecting the editorial position of a single NYT article. LukeSurl t c 14:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The coup "editorializing" is just in my description. Note that the actual blurb I suggested doesn't call it a coup. (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am a bit torn on this one, but I am currently leaning towards oppose until election. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Key elements of Egypt's new interim constitution. SCAF has move power than any elected body. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment What's with the "Notability" and "Article and blurb readiness" sub-sub-sections here? Though I'm sure well intentioned, they've just made it difficult to track the chronology of the discussion. Let's not use them again. LukeSurl t c 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I have left a note on Thue's talk page. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support it seems that the Egyptian revolution has been hijacked, and it is a very unfortunate twist of events. Crnorizec (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Coup overstates the action taken by the ruling military council. It is inevitable that opposition groups describe it in non-neutral terms. We must avoid the same mistake. No respected commentators (BBC for example) are referring to a coup. Leaky Caldron 17:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • TIME magazine uses the same terms: "it may be one of the smoothest coups in history" [26]. When the military suspends the civilian government and takes over controls of the state and writing of constitution, that's what it is. With tanks on the streets or without them. Crnorizec (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Incorporate into presidential results item - the story here is the definition of the office of president (undermining of the office?), and the linked article is Egyptian presidential election, 2012. The discussion of the presidential results needs to include a mention of this action, and by the time of the results declaration we should have sufficient hindsight to address this action and its consequences. Definitely don't use the word 'coup' as it's inherently POV. LukeSurl t c 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It certainly looks like a coup, doesn't it? I think this is a good moment to address the situation of the Egyptian revolution having gone completely sour. __meco (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The sources don't call it a coup. Wikipedia relies on sources and doesn't make its own analysis. Period. --RJFF (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - I've removed the word "coup" from the section title, as we were having a discussion about a phrase that isn't in the proposed blurb. LukeSurl t c 21:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sticky This would seem like an obvious sticky if there were reliable updates and sources. I saw Mubarak's Ex-PM claimed to have won the election, but the source was th Sioux City Journal. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 U.S. Open - Webb SimpsonEdit

Articles: 2012 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history) and Webb Simpson (talk, history)
Blurb: In golf, Webb Simpson (pictured) wins the 2012 U.S. Open. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN

Second article updated, first needs updating

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.

Nominator's comments: James Frederick "Webb" Simpson (born August 8, 1985) is an American professional golfer and winner of the 2012 U.S. Open. Article has had 78923 views in the last hour and qualifies per ITNR. I watched live coverage on NBC. See "U.S. Open (golf)" for details on tournament. Jim Furyk and Graeme McDowell also made the news. Add specific entry as needed. (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Once Updated ITN/R and one of the four major tournaments in golf. Definitely ITN worthy. However, both articles lack a prose update. (Updated with the ITN Template prior to posts below, but there was an edit conflict and sent a message to the nominator about using the ITN Template in the future). -- Anc516 (talkcont) 05:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Sorry Anc515 for the edit conflict! I agree with you - support not least because it's ITN/R. Get the article tided up and all is well doktorb wordsdeeds 05:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above rationales!HotHat (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons mentioned above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R, but there is no prose in the round summaries section, all tables. --IP98 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when either article gets an update. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- I have updated Webb Simpson. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Carlotta (2012) (2nd nom)Edit

'Article: Hurricane Carlotta (2012) (talk, history)
​Three people have been killed in Mexico due to Hurricane Carlotta. (Post)
News source(s): this

Re-nom per suggestion below. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Usually when we post a natural disaster, the storm had to be particularly noteworthy and I don't see it how this storm qualifies, considering tropical storms are extremely common in that area. Didn't cause a much of an impact in Mexico from the look of things. Secret account 07:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Close- This is hardly uncommon. We can't post every natural disaster in the world. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I wouldn't think we posted a hurricane unless it was a category 4 or 5. This storm wasn't even impactful enough to have its name pulled from circulation. -- (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
In addition Hurricane Bud (2012) hit roughly the same area 2 weeks ago and was stronger. One of the three people killed in Carlotta was killed in a car wreck. The other 2 were in the same house. -- (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Carlotta was not a significant TC landfall and thus i question the motives of the nominator. As for when we should post hurricanes/tropical cyclones, it should only be when there is some really significant impact and not just when its Cat 4/5. I also note that we never know about the pulling (retirement) of the official tropical cyclone names, until a lot later on.Jason Rees (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose In agreement with the reasons above. It sounds cold and harsh, but three dead people isn't enough doktorb wordsdeeds 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very boring cyclone. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

June 17Edit

[Posted] 2012 24 Hours of Le MansEdit

Article: 2012 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 80th edition of the 24 Hours of Le Mans was won by Marcel Fässler, Benoît Tréluyer, and André Lotterer driving an Audi R18 e-tron quattro, the first ever victory for a hybrid car (Post)
News source(s): (Autosport) (USA Today) (ESPN) (AFP)

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: Part of ITN/R, also first victory for a hybrid car --Donnie Park (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- This is a significant event, but the update is currently unsourced. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support subject to necessary update criteria being met. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R, when the articles are updated. Crnorizec (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- References have been added. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Two corrections: Marcel Fässler needs a corrected link it currently goes to a disambig page, and it should be 'an Audi R18...' The359 (Talk) 21:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The most popular endurance race in the world suffices posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The results section has no prose. Were there no notable incidents? Upsets? Seems a bit thin to me. --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with IP98. There's no real prose. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have moved the already existent prose update to the results section and integrated a sentence with the winners back into the lead. It should be better now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks. Still doesn't tell me a whole lot about the actual race, but it's nice to have something down there. --IP98 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I understand your concerns, but it is an update regardless, so I am marking this as ready again. Let's see what Tariqabjou thinks. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    And it's better than previous years. I'm sure this will go up. --IP98 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rodney KingEdit

