Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2011

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.

November 30

Death of Crown Prince Leka

'Article: Leka, Crown Prince of Albania (talk, history)
Crown Prince Leka of the former heir to the Albanian Throne dies at age 72 in Tirana. (Post)
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Even though the Albanian Kingdom does not exsist anymore some people would find this interesting and he was a infuential person in Albania history especially 1997. We did post the death of Archduke Otto why not Crown Prince Leka --Spongie555 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose not all that significant. Otto was posted in part because he was still active in politics as an MEP. Plus, the Habsburg line is much more well-known. Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Hot Stop. Beyond495 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fails to meet notable death criteria. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not to be rude, but who cares? JimSukwutput 17:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral The posting of Archduke Otto was valid, because of who he was and his place in history. This is.....not so notable. But the person involved and the landmark age has a certain curiosity about it. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

November 29

[Posted] Laurent Gbagbo handed to the ICC

Article: Laurent Gbagbo (talk, history)
Blurb: Laurent Gbagbo is deported from Côte d'Ivoire to face trial at the International Criminal Court over his role in the Second Ivorian Civil War (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Currently a one-sentence update; needs some more updating once more content appears in reliable sources Modest Genius talk 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Neutral It seems to be well covered through the various media, but it's only commencing a whole new story with other proceedings. The start of the judgement with its verdict would be more notable than his deportation, so I really don't think we should post the same story twice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support once there is a fuller update. I don't think the issue of posting the story twice is something to be concerned about because his (presumed) conviction will be a long way off. --FormerIP (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, one the update is ample. A former head of state being sent to the Hague is certainly a big development. Nightw 04:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral Leaning Support Per FormerIP and NightW. More is needed, but if more comes, it is notable. Beyond495 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Night w and FormerIP. This is significant since Gbagbo was presented some ten years ago as an honorable democrat and the alternative to military dictatorship. Tachfin (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I found it rather notable that "the International Criminal Court has only investigated African countries and only indicted Africans". Wikipedia should not be placing the ICC on the ITN pedestal until it can demonstrate some pretence of fairness and impartiality. OakWoodDoor (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Posting by ban-evading sockpuppet struck. Fut.Perf. 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't find that section particularly biased—after reading the full sentence of course. I don't think it needs its own section, but if a reliable source says that's the cause of resentment within Africa, then I'm not sure how you could water it down... Nightw 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I was accusing the ICC of demonstrating prejudice. Not the Wikipedia article about the ICC. OakWoodDoor (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I was wondering where these ridiculous comments came from. Turns out it's a sock of User:Deterence. JimSukwutput 20:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that ICC has so far only investigated African countries is hardly surprising, given that Africa is a huge continent with the most countries of any continent - and the vast majority of dictatorships. The complaint by some African states (about an indictment of the Sudanese president) mostly reflects an attempt from some dictatorships to divert attention from their own crimes (e.g. Djibouti). Given this, I don't think such politically motivated complaints (without any substantial action behind the rhetoric) deserve a section on its own. JimSukwutput 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not up to us to judge the impartiality of the ICC - whatever its merits it is notable that it is taking the action it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
To make an addition comment on the alleged "anti-African bias" (whatever that entails), note that ICC has so far only investigated five countries. If any objective observer is asked to pick out the five worst regimes in the world in terms of human rights abuse and war crimes, he is highly unlikely to go outside Africa. Any whining about anti-African bias based on this alone is idiotic at best and intentionally misleading (i.e. playing the race card) at worst. I'll note that the section in the article was created by one user with an obvious political agenda, and that it is mostly original research/synthesis unsupported by the cite source. It is unfortunate that we have the article on the main page with this mess. JimSukwutput 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Khmer Rogue? Pinochet? The Former Yugoslavia? I try not to be emotive here but it is difficult when you implicitly suggest the victims of various regimes simply don't count. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
Are you kidding me? The ICC was formed in 2002. I'm obviously referring to current-day regimes. Nor am I suggesting that the victims of various regimes "don't count". I'm simply saying that the worst regimes in the world in this decade - in terms of war crimes and human rights abuses - are predominantly in Africa. This statement would be impossible to dispute if you had any experience working in Africa as a volunteer, as I did. I resent the fact that you are, incredibly, accusing me of being apathetic to the victims of oppressive regimes. JimSukwutput 16:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And let me remind you that I only wrote the comment to bring attention to the faulty, unsourced section in one of the posted articles, which has since been removed. If you wish to launch further accusations concerning moral righteousness, I'll be glad to respond in my talk page. JimSukwutput 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I would be neutral otherwise, but I haven't seen any other supportable nomination over the last few days, and this is better than the rest. It has all the necessary elements: war crimes, international politics, underrepresented region. JimSukwutput 07:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Particularly significant as "the first former head of state to be tried by the ICC since it was set up in 2002." [2] I have added a few sentences to the article. Re the blurb, is the word "deported" precisely accurate?- I haven't seen it used in any of the reports. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, possibly not in a technical sense (not sure), but I can't think of a better one. 'taken into custody' ignores the fact that he's been under arrest all summer, and I wanted to find a way to name the country in the blurb. Any suggestions? Modest Genius talk 10:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
How about: "Laurent Gbagbo, former President of Côte d'Ivoire, arrives in The Hague to face trial at the International Criminal Court over his role in the Second Ivorian Civil War"..... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
That works rather well. What are we waiting for here? Modest Genius talk 16:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - High profile international case. Rather than "deported," we could use "extradited"." Mamyles (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, do we know that that term is technically correct? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Perfectly acceptable. Nightw 14:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted The update still isn't stellar, but it has decent background information on the process. I'm not sure about whether it's technically correct to say he was "extradited to the International Criminal Court", but he wasn't really extradited to the Netherlands or any other sovereign state. -- tariqabjotu 20:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