Article: Rodney Glen King (talk, history)
Blurb: Rodney Glen King, a victim of police brutality that sparked the 1992 Los Angeles riots, was found dead at his home. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Rodney Glen King (April 2, 1965 – June 17, 2012)[2] was the victim in a police brutality case involving the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on March 3, 1991. The abuse in custody sparked the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. On June 17, 2012, King's fiancée found him dead in his swimming pool. See "1992 Los Angeles riots" for details. I view this as a "celebrity" whose death is widely covered and read about. Add specific entry as needed. (50581 views/last hour) (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - historic figure I guess. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
most obvious oppose no way this meets death criteria. He featured on tv and was relevant for 1 month in his life? Wo! We dnt post Donna Summers wer aint posting thisLihaas (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- He certainly doesn't meet death criteria 1 or 2 obviously, and he doesn't meet criteria 3 because his influence dissipated years ago. "A 'celebrity' whose death is widely covered and read about" is not a criteria. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He hasn't been relevant for a long time. Thue (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment1) Caused the riots and LAPD reforms. 2)Given credit for subsequent reforms 3) Non-zero possibility of foul play (though unlikely) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: an important event evolved around him: he was not important in ITN terms as an individual. His "acheivements" were being arrested while drink-driving, and appearing on some Z-list celebrity reality TV shows. Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not often that I agree with Lihaas but tonight, we're speaking almost the same language. Yes, Rodney King has a very important place in history, and is one of the most significant figures in the US in the circles of crime, policing and race relations. In most ordinary circumstances we would put him on the front page. But - and this is the issue for me - he went from being a significant person in the fight against institutional racism into a spiral of abuse and criminality, ending up on reality television and dying, it seems, by his own misadventure. He was not at the forefront of the fight he had started. Whilst the beating by police was shocking and historically important, his life veered off-piste almost immediately afterwards. He was not a figure which could be used to show the best of humanity after adversity. As such, it would be illogical for us on grounds outside ITN's tick-boxes to give him front page prominence. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This obviously doomed, but ITN/DC needs a re-visit. Rodney King is a household name, and is probably of a broader interest to our readers than all the dead footballers, authors and Coptic popes combined. --IP98 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I had never heard of him until today. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Understandable if you live outside the USA or Canada. I agree that under the current guidelines that this should not go up, but if you ask 10 random people I'm sure they have no clue about the king of Tonga (or even that Tonga is a place). --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Cobblers. I was much more familiar with (for example) Shenouda III than Rodney King. Don't make such sweeping assumptions about what people consider important. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't oppose Shenouda III because I had no idea who he was. You don't know me, or anything about me, and have no right to judge my reasoning. The nom is doomed, but I've not attacked a single editor or their reasoning. Since 1/4 of the english WP readers are from the US, I think my observation is worth more than your derisive and hateful remark. --IP98 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get too snappy (any of us, and I know coming from me that might seem a bit much). I would be more than willing to start a discussion on ITN/DC, however given that we've not been able to move much on elections as part of ITN/C or ITN/R, I am rather jaded towards finding a swift solution to any further criteria amendment drive. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support He's not a head of state, he's not himself influential in his field except passively, and he didn't have an international influence. But those are apparently irrelevant objections. And his death was untimely and of more interest to 10 times as many of our readers as cared about the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. So posting this is a no-brainer. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are those "apparently irrelevant objections?" Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
AND on what basis is the comment "of more interest to 10 times as many of our readers". Seems this statement is more than "apparently irrelevant" as based out of fact.Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "10 times as many of our readers..." needs "citation needed" after it, to be honest. The objections have been pretty well phrased in my opinion - he was a victim who received world wide infamy, and from the beatings came a step-change and attitude shift amongst American police. But from that one frame in time he entered a very unfortunate 'spiral' into Z-list celebrity, drink addiction and criminal activity. There is nothing in his life after the incident for which he is known to suggest he was held in high enough esteem to meet our criteria. On that basis, he shouldn't be on the front page under ITN and you shouldn't be so eager to snap at those of us trying to make a broad case for our opinion doktorb wordsdeeds 22:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You seem to be a bit confused, or perhaps this comment is in the wrong place. Lihaas was criticizing the statement that King is "of more interest to 10 times as many of our readers," not stating it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
What???? No idea what youre trying to say and dont want to rpresume its yet another attack ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you, I think the paragraphs are a bit wonky, but I was agreeing with you. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Silly boy, Airhead at your service ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Does not meet death criteria. Heights of bias when people compare this death to the death of the Crown Prince, Deputy PM and Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia. Some of the arguments (There are more Americans here, so things relevant to them are more important) here seek to perpetuate systemic bias. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Bias If we are going to make having lived a morally upright life a criterion here at ITN, lets have some explicit standards. I hardly think someone being an alcoholic makes him a monster compared with being the fat and pampered son of a religious dictator and a supporter Al Qaeda. But that's just me. As for the 10 x 1 interest, I had been going by Google hits, but I see just now that Rodney King has garnered 423,233 hits in the last day without being on the front page, while the prince has garnered about 52,000 on average over two days. I expect the editors who asked for refs showing our readers care more about Rodney than Nayef will change his vote? But I am painfully American as Chocolate points out, so never mind. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Pae
Page view don't count. Of course there's going to be a 'boost' in page views, that's just how the Internet works. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Dont think anyone is making the argument that "having lived a morally upright life" is criteria. And obviously, Rodney King will always have more views than Nayaf (just like Max Payne 3 [27] has 10x more views than the serial bomb attack this month in Iraq that killed 90 people [28]). Isnt that the whole point about systemic bias? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doktorbuk is right here. If King became a national spokesperson for police brutality or human right abuses or so forth this would have been easily supported here and posted. However he didn't do anything of note after the trial and the riots, and became mostly tabloid fodder which is sad, but not noteworthy. I'll support similar cases in ITN of figures that became internationally famous for a tragic event and made a notable impact afterwards e.g Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Secret account 03:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose Per Doktorbuk and Secret (Also, updated this nomination with the ITN Template. If the blurb I added is bad, feel free to change it to something else.) -- Anc516 (talkcont) 05:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Doktorbuk given the current circumstances however if the coroner's inquest confirms that foul play was involved then will most definitely support the posting of this item. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The Rodney King incident and the subsequent L.A. riots has become an important milestone in U.S. history. I also notice that there has been a lot of editing of his article since his death, which is more than can be said about many other ITN items that linger at ITN/C pending an article update. King may not be an important person by his own doings, but as an icon, still, and as a symbol of racial conflicts in the U.S., I think he's important enough for his death to be presented at ITN. __meco (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Meco for his (I guess begrudging) support based on actual stats and reader interest. For those now proven hypocrites who say hits don't count, what objective criterion is left? Your strangely mono-directional mystical revelation? μηδείς (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per meco; I was on the fence but that pretty much sums up my feelings here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose he's pretty much been out of the spotlight for a decade at least. Hot Stop 12:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Go, Rodney! Note that on the third day after his death, Rodney King pulled 96,457 hits, still more than Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and his dead predecessor have pulled on any day they have been featured on the front page combined. That's 905,193 hits for the offed alcoholic African-American in this corner versus 181,044 plus 60,804 (241,848) for the two plump Saudi princelings this month, if you will pardon the pugilistic phraseology . Is actual readership of any consequence for matters in the news at Wikipedia? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't and shouldn't be. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it shouldn't be the sole criterion, just as what are our personal, biased judgments on importance shouldn't be the sole criterion. This tells us somewhat on how purpose #3 can be determined: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Several ITNR items have really paltry view counts, even some non-US/UK/AU articles are getting more pageviews but have no chance being posted. –HTD 02:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
My comment was meant as a factual update, not a new argument. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Greek electionEdit

Article: Greek legislative election, June 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: New Democracy wins a plurality in the second Greek legislative election of 2012. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News), (NY Times)

Article updated
  • Support, and probably should be flagged as ITN/R, but I would suggest that the blurb should reflect the fall in popularity of X, who previously won several elections in a row. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, when results are out later today, and when the article is duly updated. Crnorizec (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Question wasn't there one of these last month? --IP98 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • yes, and they have a re-run because they could not form a government. Crnorizec (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this election actually results in a government forming. This country is a mess, and it would not surprise me to see these results tossed out just the same as the first. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support - election came in with legitimate results. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Not how ITNR works. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Then we should just post it and screw the oppose and support votes if they mean crap all. I gave my opinion; I am entitled to it; I have opposed this at this time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Effectively, they do mean "crap all" when it comes to ITNR events. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The country is probably a mess, however, it is all over the world media and investors' worries, because it is part of the EU and of the Euro, so whatever mess they make influences everyone else. Crnorizec (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The main concern over the world is whether this election will end with the formation of the government or there will be the same scenario as several weeks ago. It's rare to see that the winning party and its political ideology are not the most important things related to this election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in general, because it's probably the most important election in European politics for decades, but that blurb isn't going to be correct; no single party is going to win plurality and forming a government will probably depend on how the vote shares are split between the parties (and that might not happen for a while if it's very close again). Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • One party will win plurality (i.e., more than any other party), it just hasn't has to be majority (i.e., more than 50%). Note the difference between the two. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support even if no government is successfully formed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Question again wasn't there one of these last month? Didn't we wait like a year and a half to post the formation of a government in one of the low countries? --IP98 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • There was, and the result was so close that no government could be formed, hence this second election. The issue is not that though; the result of the election could be massive. The country could also effectively become bankrupt if the parties rejecting the EU/IMF bailout deal win a majority and carry out their policies - this would probably lead to Greece withdrawing from the Eurozone and/or the Euro, with associated massive implications for Europe as a whole (indeed, some commentators have said it could possibly lead to the collapse of the Eurozone as a whole due to the loss of investor confidence for countries with large indebtedness, notably Spain, Portugal and Italy). So the result of the election is a massively big deal for any country trading in Europe - which is practically all of them. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • PIGS over ate? This will obviously go up, regardless of who wins. Depending on the outcome we can move this off to Talk:ITN to decide if every single Greek election needs to go up, or if we wait for a government to form. --IP98 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, blurb could by anything really, but may I suggest going with whatever the various media sources converge on as important/surprising? Speciate (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support As it is ITN/R there's not a lot else we can do, BUT shouldn't the blurb mention the fact that it's the second election of 2012? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the blurb should definitely mention that this is a re-run of the elections held in May. Crnorizec (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, very important as Greece is currently the pivot of the financial crisis in Europe, and the outcome of this election was expected to cause havoc in the financial markets depending on the outcome. __meco (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the government is formed, which won't be a news at the same time. It seems that many other news related to the election in Greece are more important than this one, and I really don't like this one to be posted because there is a simple rationale that the elections automatically meet the criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, it is a re-run of the same election that previously did not end with the formation of the government. The latter one seems to be of greater importance in the world now, and that's the news that should be posted. It's nothing for me to know what was the party that have won the election if it is not certain whether they will be able to form a government or not. Sorry, if the winner is able to do it in most of the other countries, but it seems that this is a special case because of the well-known other reasons. I even think that is worth posting the cost for the re-election within the current financial situation of Greece, although it's hardly considered to be a news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unexpected (if my sources are useful) result to a very important election. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- There are nine sentences of prose with three sources. Consensus is clear. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I've long preferred some sort of actual prose on the results themselves, but I remember being told the last time I requested such an update that most consider the "Reactions" section sufficient. But, especially with all the updates recently, I'll defer this to someone else (at least for now). -- tariqabjotu 23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have left a message at BorgQueen's talk page. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] French legislative election, 2012Edit

Article: French legislative election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Socialist Party of President Francois Hollande wins a majority in the French legislative election. (Post)
News source(s): [29][30]

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: According to the first reports, the Socialist party of president Hollande won in France, overturning the former president Sarkozy's UMP in parliament. Crnorizec (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-worded blurb to english and mention of Hollands. If need be one can mention the prez election last month too.Lihaas (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ITN/R+excellent article+informative update=Support. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
meanwhile, the plurality turned to majority, so I updated the blurb. Crnorizec (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, a clear-cut case. Nsk92 (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- This has a tremendous update. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

June 16Edit

[Posted] Voyager 1 reaches edge of solar systemEdit

Article: Voyager 1 (talk, history)
Blurb: At 11.1 billion miles from Earth, NASA reports that Voyager 1 has reached the edge of the sun's heliosphere, the boundary of the solar system (Post)
News source(s): NASA, BBC, LA Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Note that this is not a hard "edge" of the solar system but a marked increase suggesting that the craft is passing from the heliosphere to interstellar space. Outside of any major discoveries from this, this is probably the last major update for Voyager 1 for several years. --MASEM (t) 12:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I want to support this but the article needs work. Current status has a 2011 section which should be in events, and the last bolded update in current status is from Feb 2012. Also, not being an astronomer, I don't understand the heliopause/sheeth/sphere difference. I'm sure it's important, but I don't get it. Put a paragraph at the top of "Current Status" which makes it clear to the layreader like me and I'll happily support. --IP98 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I did add about this event, but I did reformat to the bold approach (note that current events are in chrono order). Mind you, this is the first time I've edited the V1 article, and I really don't think that format suits it well, but for getting an ITN item on it, its the simplest route. (And heliosphere explains all the areas, but the heliosphere is the volume that the solar winds reach; the -sheath where the solar winds slow as they meet resistance from the interstellar medium, and the -pause where the winds are equal in force to the interstellar effcts.) --MASEM (t) 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support suggest linking to current status section from blurb. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
question is this a record, or just a voyage update? obvious support if hthe former is true and its a FIRST. then again, obviosu oppose otherwiseLihaas (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
"Record"? - don't think so, although every day, hour, minute and second is a distance record for V1. Not sure that this is all that newsworthy TBH. As the poster says, it is not a hard boundary but there may be better evidence of a significant change before the batteries run out in the next 10 - 15 years. Leaky Caldron 13:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yea, somewhere in looking up (probably the NASA update) there are like 5 other man-made probes that may have gone this far. However, of those, Voyager 1 is the only one still collecting and transmitting data and thus providing valuable information about the kinds of forces and stresses interstellar travel has. (V2 is about 2 billion miles out from the same point). --MASEM (t) 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: There are only six man-made objects that have achieved sufficient velocity to leave the solar system; Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 2, Voyager 1, New Horizons, and the upper stage of the rocket used to launch New Horizons. Voyager 1 has overtaken both Pioneers and Voyager 2, New Horizons was only launched a few years ago, and is still closer to the sun than the orbit of Neptune. With regards this news item, I would support its inclusion, but not at the expense of the Shenzhou 9 item below. Since the inclusion of both would result in three spaceflight news items in ITN, perhaps the NuSTAR item could be removed. --W. D. Graham 14:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this is news of interest (and IMO, for ITN) but not news of timely interest, I'd see no problem holding it for posting until the current space-related topics filter out of the current list. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - If the article has been updated properly, then this is more than worthy of inclusion - this is a landmark event in the history of human civilization. It should also be noted, if possible, in the blurb, that this is the first man-made object to leave our solar system. --~Knowz (Talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Surely a little overstated? All that has happened is that the various onboard detectors have observed a gradual increase in one type of radiation and a very small decrease in solar radiation. The transition to inter-stellar space will take years and more notable changes, including magnetic field orientation, will signal a more definitive transition state than currently observed. Leaky Caldron 14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
And again, when researching, I think other man made probes have passed this point, but 1) they aren't active and therefore 2) we don't have any affirmative proof of how far out they are (NASA even clarifies this "NASA's Voyagers are the two most distant active representatives of humanity and its desire to explore.") That said, this is the first time mankind is measuring any type of interstellar medium. There likely will be a definitive point where they pass the heliopause but that's an event no one is sure when will happen, but likely in the next 1-5 years. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a first for humanity--hope the Vulcans are watching. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Im a little scared that it'll come back in 300 years inside a giant cloud. --IP98 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have nommed this before twice, but now there is clearer data. Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose See BBC article. This is essentially a non-event. There is no clearly defined boundary to the solar system, rendering the suggested blurb moot. --hydrox (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I noted that there's no hard edge to this, and effectively there will never be a hard "point" where NASA can claim the edge of the heliosphere or solar system exists. As such, there technically is no "event" , but ITN is not about "events" but "in the news" and it has been reported around and a reminder of how far these probes have come. --MASEM (t) 23:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course there is no hard edge--there isn't one to the atmosphere either--but that doesn't mean the camel's back never breaks. This is in part why we celebrated the Queen's jubilee. It didn't correspond to some more easily definable biological event like birth or death but we recognize it as a distance traveled (in her case around, rather than away from, the sun) nonetheless. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The only significantly known event in the future of Voyager I is the end of its battery life and can no longer transmit to Earth. Non-events like these are instead moments of scientific progress. Granted, there might be a better point in the future if our theories on the heliosphere/pause are true, but we don't know. Instead, we have the first direct measurements that are leading to these theories' validation. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support it is the first human-made object leaving the Solar System, albeit there is no passport control there to mark the border. Crnorizec (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support- ITN is not for milestones, it is for news. While this may not be the milestone some say it is, that is irrelevant to its newsworthiness. It can still be significant without shattering any barriers, and this certainly is. There is no reason to oppose just because you dislike the claim that is being made surrounding this event, as the notability is the point that the mission has reached, not what humans call the place it's reached. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another nomination I've found difficult to decide on. I agree, to an extent, with the posters above who are framing this as a milestone (or lightyearstone) in human endeavour. But then I see the other arguments and it all seems to click. There is no big signpost declaring "This is the End of the Known Universe". This 'claim' could be made next month or year, such is the way of science and space. It's a marker, yes, but it's not really an event I can see fitting onto the front page under 'news'. Maybe our DYK cousins can take a look? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The event of V1 leaving the solar system (by some definition) is certainly one of significance. The problem is that we have no idea what that mark is, whether it is this current point, reaching the heliopause, or whatever; all this has been only theory and even this point was a mark with a 3 year estimated window for when it would have been reached. So our hands are tied if we are looking for a harder marker to report this as news. Given that this "phase" of traveling the heliosphere is expected to take a few more years, we won't likely have any update for this for that time. If it were the case that this was the first of several known events in close timing, then like other similar ITN items, we'd wait until the most significant point. We simply have no idea if this could be the case here. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al SaudEdit

Article: Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud (talk, history)
Blurb: Saudi Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud dies, 77 (or 78) years old. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: First in line to the Saudi throne dies. Thue (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