American Airlines bankruptcy

Article: American Airlines (talk, history)
Blurb: American Airlines' parent company AMR Corporation files for bankruptcy. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Huffingtonpost
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: It is the world's largest airline by scheduled passenger-kilometer flown. Basically this means that so much transcontinental flights are no more economically feasible due to the financial crisis. A major sign for the air transportation market and world tourism. GreyHood Talk 17:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Request for clarification Exactly what is happening? One thing I do know is that American law in this area is very different from that in my country (and it doesn't matter what that is). The source don't say "bankruptcy". They say "Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection." Obviously the rest of the world is unlikely to have the same chapter 11 of whatever book it comes from. While Americans may all(?) know what it means, can the blurb/article give us a more global explanation please? How does it impact on passengers? And not just here on this page. It needs to be in the blurb and/or article(s). HiLo48 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Chapter 11 refers to Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code (and not a book - I'm not sure if that was intended as a joke). It's the most common type of bankruptcy protection/reorganization process for corporations. Generally this means the corporation is delisted from the stock exchange, with operations ongoing (and substantially owned by debtors). I am not familiar with what the reorganization usually entails, but I believe Chapter 11 protection is fairly common for airlines and unlikely to cause big changes. JimSukwutput 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
So, in terms of impact on the broader community (which seems to me to be the important thing here), there won't be much? If that's the case, it doesn't seem like major news. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; reorganization while continuing to operate is not a huge deal. If it were the largest bankruptcy ever then I would support, but it does not appear to be. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The gist of Chapter 11 bankruptcy is that A) American Airlines believes that they do not have enough cash equivalents available to meet all of their current and near future debt obligations (and hence is bankrupt, or soon would be), and B) they want to start a process where they attempt to restructure / reduce their debt obligations by negotiating with creditors (under court supervision) to forgive some of their debt with the assumption that creditors will ultimately receive a larger share of what they are owed if the business continues operating than if the business were simply shut down and liquidated. Generally, one expects that the current stockholders will be wiped out (stock value goes to zero or practically zero), and the debtors agree to write off some of the debt while receiving significant ownership rights in the restructered company. Creditors have to agree to such a scheme and will often take substantial losses in the process. If they can't reach an agreement, the alternative is to sell the company and liquidate its assets in order to pay creditors. When debts are large relative to the value one might expect during a rushed sale, such an action may provide relatively little compensation to debt holders, and hence they have an incentive to attempt reorganization. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is the most common form of bankruptcy for large corporations in the US and has been very common for airlines. By total assets, this is the second largest airline bankruptcy ever (behind United Airlines in 2002). In the United example, we saw the company reduce payroll by 20% (via layoffs, furloughs, etc.), decrease their inventory of planes by 15%, reduce and reorganize their routes. Some ticket holders ultimately found their flight / route no longer existed though they were likely to be compensated. American's bankruptcy is a big financial story and matters a great deal for their investors and employees, but probably will have relatively little impact on ordinary people who aren't directly affiliated with the airline. If it went to liquidation it would be a much bigger deal, but that is unlikely, and in any event would probably take years before it occurred. Dragons flight (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not clear. Is AA bankrupt (in the normal sense that it cannot pay its current liabilities), or is it indicating that there is a present threat of that becoming the case? --FormerIP (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
A bankruptcy filing indicates that they feel it is foreseeable and unavoidable that they will be unable to pay current liabilities at some point in the future. It is not uncommon to see companies file literally the night before a debt comes due that they would be forced to default on due to lack of funds. These filings allow the company to defer some payments (subject to court supervision) so that the company can maintain the operating capital necessary to run the business. In other cases the filing may anticipate the true default by weeks, months, or even years out of a desire to maintain enough working capital to make restructuring viable, but in those cases there is still a declaration that default will be unavoidable without the protection of bankruptcy court. It appears that AA is the latter kind. They have $4B cash on hand, but have lost money each of the last four years and are expected to post a loss of ~$1.2B for 2011. So they are actually years away from cash flow crisis per se, but they believe that it is inevitable without restructuring. The fact that they do have a large cash reserve makes it likely they will be able to restructure successfully without large disruptions to passengers. Dragons flight (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It's big news from a major corporation. Quantas grounded their fleet, over a labour dispute, it was here. Steve Jobs stepped down as CEO of Apple, it was here. AA files for Chapter 11, totally out of the blue, it belongs here. Simple. -- (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
When Qantas ground its fleet, the planes stopped flying, causing a big impact on passengers. This event doesn't do that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Granted, and no one has been given a layoff notice. Changed to Post if it's a slow news day and the article has a really good update -- (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Airlines with financial troubles? Not uncommon lately. Beyond495 (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Iranian protesters break into British Embassy