$%#$!! Just came to nom it ;)
Anyhoo, would be nice to add his successor if knownLihaas (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The crown prince will be chosen by the Allegiance Council, an assembly of Abdul-Aziz’s sons and some of his grandchildren. It will take a few weeks. The most likely choice is Prince Salman.
  • Support. Heir apparent of a country where the king is the de facto head of government, and no obscure country either. And the death was not expected. Obvious support. __meco (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
2 line sis not an update.Lihaas (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a whole section about his health. Thue (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Supprt after update. Although he's 78, his death wasn't expected. It's definitely a big story worth INT. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose he was old and chronically ill, and is not an actual head of state, so what's the significance? Good material for Recent Deaths, but definitely not an ITN. Crnorizec (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • He was a Crown Prince and heir apparent! And actually influential until his death. How is that not significant? Thue (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Only Nayef was actually Crown Prince. I would not have nominated any of the others if they had died. Thue (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Crnorizec. --IP98 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not unexpected, certainly not as important in world affairs as the recent unposted assassination of Abu Yahya al-Libi. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Death of a heir apparent in an absolute monarchy of a G-20 country is major news. I don't think he was expected to die but his brother, who died a few months ago, was. And it was posted BTW Tachfin (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment How many living heirs are there to this throne? How old is the next one in line? Do we have a picture of the president of the US bowing to him? We are going to have a whole slew of political news by monday and this just doesn't cut the cake. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    The last one was Crown Prince from 2005-2011. So we have now had two Crown Prince deaths since 2005 - that is not excessive for ITN, for a country as important as Saudi Arabia. Thue (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — The Crown Prince of an extremely influential Middle Eastern nation (the birthplace and center of Islam, the world's top petroleum producer, and the only country in the region in the G20 unless you count Turkey); we included Prince Sultan when he died, so in the spirit of consistency we should also include Nayef. But that's not the only reason I 100% support including this right on the main page as a front row story. Prince Nayef was Minister of Interior in Saudi Arabia, which means he was in charge of the country's national security. He had a hand in two very important aspects of Saudi society: 1) The crackdown against the country's al-Qaeda insurgency; and 2) The state of human rights in the conservative desert Kingdom (check out 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests for more on this, and other recent violations). He was a major proponent of fundamentalist Islam within the royal family. In addition to that, the ailing health of the King and the death of Prince Sultan has made Nayef arguably the chief decision maker in the country for the past eight months or so, if not even before that. This is a very, very notable individual who died quite unexpectedly. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
What does this nomination have to do with Saudi national pride? It simply doesn't meet any of the normal criteria for deaths regardless of how up-and-coming the kingdom is. The prince's death was not untimely, he's not a head of state, or important or influential in his field, or important internationally. If it weren't for an accident of birth no one would have heard of him and tomorrow no one will remember him. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how it is possible to be as ignorant about geopolitics and still voice an opinion on such an issue. Even characterizing Saudi Arabia as an "up-and-coming" kingdom makes me shake my head. __meco (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not you think Saudia Arabia is up-and-coming, or understand the meaning of "regardless", you'd do well to stick to a civil discussion of the merits of the nomination rather than accusing me of offending the birthplace of Islam with a little irony. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to pile in, I get the impression that μηδείς doesn't have the arguments to match his strong opinions, and should IMO be a bit more humble. Thue (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
What part of "not a head of state, not an untimely death, not influential in his field, and not internationally important" have you or the previous editor countered? Those are not my "strong opinions" but valid arguments against this posting. You have some nerve spouting your ad hominem impressions while talking of humility. Don't give us your advice--explain how the nominee meets the criteria. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah... more flawed arguments from you, I see. Since you know enough about fallacies to accuse your discussion partner of personal attack, you might have been able to spot one other which is equally frequent: the straw man. I don't see an ad hominem in what Thue writes, but I can clearly spot the straw man you are attempting to raise in order to deflect the valid criticism against you. __meco (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
One: He was influential in his field, as prime minister responsible for the handling of Al Queda. Two, a death is untimely when he is still in office. And anyway, the rules are not rules but guidelines, and can never be completely covering. Make real argument from first principles, don't cite rules. Thue (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
How many ministers of interior deaths (albeit responsible for the national security of any nation) have made it in the ITN so far? Or 78-year olds ill of cancer? It is sad that he died, nevertheless... Crnorizec (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Note that he was also the Crown Prince, and he was the chief decision maker in Saudi Arabia for several months prior to his death due to the King's ailing health. As much as I'd like to agree with you regarding Nayef's death being sad, I have to be 100% honest and say what I really want to say about it — good riddance. This man had many innocent people killed over the years and was cowardly enough to facilitate the funding of al-Qaeda in exchange for their word not to stage any attacks on Saudi Arabia (check out The Eleventh Day: The Ultimate Account of 9/11 by non-fiction author Anthony Summers, the evidence is simply too compelling to ignore). I'm glad the Saudis are free of his corrupting influence. Hopefully now they'll have a real chance of fulfilling the "evolution, not revolution" mantra that so many people in the conservative monarchy espouse. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
@Medeis — I'm not sure where in my argument you derived "Saudi national pride", or anything of the sort. Nayef is notable for so many different reasons, as I've outlined above. Not just because he was Minister of Interior for 42 years (overseeing things like the Grand Mosque Seizure, for instance), or even because he was Crown Prince at the time of his death (albeit for 8 months, but regardless), but also the fact that he had such a strong presence in virtually all the day-to-day functions of Saudi Arabia. He headed the Supreme Council on Information, the Supreme Committee on the Hajj, and was arguably the most influential of all deputy Prime Ministers and of the Sudairi Seven. His influence was paramount in all corners of domestic policy, he had a major hand in the direction of foreign policy, and he even dabbled somewhat in state expenditures. This man is not insignificant in his country, which is not insignificant in the world. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
@Master&Expert: Thanks for arguing points, not personality. I spoke of national pride because you said, " extremely influential Middle Eastern nation (the birthplace and center of Islam, the world's top petroleum producer, and the only country in the region in the G20 unless you count Turkey..." which seemed a rather obvious nationalsitic but not ITN death relevant argument. But I also thought it irrelevant since none of the things which may make him interesting on the national stage bring him to ITN level. You can't multiply his solid career in SA by the SA GDP and its theocratic aspirations to make him ITN worthy as a notable innovator, the top of his field, highly influential, or of international or multi-field world importance. The nominee doesn't stand on his own as meeting the usual ITN death criteria. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for something that's "not important" it made an awful lot of headlines. Hot Stop 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Was he actually officially regent? That might gain support if it were true. As for making a lot of headlines, where? I don't buy the times anymore, but not one the agregators I track even mention the story. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This does not meet any death criteria, so it is ineligible for posting. Being the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia does not satisfy criteria #1 or #3. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've found it hard to come up with an opinion on this nomination. As stated above, he wasn't head of state and his health wasn't the best, so with strict adherence to our rules, he doesn't qualify. However both he, his position in Saudi, the role he was heir to taking over and all of that angle ticks the boxes we usually require. On balance, it's the death of an heir, which leans me just into the oppose side. Not an easy call, anyway. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: We can argue till eternity on the the line to the throne. But forget that, he was the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior. Death of a deputy prime minister (while in office) of a major power in the Middle East is in itself notable. I dont think there would have been this much resistance if the Deputy PM of UK or Australia died while in office. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I bet if their crown prince died it would be posted right away too. Hot Stop 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Very nice. Dear Tariqabjotu: Eventually, I couldn't care less if you post something or not, but 5-6 is not exactly a consensus, which is one of the basic pillars of Wikipedia. Crnorizec (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking solely on vote-counting, I see 8 (Thue, Lihaas, Meco, Mohamed CJ, Tachfin, Master&Expert, Hot Stop, and Chocolate Horlicks) vs. 5 (you, IP98, Medeis, Bzweebl, doktorb). That's generally enough to placate concerns about posting. But, then you can also add doktorb's obvious ambivalence. I would also think a couple of the opposes are a misjudgment of the Crown Prince's political significance (which seemed much clearer in October), but that's beside the point; there is enough support regardless. -- tariqabjotu 17:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure. Are you counting votes, or "perceived ambivalences and misjudgements"? Because, there are 6 support votes, not 8. Crnorizec (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, whatever. -- tariqabjotu 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There were 8 supporters at time of posting and 10 now: Thue (nominator), Lihaas (wanted to nominate), Meco, Mohamed CJ, Tachfin, Master&Expert, Hot Stop, Chocolate Horlicks, Tariqabjotu (comments imply he would support), and me (I would support if I could change because of DC 3). Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Liu YangEdit

Articles: Taikonaut (talk, history) and Shenzhou 9 (talk, history)
Blurb: Liu Yang becomes the first Chinese woman taikonaut in space following the launch of Shenzhou 9. (Post)

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.

Nominator's comments: June 16 --Lihaas (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support and comment: Important milestone for astronautics, China and women. However I wonder if this is the best angle. Indeed this Shenzhou 9 mission is also the first time that the new Chinese Space Station Tiangong-1 will be occupied by a crew. We will have two crewed space stations operating in Low Earth Orbit at the same time, which hasn't happened often (Maybe at the time of Skylab/Salyut or Mir/ISS ???). Hektor (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Historic mission. First Chinese woman launched in space and first manned spaceflight to new Chinese space station. Modify blurb. Liu was already a taikonaut before the launch — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First X nationality woman in space doesn't seem that important to me. Perhaps DYK instead? Also, the blurb is wrong. The current blurb says "Liu Yang becomes the first Chinese taikonaut in space", by that is clearly wrong according to List of Chinese astronauts. Thue (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Agree in principle with Thue, but since the Chinese self-launched, rather than hitch a ride with the USA (which is impossible now :( ) or Russia, I'm more inclined to support. I would oppose first X nationality which doesn't have it's own manned space flight program. --IP98 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Fairly neutral on the "first Chinese woman" part of the story, but that aside this is the first manned mission to Tiangong-1, and spaceflights are ITN/R anyway. --W. D. Graham 12:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    That said, I would suggest the removal of the word "taikonaut" from the blurb as it is redundant and of questionable accuracy. It should also probably mention Tiangong-1. --W. D. Graham 15:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an interesting angle on a story we would post anyway per ITN/R. —WFC— 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Current population of space: Three Russians, three Chinese, two Americans and one Dutch. One woman and eight men. Hektor (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a RS source indicating that there are ONLY humans in space?Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative doktorb wordsdeeds 13:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - China is becoming a significant power in space exploration, and the manned flight and docking to the space station proves their technological achievements. Crnorizec (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - major historic event.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Posted, without the "taikonaut" word. T. Canens (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Update?: I feel the mission itself is more notable than the female astronaut (which is no doubt, also notable). Should we update the blurb to cover the docking? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely agree! Major event in space. First time a manned docking is done by China - the third country to do so. We have two occupied space stations now. As if not more significant as the first woman part (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nik Wallenda (crossing of Niagara Falls)Edit

Article: Nik Wallenda (talk, history)
Blurb: Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to successfully tightrope walk directly over Niagara Falls. (Post)
News source(s): (USA Today)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Niagara Falls is considered the "holy grail" of tightrope walking and Wallenda become to first to do it (a few people crossed over Niagara Falls gorge during the 1800s, but that is completely different in terms of length and difficulty.) The Falls present several unique challenges: the wire can't be secured, as is normal, meaning it sways more than normal; the winds are swirling and unpredictable making balance much harder; the wire is wet and the pounding mist makes visibility near zero in the middle. It took two years of pressure just to get the permit approvals - most people thought it would be impossible to ever get them and officials are on record as saying it will be at least 20 years before they grant another permit. It short, this is an exceptional feat that likely will not be repeated in the foreseeable future. Incidentally, update won't be an issue as I intend to take the article to GA quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with on nomination (below)--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On June 15, 2012, Wallenda successfully became the first person to cross directly over Niagara Falls on a highwire. Possible Wikipedia articles/details: The Flying Wallendas, Karl Wallenda, Niagara Falls, Charles Blondin, Tightrope Walking. Nominated due to live coverage, popularity, historical value, and uniqueness of event (57458 views in the last hour). Add toolbox and specific entry as needed. (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm interested in supporting this because of the rarity and uniqueness of the event; however, I would like to see more expansion at Nik_Wallenda#Niagara_Falls_crossing, specifically references, a tad more expansion, and some clarification of the preparations. SpencerT♦C 04:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    Now well within guidelines, but much more to follow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a stunt, nothing more. As the nomination attests the novelty value is due to legal and procedural hurdles as opposed to any inherent difficulty. Subject of article was never in any danger in any event due to safety line. Ultimately nothing more than an entertainments spectacle notable only in an incredibly narrow field that it more or less defines on its own terms. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Of course it was a "stunt" by definition. The harness was not by Wallenda's choice, but a requirement of the broadcast deal. Ultimately, it had no effect. If he fell, his reputation would have been ruined, destroying his livelihood, so the risk was still very great. Sure it an entertainment story - an entertainment story with global appeal and covered several dozen countries around the world (which is more than most entertainment [i.e. sports] stories we cover. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Nobody forced him to wear the harness, it was his choice to accept the TV deal and by extension his choice to take the harness. The fact that he did shows where the real priority was: lining his pockets with silver. Ultimately, that is almost a side point though, people haven't been eagerly anticipating the possibility of someone doing this for decades, it is simply something the media have whipped up a frenzy about and that ultimately changes nothing of any broader significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
Considering the rig cost $1.3 million he kinda did have to have the financial support. Whatever the reason for the extreme interest in the stunt (and we disagree about what that reason is), the fact remains that it was a highly anticipated event around the world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Highly anticipated by exactly whom? The media, obviously. And...? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
All the people who showed up live and/or tuned in to watch, obviously. The fact that you weren't anticipating it doesn't mean no one was (or that those of us who were lookign forward to it were only doing so b/c the media told us to). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am with Crispmuncher on this. There is 'advancing human endeavour' and then there is 'getting a sponsored publicity shot'. Nothing here really impresses me - people have been getting their mugs in local papers for climbing up walls since the invention of the camera. ITN is not supposed to be about "self generated headlines", which is why we tend to dismiss protest movements for what they are. This is the same ballpark - nothing here shouts out at me as notable, it's a gimmick, a stunt, and will be forgotten by next month never mind next year. ITN can be moulded into a lot of things, but a news ticker for the Guinness Book of Records? No. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Every single sporting event is self-generating. Protests in Myanmar are self generating. The human condition is such that we affect the world we live in. Can't limit ourselves to natural disasters or scientific achievement. --IP98 (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I found it funny that half the nom's supporting comments were about the difficulty of getting permits. Are we really nominating a victory over two, not just one, but two nation's bureaucracies? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
(holy grail) + (extreme difficulty) == 2. (approval/permits) == 1. ((1/3) * 100) != 50. I'm laughing too HiLo, but it's at the bald inaccuracy of your claim. --IP98 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see this as a publicity stunt at all. He is a Wallenda, this is what they do. It is no more self-generated than any other event. Why does Man-U win the Premiere championship? To better human kind? No. Is it the result of some external act of nature? No. It is for selfish personal glory and to improve their value as a vehicle for advertising. The difference is they kick a ball about a field, and this joker walked across Niagara falls on a cable. Thaddeus is right, this is a rare and unique event and is a good candidate for the front page. --IP98 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but this is ideological nonsense of the highest degree. He did this for as much media attention and self-satisfaction as anyone who takes to the football pitch. If we allow this on the front page, where would it end? Human fly attempts? Marathon runners in funny outfits? Sitting in baths of baked beans for telethons? This is an unique event - but so was sitting outside St Paul's in tents and we rejected that as well. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the football pitch, I made the exact same point. If someone had made a career out of sitting in a bath of baked beans, coming from a family of baked bean bath bathers If baked bean bathing itself having a long tradition, and award winning documentaries made like Man in tub of baked beans, and after all that wanted to sit in a tub of baked beans suspended over Niagara Falls with 100 thousand live spectators and many more on television, yes, I would have to lend my support to that. Your argument, however, is a Straw man, because there is a clear difference between training to walk across the falls on a tight rope and a buffoon soaking in a tub of baked beans. --IP98 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Tightrope walk across Niagara Falls, first across the gorge in a century, first ever across the brim of the falls. This was a very heavily publicized event by media and by the general public. Yes, the safety harness was BS, but unfortunately it was somewhat forced upon him for the opportunity to perform. These types of events are few and far between in our nanny-state society of today. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support IP98 is spot on. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Although it may be true that this has been overhyped by the media, that does not diminish the significance of the accomplishment. It is quite an amazing feat that has never been done before. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. This is the first Niagara Falls crossing anywhere over the river on tightrope since 1896, and the first ever crossing over the Falls itself, probably the most well-known waterfall in the world. Watched by hundreds of millions of people. This is a human endeavour that has many social and economic implications, and we don't post too many of these, in our era of war and disaster. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted This has sufficient support, and the trend has gone toward posting this. Also, that update is absolutely incredible, and we should be aiming to feature articles this informative. -- tariqabjotu 14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought you were better than this Tariq. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Than what? -- tariqabjotu 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Posting a novelty event as a news story. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I suggest you stop harassing hard-working admins, Doktorbuk. It doesn't improve anything and doesn't help anyone. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Consensus was to post (especially considering this is a minority topic, despite my failure to mark it as such). There were seven supports plus an implied support by Spencer vs. three opposes. Good work Tariq. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
              • It should NEVER come down to counting votes. HiLo48 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
                • It should probably never come down to counting the nominators arguments which you disagree with either. --IP98 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
                • Did you ever notice that the only time anyone says "it should never come down to counting votes" is when the result goes the way they didn't personally want it to go? No one ever says "I thought this should have been posted, but I am glad it was not because it shouldn't come down to counting votes". That rediculous claim only comes from people who are both in the minority and who didn't get the result they wanted. Not coming down to counting votes doesn't mean that the minority position wins all the time either... --Jayron32 19:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
                  • Did you notice that I wasn't actually disputing the posting? I had just about been convinced that this was worth posting. I was disputing that very bad reasoning. It's something I do. I know it annoys you, but bad reasoning should never be acceptable, no matter whose "side" it supports. Counting votes IS ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
                    • Just want to point out that the nom counted the votes, not the posting admin. Whether or not vote counting is bad reasoning, I don't think that it contributed to the post. --IP98 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Doktorbuk, you need to get used to the fact that not everyone agrees with you on the definition of "trivial". -- tariqabjotu 15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
            • You guys are missing the point completely. I know I'm arguing a moot point, but the problem is not whether it is a publicity stunt. It is that tightrope-walking is not a subject of global importance. Thaddeus' comments would be totally valid reasons to post this to the main page if Wikipedia were a tightrope-walking encyclopedia. This is really beside the point, but you don't see this story on other news websites' front pages (Maybe it was up few hours the day of the event). It is really a NY/Ontario local interest story that television media blew out of proportion. If Wikipedia notability is really subject to the whims of TV producers then there need to be some changes... (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • support - historic event. with a good ending result.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Are we going to post juggling records as well? Boomshanka (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No, we are not going to post juggling records as well. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth at this point - (1) This particular stunt is a risk to life, harness notwithstanding, (2) Niagara Falls significantly defines itself by its history of stunters, and many stunters have defined their own achievements in terms of Niagara Falls, (3) A century's ban on Niagara Falls stunting was overthrown to allow this crossing, (4) first time ever directly over the falls themselves. Those elements, taken together, make this crossing unique enough in the history of stunting to be noteworthy. As to a milestone of human endeavour - apparently there still are people willing to open new frontiers at the risk of their own lives. (If we at Wikipedia are not to be a crystal ball, it is also not ours to assess the long-term value of any particular frontier.) Incidentally, some protest movements could also be considered the same way. However, the political lenses do need to be removed first, before any neutral assessment of notability. - Tenebris 07:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Carlotta (2012)Edit

Article: Hurricane Carlotta (2012) (talk, history)
Blurb: Oaxaca is under a orange alert due to Hurricane Carlotta. (Post)
News source(s): [31]

One of MX biggest hurricane threats in years. Article may need a bit of work before getting posted though. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment:Key word right now is "threat". Wait until something actually happens, and then post. SpencerT♦C 04:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. We've only posted typhoons/storms in the past where there has been significant damage or loss of life, I believe. No mention of the storm on the BBC News Latin America section suggests this really isn't much. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons given above, lets see if it does some damage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it hasn't happened yet. Suggest renominating if or when it turns out to be an impactful hurricane, so that no-longer-relevant opposes do not hold up the posting process. —WFC— 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Question What's MX? HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    Mexico. -- tariqabjotu 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Based on what I heard on the news, it sounds like there were only two casualties before it became a tropical storm. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

June 15Edit

US Immigration policyEdit

Article: Illegal immigration to the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Barack Obama announces the United States will stop deporting some illegal immigrants. (Post)
News source(s): (NY Times)

Article needs updating

Looks like a major shift in policy, potentially affecting people from many countries. Also has potential to shift focus of the November election. Lead story on BBC, showing significant international interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose- This is only an executive order, so I believe that it will expire if Obama is not re-elected, and this is only a short term change anyway. Additionally, any number of things could shift a presidential election, so determining notability in a single event because of that is unreasonable. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is only a temporary fix and doesn't reflect any long-term shift in public policy. As for the chance of shifting the focus of the November election - be serious.--WaltCip (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- per waltcip.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. However, it going to influence voting patterns in the election. That said, as a policy that has yet to be implemented and its effects mostly in the future, I cannot see this being ITN material. Speciate (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral Seems like a blanket amnesty to a lot of illegals. --IP98 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. Read more about it.--WaltCip (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Policy shift in election year" is not front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 05:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rajat GuptaEdit

Article: Rajat Gupta (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian American businessman Rajat Gupta is convicted on three counts of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy. (Post)
News source(s): [32]