Article: Iran–United Kingdom relations (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Demonstrators take six hostages after storming the British embassy in Tehran to protest further sanctions following the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, (CBS), (AFP), (USA Today), (Daily Mail), (Xinhua)
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Storming an embassy is a very notable event. Not sure which article. My suggested article is Iran_nuclear_program#The_November_2011_IAEA_report but if there's a better article, or one is created. I agree with Greyhood below, unless an article is created for this event. --Johnsemlak (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Iran–United Kingdom relations is a candidate for update. GreyHood Talk 15:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Major news story with international ramifications and coverage. I added a suggested blurb. PopularMax (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose another in a long list of Muslim countries' attacks on Western embassies. This is a sufficiently commonplace occurrence (like road accidents of buses that kill a score at a go) that they're not news any more than some polar bear's death. Now, if the UK or EU breaks relations over it; that'd be news. But methinks they won't, because they too understand it's no big deal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Attacks on embassies are common. Actually breaking into one (by a mob) is rarer, isn't it?--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Updated. It's minimal but meets ITN critera.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The connection to Nuclear program of Iran is too distant for it to be used as the bolded article, IMO. Maybe something like Iran–United Kingdom relations, as suggested above, could be used instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The hostages were freed some time ago, which makes this a rather trivial case of vandalism. JimSukwutput 02:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The hostages seem to be quite a minor aspect of the story - as reported, I mean, I'm sure it was terrible for them. So the fact that they were released is a valid criticism of the proposed blurb, I think, rather than a good reason to oppose the posting. --FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A small group stormed the British embassy and took hostages. That's hardly petty vandalism and is certainly not common place. Iran was largely isolated from the Arab uprising, they can't be painted with the same brush, especially since the mob was protesting a foreign government, not the domestic one. -- (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The report would've been the thing to post. This seems like a minor incident. Nightw 04:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We were too slow to post - the story has already moved on doktorb wordsdeeds 06:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment--The UK is to expel all Iranian diplomats. The article is now updated. Suggested blurb, British Foreign Secretary William Hague announces that all Iranian diplomats are to be expelled from the United Kingdom following the attack on the British embassy in Tehran by protesters.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    I confess my blurb isn't very well-worded or succinct. Suggestions welcome. I"d also like it if we could get the article Iran-Britain relations in the blurb but it doesn't fit well in my blurb above. --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (perhaps reworded to emphasize embassy closings). The UK has closed its embassy, saying that the regime was behind the attacks, and has demanded that Iran close its embassy in London. The NYT describes this as the "most serious rupture of relations in decades".[3] Norway is also closing its embassy in Tehran. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted, but I'm very open to rewording the blurb. There were several angles for this (staff expelled, embassies closed), but I couldn't think of a way to succinctly put them in the blurb. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think your blurb is great. Mamyles (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