Article needs updating
This nom is a loss of solid crdibility cause we dont mention race/ethnicity as POV. At any rate nothing expecially notable of a financial convict (as he now is). Thereve been many. Stanford/Madoff were biggerLihaas (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I am inclined to support the story (with a better blurb) if an extensive update happens. This is the resolution to major criminal trial and the biggest business story of the day. (There is an article about this plus the parallel cases, which might be the best place for a large update.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment What is wrong with the blurb? Truthsort (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't explain why the story is important (and also the ethnicity thing mentioned by Lihaas). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • First of all, why does someone have to get hurt in a conviction other than the convicted? The compelling interest is his fame and importance, which is indubitably widespread. Also, Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group, Anil Kumar, and Rajat Gupta insider trading cases will probably not be bolded, so it doesn't need to be a well-written article, but if we post it on the front page as a normal link, it creates the possibility that someone will come along and improve it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly as ThaddeusB has noted the blurb does nothing to put this story into context or assert its notability. If a blurb can't capture the attention of our readership it isn't ITN worthy. Secondly even after reading the article in full I am still left wondering as to why this should be considered notable enough for ITN inclusion: it seems a fairly mundane insider trading case. The ethnicity of the defendant is a complete irrelevance unless it is somehow directly related to the nature of the offence or the handling of the case against him. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Support Goldman Sachs board member guilty of insider trading of Warren Buffet securities? What could possibly be a bigger corporate criminal case than this? I am not quite sure I understand the comment, but is Lihaas actually saying that to post this would be racist? Not to post this because the convict is not an Anglo is what would be racist. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
He was referring to adding the phrase "American Indian" in the blurb. For example, the nominations below dont use "Gambian black woman Fatou B. Bensouda succeeds Luis Moreno Ocampo as Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague" or "Caucasian American Financier Allen Stanford is sentenced to 110 years in prison for his Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme". While it may not be racist, I dont think his ethnicity warrants a mention unless for some reason that increases the notability (like it would have if the issue involved multiple countries or international relations). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
American Indian is not the same as Indian American. That being said, he was born an Indian citizen and is now an American citizen. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say "Indian-American" in the blurb. If he were born and raised in the United States (and, therefore, born and raised a U.S. citizen -- India does not permit dual citizenship), then it would certainly not be appropriate. -- tariqabjotu 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
My bad on the use of the phrase. Not too stressed about mentioning his ethnicity/nationality, but must say that there is no consistent practice on mentioning nationality - (eg.)The posted blurb doesnt say "American" Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to successfully tightrope walk over Niagara Falls. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bensouda sworn in as new ICC chief prosecutorEdit

support -- head of an intl body and the first african to hound other africans.Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because this is a highly notable job, but the currently selected article is a mess. Perhaps we could bold Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court instead? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending article cleanup - interesting and ITN-worthy topic but her article is tagged as 'multiple issues' and does in fact seem to need more refs and a change in tone. Without improvement it's hard to see this getting posted. Jusdafax 23:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when the article is cleaned up. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

June 14Edit

[Withdrawn] Allen StanfordEdit

Article: Allen Stanford (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Financier Allen Stanford is sentenced to 110 years in prison for his Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme. (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo!

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: He ran one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history, having accumulated US$7 billion in 20 years. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment His conviction was posted. Is it common to post the sentencing when the conviction was posted as well? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the answer to Muboshgu's question is no. --IP98 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdraw- Didn't know or remember, whichever the case may be, that we posted this. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt dissolves the Parliament of EgyptEdit

Article: Parliament of Egypt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt dissolves the Parliament of Egypt. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

Thue | talk 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - newsworthy & notable; well reported, but the article desperately needs to be added to. --~Knowz (Talk) 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
obvious support its a counter-revolution in the MIDDLE of a presidential election. (though would need to see on what grounds they did it. Is there an english copy of the verdict?) Dont this parliament of egypt is best. Perhaps a subarticle of the egyptian revolution that needs an update.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The reasoning for the judgement is summarized in the linked NYT article. Thue | talk 16:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I support, but not only does the article have little substance, it doesn't contain a single reference. This is far away from a posting. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if article gets improved. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly a highly important event and can see no reason why this should not be put onto the front page at the earliest opportunity doktorb wordsdeeds 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - when I saw the headlines today, I immediately thought this was the biggest story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Article and blurb readinessEdit

The linked article is obviously not yet ready. Thue | talk 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment- I prefer the new approach, with a new section in the election article for the dissolution. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - The bolded article is now updated (and is the best place for an update anyway). The other linked articles remain in poor shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - The update is there now, but the article has an orange tag. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wonder if the section is currently compliant with NPOV. Maybe this is indeed an unmitigated dark day for Egypt, but I reckon there's probably more than one way of looking at it. Formerip (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment. The current section seems NPOV to me. The NYT article was much more one-sided against the judgement. Can you be more specific as to why you think it is biased? Thue | talk 20:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. The article has been well-updated, and I've removed the one-year-old tag since it is obviously "clean" enough now. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure why, but on my browser (Firefox) at least, clicking the link through from the main page takes you to the references section, not the "Dissolution" section. LukeSurl t c 13:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe it because some of the tables/pictures are coded to be side-by-side, but are actually too wide to do that (in most resolutions/screen sizes). Firefox thus doesn't properly account for the length of the page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK. I have a pretty wide screen here, so if it's affecting me it's probably impacting most Firefox users. That's a pretty large chunk of readers. LukeSurl t c 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yah, it screws up for me too. (I saw the problem yesterday, but assumed it was just me since I use a rather narrow screen.) I have asked for help tracking down the problem on the village pump technical board. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

June 13Edit

Aung San Suu Kyi visits EuropeEdit

Article: Aung San Suu Kyi visits Europe (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Burmese politician Aung San Suu Kyi starts her first visit to Europe since 1988 with an address to the International Labour Organization in Geneva. (Post)
News source(s): Focus Information Agency

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: She will receive the Nobel Peace Prize (awarded to her in 1991) in Oslo on June 16. Posting or updating the news on that day may also be appropriate. --User:Benzh (talk • 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. We've posted a number of recent milestones of hers, but we can't get into posting every time she gets on a plane. Formerip (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose- This isn't news. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize is news. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support if the focus of the blurb and the update is her actually receiving her Nobel prize. Seems notable for anyone who was awarded in absentia to finally get their prize. It was awarded in 91 so we won't be double posting. I do, however, firmly believe we over represent Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi. --IP98 (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Jon McGregor wins 2012 IMPAC awardEdit

Article: Jon McGregor (talk, history)
Blurb: Jon McGregor wins the 2012 International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award for his novel Even the Dogs. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian CBC
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.
  • Support- ITN/R, good update. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Bzweebl. --IP98 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We could make Even the Dogs a link. It would be a red link which is very unusual on the front page - but it would be an advertisement that "This is the encyclopaedia you can add to". LukeSurl t c 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • That certainly is an interesting concept, I must say. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


Article: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the largest United Nations conference in history, commences in Rio de Janeiro. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post FOX News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: One of the biggest and most important environmental summits ever. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- Certainly notable since it is held after twenty years, reminding everybody that nothing has been achieved since then and the topic has been still important worldwide.Egeymi (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not ready. I support this in principle, but the article seems to be just a set of inadequately explained lists and some extended red-flag content about Iran's plans to attend being controversial. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, the article is poor. I'll work on it if I get the chance. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Iraq bombing attacksEdit

Article: 13 June 2012 Iraq attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 90 people are killed in a series of car bombings across Iraq. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Largest attack since the US pulled out in December. Focus of the attack was religious pilgrims. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support nice job. -- (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Notable news, great article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Both notable and potential predictor of the future events in the Middle East, emphasizing the struggle between Muslim sects, namely Alawites and Sunnis, in the region, including Syria.Egeymi (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and kudos per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- Although this only has five supports so far, the article is sufficiently front-page worthy that this is ready to be posted. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated comment: personally I commend the users who brought this article up to main page standards, though I am still a bit reluctant about posting bombings in war zones. We tend to do this a lot of middle-east related conflicts, but a lot of these bombings do not have long-term notability, despite the fact that there may be quite a few casualties. We need better criteria than saying that so many people died and thus it's notable. Colipon+(Talk) 13:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Good luck. Though we had somethign realy strong going on the elections, but then people are more interest n personality poliics than discussions. Theyd rather say no than partak ein discussion and apparently then vote counting is the the deerminant ;(Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope ArrayEdit

Article: NuSTAR (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA launches the X-ray telescope NuSTAR on the plane-assisted rocket Pegasus XL (pictured) (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Since the ticker is red, I think this launch could be a deserving candidate. Update is still required though. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "Ticker being red" is not a reason to post something (besides, it's not red any more), and you're not telling us what this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This launch is definitely important scientifically and has been receiving plenty of coverage across the world. Additionally, the article has now been updated. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support good update, interesting piece of space news. --IP98 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, suggested blurb:
NASA launches X-ray telescope NuSTAR on the plane-assisted rocket Pegasus XL (pictured) SPat talk 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per Bzweebl and IP98. The update about the launch is small, but I don't think much else can be said. -- Anc516 (talkcont) 06:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I have very little to add to the reasons posted above. A clearly notable event and an interesting alternative story for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 17:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- Sufficient update, unanimous support. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    That is not a sufficient update. -- tariqabjotu 01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why? It is six sentences long and cites six different sources. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    I don't consider the entire "Launch" section to be part of the update. Most of that is background information that has been there for awhile and, in my opinion, doesn't pertain to Wednesday's event. We don't generally consider information about the scheduling of a future launch to be part of the update afterward. There are three extremely short, choppy sentences actually about the launch. That's not sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 04:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