November 28

President of South Ossetia

Articles: South Ossetian presidential election, 2011 (talk, history) and Alla Dzhioyeva (talk, history)
Blurb: Alla Dzhioyeva is elected president of South Ossetia (Post)
News source(s): AP

 -- (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Not a widely recognised state (only 6 UN members recognise it), so not on ITNR. Not a minority topic either. Modest Genius talk 22:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Per Modest Genius. Beyond495 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose'. Even among states with mixed recognition, this is probably one of the least significant. 72000 people - that's a smaller population than many universities in India. JimSukwutput 05:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The political volatility of South Ossetia's circumstances make these events more notable, not less. OakWoodDoor (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Posting by ban-evading sockpuppet struck. Fut.Perf. 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just a region that is heavily supported by Russia in order to stir trouble in Georgia. Crnorizec (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX? Nightw 11:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with OakWoodDoor's reasoning, but the article is unfortunately in poor shape anyway. Nightw 11:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The results of the election were cancelled due to the alleged violations by the winner, and there will be new elections. Strange. GreyHood Talk 14:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment My impression is that the matter is being discussed slightly on anti-Russian grounds. You like it or not, South Ossetia is a disputed region with the same status as Abkhazia and Kosovo. It's not up to comment whether it being a sovereign country is good or not, but seems like we have a nice precedence in the other two mentioned. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Same as Abkhazia, Transnistria or Somaliland, yes. But not the Republic of Kosovo, which is widely recognised (85 UN members). why is Kosovo not an article about the country? smells like the recent China/PRC article name disputes. Modest Genius talk 21:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Not Transnistria or Somaliland, as those are unrecognized by any UN members, unlike Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have tiny recognition, and Kosovo, which has lots of recognition. And probably it's not at the country as a lingering artifact, and were it to join the UN that would be resolved, but there's enough people who will claim it POV to move the country article there at this point that it won't happen. Just my guess. (Also, the Republic of Kosovo does not currently control all of Kosovo, just as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not coterminous with Nagorno-Karabakh) --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Oppose Before we get diverted onto other issues, the main topic here involves an issue of electoral administration which is not, broadly defined, of importance significant enough to warrant front page inclusion.doktorb wordsdeeds 22:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mohammed Basindawa prime minister in Yemen

Article: Mohammed Basindawa (talk, history)
Blurb: Mohammed Basindawa is named new Prime Minister of Yemen by Vice President Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)

Nominator's comments: Seems significant that the a man from the opposition gets this high post.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I support this in principle, but the article would need to be significantly expanded first. --FormerIP (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Support as evidence of a genuine "regime change", but agree that expansion of his article would be good. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It sounds like things are still developing in Yemen. I would wait for Saleh's abdication, if that comes. Beyond495 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean resignation? Or was that a quip? He's supposed to step down in December. I'd also suggest waiting for that instead. Nightw 03:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Call it what you like, resignation, abdication, whenever he's gone and a new government is in place that does not bear his hallmark in some way. Beyond495 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yemen is now in the leadership shuffle which has become common in the Arab uprising. Expect more ministers sacked, followed by more riots, etc. Agree with Beyond495, wait until Saleh is gone. -- (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Ken Russell