June 12Edit

[Posted] Earthquakes in AfghanistanEdit

Article: June 2012 Afghanistan earthquakes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 70 people are buried and presumed dead as the result of two earthquakes in Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): AFP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant loss of life/second deadliest earthquake this year --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: Notable disaster. Article's a bit on the thinner side, but dont know if much more details are available to fatten the article. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: Natural disasters of this size are significant news. It may take a while for news organisations to provide the same level of coverage as would happen if this occurred in a more accessible part of the world, but this shouldn't preclude posting. LukeSurl t c 11:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant earthquake with 70 already presumed dead during the preliminary stages of the recovery effort. YuMaNuMa Contrib 16:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Sufficiently major natural disaster. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Azaria Chamberlain rulingEdit

Article: Azaria Chamberlain disappearance (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Australian coroner rules that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by a dingo. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Normally I don't nominate crime news, but this is the final stage to a thirty-year legal saga--arguably the most famous trial in Australian history, and later a subject of note for its media frenzy as well as the events themselves. --Khazar2 (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support "A dingo ate my baby!" has entered our lexicon, and the conclusion of this long running case is noteworthy. The article is updated, but it's not organized chronologically which would make it easier to read. --IP98 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- This case has gotten out of control. It has been running for a while now and has received tons of attention. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I've never heard of this case before, but I've read Picnic at Hanging Rock and this kinda reminds me of it. Also how is this not a minority topic? --Τασουλα (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'm always cautious with nominations that are about my home country, but when there's been a movie with Meryl Streep about it, I guess more of the world knows. It's certainly the lead story everywhere in Australia last night and today. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Agreed that it has received a lot of media attention. But I fail to see the notability of a ruling by a coroner that a dingo killed a baby in 1980. Nothing to indicate as to why the baby, the dingo or the death has any significant impact or consequence. As the "Media involvement and bias" section of the article itself indicates, this appears to be a case where the media has just sensationalized a minor story. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware that the baby's mother was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour for the child's murder? HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd argue that a nation's most-discussed trial ever is de facto notable. It's certainly had a bigger social impact than most of the vehicle crashes or sports championships we post. Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I read the article, I am aware. So one citizen in one country did not receive proper justice. Forget the life imprisonment, even if capital punishment was permitted in Aus and she was hung for a crime she did not commit, while it will be one instance of gross failure of the justice system, I fail to see how this would be noteworthy to an international audience. Isn't occasional failure of justice systems, routine? Dont people ever get wrongly convicted and wrongly acquitted? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't a case that gets sustained international media and scholarly attention the literal definition of "noteworthy"? I don't understand when editors try to impose criteria beyond that, especially when no one mentions those criteria when the Kings win the Stanley Cup, etc. Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree level of news coverage is definitely an indicator of notability, but there are a lot of fluff pieces that get worldwide attention. I'll also agree that we can never make an objective analysis of what is fluff piece and what is not. I see that this has already been posted, and this is not something I am particularly peeved about, so I wont push further. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you aware that the conviction was overturned 30 years ago? -- (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Assuming this is a final ruling, yes, of huge international interest for decades. Law, Biology, Books, Movies, Seinfeld. Margaret Effing Thatcher even played the mom in a hollywood movie, for gosh sakes. WP exists to serve its users, not its self-appointed guardians.μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is a slow burning case as you would expect from something 30 years ago. Nevertheless this has attracted widespread international attention over the years, enough to be ITN worthy. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Comment I guess the article is updated. But I have never seen an article so well-written be so poorly organized. Not blaming anyone here, but why isn't it written a bit more (chrono)logically? -- tariqabjotu 03:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- The article update is made up of one sentence in the lead and two in the body of the article. That is insufficient. I have marked the nomination as needing an update. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    No, there's more than that. It's just so damn hard to find because the article is poorly ordered. Look under "Coroner's inquests". -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, per the page history [33], it looks to me like 5-7 sentences have been added throughout the article as well as other fixes. As the nominator, I won't revert Bzweebl, but it does appear to me to be updated. Khazar2 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have to say it's rather unusual to nominate this at the end of the day that the story 'broke', and for it to be considered front page news for Wikipedia. It is an interesting story, but as has been said above, this is essentially a one-line update for a story as old as I am! Why should it be considered for ITN, given that it's more of a curiosity than an 'event'? doktorb wordsdeeds 04:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, our first stated purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Given the prominence of this story's coverage, and the high article traffic at the page, it seems to me to qualify. Khazar2 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Page views don't count. Of course there's going to be a "bounce" in readers whenever something is covered on the news, that's what happens (and therefore, surely, we don't need to direct readers to it 24 hours after the event?). Just as the ticker going red doesn't count, neither should the readership stats. I am not satisfied that a ruling like this should be on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this as a "current event of wide interest", since the death was more than 30 years ago and this changes nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
At the very least, it changes the contents of a death certificate, and finally fully clears a lady who was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. I'm puzzled at the posts that seem to show a complete ignorance of the case. We've posted far more trivial legal cases from the US. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
But never a trivial case from Europe? What is your obsession with America? Seems like a case of commonwealth penis envy... --IP98 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
poppose not notablem there are plenty of false arrests in the world. and a movie is not notable because of its lead and being based on a true story. IN that case there would be lots of ITNRs.Lihaas (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • support since this particular case is of wide interest worldwide. As said above the world knows about "the dingo ate my baby". Plus this didnt just happen, its been around for a very long time. and it made headlines in news media worldwide.... -- Ashish-g55 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - One of a kind case that has been in the public mind since 1980.. way outside Australias borders too.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Review I don't believe this story should have been posted and will set out my reasons on the talk page. I have alerted BorgQueen to this doktorb wordsdeeds 18:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I dont see the problem in this being in the ITN section. It has been a very special case that has been in the public eye ever since 1980, and it has reached far beyond the Australian borders. If any crime case should be on ITN its this one. And it is troubling to me that users always wants reviews and wants to challenge these kind of articles being on ITN taking away valuable time for the user who posted it to discuss the matter for hours. I have seen it happen over and over again.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm curious what your reasons are, but the reason I didn't post it at the time I commented is that the article is very poorly ordered, making the update difficult to locate. But other than that, I have no objections. And even that objection isn't strong enough to request that it be taken down. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
strongly oppose, that's ridiculous, in order of notability this piece of news should be like spot 25.000 or something, who posted this clown-tale and has the nerve to support it's stay? This is wikipedia FIRST PAGE people!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your opinion. We've evaluated your contribution, but upon community consensus we've posted the article. I'm sorry if that doesn't quite meet your expectations. If you read all the opinions above, you might gauge how this is or isn't important to English Wikipedia. Perhaps there's another project you could work with if you don't agree this community-based decision. In any case, thanks again for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Unpost: She was freed from prison in 1988 because they found the baby's clothes in a dingo den in 1986. The fact that a coroner finally got around to officially changing the death certificate 25 years later is not ITN-worthy. -- (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Unpost. This story is not notable beyond Australia. Living in America, this is the first time I've ever heard of this story. Plus, this may open up a flood gate for random "notable" child abduction stories. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
So, you have indeed heard of this story, haven't you? (BTW, anyone you know voted for Nixon?)μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, what is the general guideline for nomination of criminal cases? Despite the result of this case, it was considered a criminal case. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Utter nonsense. This has been a headline news story in the UK each time a new development has been reported for 30 years. Leaky Caldron 22:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The assertion that "this story is not notable beyond Australia", based entirely upon one user's personal unfamiliarity, is preposterous. It's extremely well known in the United States (where KyuuA4 is from, I believe) — perhaps more so than any other controversy in the history of Australia. It appears that the media coverage has been much the same in other countries.
    That the case is thirty years old, yet still generates international headlines, only proves its enduring notability and widespread interest. —David Levy 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Eh I don't really see how this is different than the Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony cases, which we didn't because they were deeemed to be "super over hyped" by the media because of missing white woman syndrome bias and greatly exaggerated and sensationalized media coverage (in the Anthony case especially by Nancy Grace). Knox even served about four years in jail before she was freed, similar to this case. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's "Not notable outside Australia" which is the concern (obviously Seinfeld made a joke about it years ago). The problem is that it's a minor footnote (I say minor, because the cause of death was determined in 1986, but no one had the balls to put it on paper until 2012) to a 30 year old story. -- (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 Warsaw football clashesEdit

Article: 2012 Warsaw football clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Police opens fire as Russian football fans are attacked by Poles in Warsaw. (Post)
News source(s): [34]

 Nanobear (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

  • Highly POV blurb, with a POV source. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is a very minor incident. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very minor march by Russian football fans on Russia Day, that was dispersed by Polish Police without much of an incident. Only a few acts of violence, but not enough to make it notable. In the footage I saw during the Greece-Czech Rep. match, it looked very minor. -- Anc516 (talkcont) 18:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately, it is very ordinary. Egeymi (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Open fire" sounds like live shots were fired with the intention to harm, which is not what happened here (warning shots, I'm guessing blanks). I would Oppose for now on the basis that it is not a major incident. Note however the situation could escalate post game. Regardless, the blurb needs a complete re-write. --LukeSurl t c 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can be summarised as "football fans get a bit oi oi bant before game". Yes, there's history and context involved (Russia play Poland in Poland, with a German referee, on a Russian national holiday). Nonetheless it's not enough to warrant the front page, given it's more 'unrest' than 'riot'. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aren't riots part of the standard pre-game festivities at every European association football match? It may be more newsworty whenever one doesn't break out... --Jayron32 20:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support front page of BBC, Guardian. This is a compelling topic for ITN. Ethnic violence resulting in injuries, fire. Seems plenty notable to me. Update is sufficient. -- (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Ethic clashes between rival football nations especially with 5 resulted injuries is not the sort of stuff we post on ITN. YuMaNuMa Contrib 21:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the IP. Apparently FireFox can't keep a session cookie to save its worthless life. BTW BBC is reporting the injury count at 10, and given that police in riot gear fired tear gas and rubber bullets, I think it deserves more than "yawn football hooligans". --IP98 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait until the knuckle-dragging En-ger-land fans kick-off - they'll show them what a riot is! Lugnuts (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013Edit