Article: Ken Russell (talk, history)
Blurb: ​English film director Ken Russell dies aged 84. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Australian, Los Angeles Times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Russell was well known for his controversial films and was Oscar nominated for Women in Love. Although he was 84, his death is said to have been unexpected and he recently agreed to direct a new film. --JuneGloom Talk 14:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Weak because it is a sad fact of life that everyone dies eventually. The article could probably benefit from a filmography. --FormerIP (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Death at old age of a man who was not a leader of his profession (eg he never even won a "Best Director" Oscar) and whose work had almost completely petered out in recent years. The death has no impact on current events. The article is in quite bad shape. Classic "Recent deaths" material. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Relatively minor figure, agree with Mkativerata. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oscar winner, maybe. Beyond495 (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most distinctive and eccentric British directors, responsible for some of the best alternative cinema in history. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, he was a relatively minor figure in mainstream cinema, but that's the point. To be as well known as he is, he had to achieve a lot in alternative cinema, and he did! Not a Hollywood hero, but that should never be a criterion here. HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - being popular in a particular niche market of entertainment does not make him significant. JimSukwutput 21:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

November 27

99th Grey Cup

Article: 99th Grey Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Canadian football, the BC Lions defeat the Winnipeg Blue Bombers to win the 99th Grey Cup. (Post)
News source(s): 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.

Nominator's comments: Looks like its ready for posting CanuckMy page89 (talk), 03:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong Support, since the CFL is the largest Canadian football league and the game was watched across the country. There is precedent for the championship games of leagues confined to mostly to one country making ITN. For example, the result of the championship game of the Australian Football League was an ITN item in October. [4] -- Scorpion0422 04:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Championships of major sports leagues are notable IMO. Beyond495 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support once updates are done. Perhaps should be ITN/R, surprised it isn't. --Jayron32 05:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is ITNR. See WP:ITNR#Football (Canadian). –HTD 05:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. (actually, I'm sitting now. But if you want me to stand for a bit, I will). --Jayron32 05:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I just thought somebody sneakily removed it w/o discussion. –HTD 05:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Nothing should be approved without discussion, IMO. That page is rather presumptuous. Beyond495 (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
          • See WT:ITNR for years' worth of really heated discussions. –HTD 14:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
            Some of the discussions in the very early days of ITNR weren't very in depth or evident of a strong consensus. I think Netball was added after one person suggested it and another person added it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
            • There should be a purge of that page, so that on 2012 we'd have a fresh start. On a related note, were previous Grey Cup finals ever been posted? If it hasn't last year this should be treated like a normal ITN/C blurb. –HTD 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Purging it would be throwing away years of work, and just generate more arguments. And yes, previous Grey Cups have indeed been posted. Modest Genius talk 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
According to this and this the last two Grey Cups weren't posted due to lack of updates. Last year was special, too bad it was not posted. That means this should be treated like a normal ITN/C item. –HTD 18:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, strange, I thought it went up recently. Regardless, it's still on ITNR, and any discussion about whether it should stay there needs to go to WT:ITNR. Modest Genius talk 22:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Support per Wikipedia:ITN/R#Football_(Canadian), and because apparently there isn't enough for it to be posted yet. This is the Canadian equivalent to the American Superbowl. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Never heard of this competition before. Now I have and have read the article, so I know a lot more. Ain't Wikipedia wonderful? I support the nomination as the major football competition in a country I've never been to. HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN. What all needs to be added to the article as it stands? I believe summaries of the other playoff games are pointless and particularily weird given that I recall the AFL Final had its playoff information in a seperate article. --PlasmaTwa2 21:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is updated and ready to go. Not sure what the delay is but its kind of ridiculous. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ya, whats with the delay here? For an item listed in ITNR, this is getting really silly. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 06:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that the Game summary section contains no prose? Almost the entire article, as it stands now, could have been written before the game. It's not adequately updated. -- tariqabjotu 08:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The lead now has updated text referring to the final match, which could constitute an acceptable update; however, normally with sports stories a prose update of the 'game summary' section is required to be posted to ITN. Being listed at ITNR does not waive update requirements.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Moroccan parliamentary election

Article: Moroccan parliamentary election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Abdelillah Benkirane's Justice and Development Party gains a plurality in the Moroccan parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