Article: Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Falkland Islands government announces that it will hold a referendum on the islands' sovereignty next year, amid a simmering dispute between the Argentine and British governments. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

 —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Wait until the referendum is held and the results are out. The announcement sounds sufficiently important anyway.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • IMO the mere fact such a referendum has been announced is noteworthy, given the tensions between Buenos Aires and London. The article, I'm sure, will shortly be expanded greatly. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove "simmering" from blurb. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 15:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - If it was any referendum then I would have said Wait but now as this is a result of ongoing arguments between the UK and Argentina this actually becomes In the news already now.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those unfamiliar with this situation, be aware that this is somewhat of a "publicity exercise" to assert the islands' British status - a response to external rather than internal forces. It would be very surprising if the pro-Argentine vote got more than a handful of votes in this referendum. --LukeSurl t c 16:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: a publicity stunt, only undertaken to be able to flaunt the overwhelmingly one-sided result that will surely result. If the result of the referendum supports a change in the status quo, that would be very ITNworthy, but that won't happen. Kevin McE (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- As per my Scottish nomination, we wait for the referendum to be held. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Good for DYK at th emoment.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Announcements such as this are normally never posted. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose:Britain used to have a navy. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Elinor OstromEdit

Article: Elinor Ostrom (talk, history)
Blurb: ​First ever female Nobel Prize laureate in Economics Elinor Ostrom dies at the age of 78. (Post)
News source(s): Wall Street Journal

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Since she was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2009 and kept up with her research in the last years this should not be considered a death at an old age as a ground to oppose it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment As there are at least new five Nobel Prize winners per year (and usually more), we'd expect five or so Nobel prize winners to die each year. As such, Nobel Prize cannot mean an automatic ITN item upon death. The question here is, is being the first woman to win the Economics prize sufficiently significant for an ITN? --LukeSurl t c 15:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we have Recent deaths, use it. A death should only be on ITN if it is independently notable or causes some unexpected shift in the world. This is neither. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending update per ITN/DC #2. To LukeSurl there are scores of accomplished athletes, performers, politicians and authors. ITN/DC #2 doesn't discriminate. That said, I strongly oppose it, but for now it stands. -- (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Aside from the prize, was she widely recognized as a very important figure in economics? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well published, numerous awards, called "one of 25 visionaries who are changing the world". Seems to fit the bill to me. The update is a little thin is all. --IP98 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ITN/DC doesn't discriminate, but we still can, no? The language of the guideline appears to me to set a minimum for posting, not to force us to post every figure who meets one of the three. Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If we can heap praise on an award winning Cuban pugilist I think we can post the only female nobel prize economics winner, especially given that she was still active and was well respected. --IP98 (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm generally skeptical of posting any death that isn't major front-page news in the deceased's home country (and preferably others). I agree that this would be better for Recent Deaths. Khazar2 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC liquidationEdit

Article: Rangers F.C. (talk, history)
Blurb: Rangers Football Club, the world's most successful association football team, will face liquidation after main creditor HM Revenue and Customs rejects a Company Voluntary Arrangement to bring the club out of administration. (Post)
News source(s): Rangers FC statement

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: World's most successful football club (in terms of league titles won) going bust is pretty big news. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 10:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose at least until it happens and even then the claim that they are the most successful club in the world is just selective, non-neutral, editorial hyperbole. Leaky Caldron 10:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • How is it non-neutral given that they hold the world record for domestic league titles? Indeed, I would argue for keeping that mention as that's what makes this story all the more notable. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Because "success" cannot equitably be measured solely by the number of championship titles won, which takes no account of the competitive strength of the league, for example. In the case of Rangers it is a narrow yet accurate view based on the historical statistical record taking no account of the value of those championships in the context of an effectively 2 club league for about 80 years. Leaky Caldron 12:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support, Once the liquidation process has started then post it. Remove the bit about the world's most successful football team, I'm sure Man U, Barca, Real Madrid etc would have something to say about that. Suggest possible wording Association Football Rangers F.C., are liquidated after main creditor HM Revenue and Customs rejects a CVA to bring the club out of administration. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This will get two sides of the Atlantic at odds with each other! (Not to mention either side of Hadrian's Wall). This is a highly notable event, not least because it was always said that the finances of football would need 'a big name' to go under for something to happen. I'm stunned that a side so successful have, essentially, been expunged from history by the flick of an administrator's pencil. It's very important news and clearly fit for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 12:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your understanding of liquidation isn't the same as mine. Provided that the other SPL clubs agree, Rangers will continue to play in the Scottish top league at Ibrox. Technically a "newco" but not much else changes on the face of it. Leaky Caldron 12:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rangers are not among the top-class football clubs for years, and such liquidity problems are not uncommon in football. This may have been much more important if Rangers really is the world's most successful football club, but unfortunately it's far from being clearly ascertained.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. As per above, remove "the world's most successful association football team". In fact, for concision, the bit about it's main creditor being HMRC is probably unnecessary. Wait until it is known what will actually happen to the team, then have a post detailing the consequences. Article probably needs a bit more updating. Also we have an article Administration (British football) which is more specific for this situation. LukeSurl t c 13:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • But it is known what will happen: they face liquidation proceedings as the CVA proposal was rejected. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Will there still be a club called 'Rangers' in the SPL? Playing at Ibrox? If the answer is yes (I'm guessing it depends on the SPL vote) then this isn't really big news in a sporting context - and in a business context Rangers F.C. isn't that huge a company. LukeSurl t c 14:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Even if the SPL clubs vote to allow the "newco" in (and I have my doubts), they won't be allowed to use the name "Rangers FC" (nor would the new club in the Third Division). It's likely to be something like "AFC Rangers" (or similar). And it's being reported that Ibrox will be sold and the newco will attempt to lease the ground back, so no guarantee there either. So, as it stands, Rangers as we know it will not exist for much longer. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 14:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
          • None of which is news until it happens and none of it has. It is, as of today, pure speculation - not news. Leaky Caldron 15:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Top-flight in Scotland is the equivalent of non-league in England. Lugnuts (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would support posting something a bit more decisive than what has happened so far. AFAIK, there is a chance that Rangers will remain a club in the SPL, but there are a number of other possible outcomes, such as being forced down to the 3rd division. I do think Rangers are a notable enough club to consider posting if the latter happens. While not as strong as top clubs in England, Spain, etc, they have a worldwide fanbase at least in the English-speaking world and have a far greater notability than, say, a perennial mid-table EPL team. Lugnuts I'm sure your comment was an exaggeration but I think you may underestimate how relatively famous Rangers FC is among people who only casually pay attention to British football.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had to mull this over for a while, but in the end it's no more notable than a major league team in the USA being sold or folding. The most successful title highly subjective. I've seen the same thing said about LFC and Man-U. The thing about European football is that you have a billion cups and leagues and teams can rack up a large number of "championships" so it's not really clear cut. --IP98 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] LA kings win stanley cupEdit

Article: 2012 Stanley Cup Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Los Angeles Kings defeat the New Jersey Devils in six games to win the 2012 Stanley Cup Finals. Jonathan Quick is awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy. (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.

 Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support posting the Stanley Cup once it's over, but Game 6 is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
A tad premature, methinks? Not that the end result whoever wins isn't going to be an ITN item, but its a tad presumptuous that the Kings will win it...--MASEM (t) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It's 3-0 Kings, so the Kings will likely clinch the cup in tonight's game. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
SOmeone hated me when I jinxed the Red Wings either last year or two years ago. Good thing there was no jinxing on this one lol. –HT D 03:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea exactly what the state of the game was when this was posted or when I replied, but my suggest in such future cases is that when the result is likely going to be ITN (this being the result of a major sports championship), the blurb should stay generic until the details are 100% affirmed (read: completion of the game). It's not wrong to pre-load the ITN candidate of course, just to be a bit presumptuous as to the actual results even if it was a shoe-in at the time of writing. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I wrote a blurb, which was arrogantly usurped by others, when the game was 3-0. There was a very high chance of it finishing within a couple hours, and 100% likelyhood within a couple days. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- The game is over. I have edited the blurb. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ITN/R and most notable hockey championship there is. However, we've never mentioned who wins the Conn Smythe Trophy in the blurb prior to now, do we really need to? Maybe we could just put Jonathan Quick's picture in ITN, with a note in the blurb like "(MVP Jonathan Quick pictured)" instead?
  • Comment It was mentioned last year. Truthsort (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't mentioned last year. The archives go back to 2008, and it has never been mentioned before. I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but I would post it like my suggestion above. -- Anc516 (