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: The article needs a lot of work. But the election is significant because it is the first time that the post of Prime Minister, previously an appointment of the king, will be decided by the poll results. --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Support ITNR, as soon as the article is updated. Crnorizec (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Significant because it's going to decide on Morocco's next prime minister. Article maybe ready tomorrow afternoon UTC. Tachfin (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
If you ready the article and it gets posted, Tachfin, I will give you a Moroccan barnstar. Even if I have to create one. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Moved, because the results are now all in. The update isn't yet complete, though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, the update is done, except one of the tables is incomplete because the numbers of votes for each party (as opposed to the number of seats) does not seem to be available. --FormerIP (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Gary Speed

Article: Gary Speed (talk, history)
Blurb: Gary Speed, manager of the Welsh national football team has died aged 42. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major sporting figure with 85 caps for Wales as well as holding the record for most appearances in the Premier League. Died in post as Welsh manager. --yorkshiresky (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose I honestly doubt this guy is a household name even in Wales: he certainly isn't across the border in England. The Premier League appearance records would be interesting but sports stattish, and in any case according to the article his record had since been surpassed. Coverage of death is superficial - I note that it doesn't give a precise date even - and in the case of suicide I suspect much in the way of further details will be closely guarded until the inquest. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC).
    • Comment The suggestion that the national manager of a major sport in a country is not a household name, strikes me as absurd. He may not be as well known in England as Ryan Giggs, but he isn't a nobody even here in London.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support WP:ITN/DC criteria 1 mentions "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." I guess being the national manager of a major sport in a country satisfy the criteria. — MT (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm a sports fan, but I don't see how being manager of a national sports team is a "high-ranking office of power". Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      In Europe and many other soccer-mad countries a national team manager certainly is a 'high-ranking office of power", at least in terms of the prestige of the position. They are subject to high profile media scrutiny; they're paid very well; the selection of them is a subject of debate in broadsheet newspapers, etc. Certainly, the Wales manager is not as notable as the England manager, but it's still a major death. Also, a very young man and an unexpected death. Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
("In Europe and many other soccer-mad countries" – You do realise that Europe isn't a country, don't you?) (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Cheeky--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Jenks here. I think the meaning of the phrase is misconstrued by putting a sports figure in that category. "Office of power" includes political and military figures. Mamyles (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      fair point. I'd agree with that. I'm not sure whether he meets death criteria #2, though if it were the manager of a more significant footballing nation he certainly would. I'm switching to neutral.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It probably should also say "...commits suicide at the age of 42." Torqueing (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support certainly a major "wow" moment when I heard the news, and the same for anyone who followed football in the 90s. A national manager now and a major figure of the game back then.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Sppport One of the best well regarded footballing names in the United Kingdom - you only have to see the reaction at the Swansea game this afternoon to see that. A highly regarded and very successful player and manager. One of Wales' greatest sporting exports. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Crispmuncher. This may be big news in Wales, maybe even the UK, but I'm not sure if it is of interest to a global audience. -- (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment As Wales manager (a role he only held for a few months), his role was, by FIFA rankings, less prestigious than that of the manager of Armenia, Jamaica or Senegal. Notability is more tied to his playing career in the English Premier League, and as a Welsh international (again, open to the accusation that it was "only" Wales). He was, for some time, the appearance record holder in the short history of that event, but I doubt that is enough. Noteworthy, but not going to be globally news, so regretfully oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, full oppose if not for the suicide. If he had set some sort of record in his position, Support then, but otherwise, not notable. Beyond495 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Change to Oppose. There are plenty of suicides of notable figures. Beyond495 (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A sports manager of a semi-international team is not significant. This will not bring about any sweeping changes, and everyone not in Wales doesn't care at all. Mamyles (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support If for no other reason than to balance to completely ignorant oppose expressed by the previous editor. Wales are a full international team and there will be many people outside Wales who care, be assured of that. Leaky Caldron 16:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Wales isn't in the Olympics, because the UK team supercedes them. They've only ever qualified for one international tournament, 60 years ago. It's not ignorant to say they're semi-international. Mamyles (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Olympics are organised on a different basis, and professional team sports don't qualify for the Olympics in any case. Obviously, Wales is as much an international team as any of the teams it competes against. --FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you do not understand the subject you really should not comment. Wales is the 3rd oldest Football Association in the world see Football Association of Wales and their status has nothing whatsoever to do with the Olympic movement. Wales qualify for every international tournament they enter. The just fail to reach the final stages. Leaky Caldron 17:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Most readers of Wikipedia are not going to be obsessed with the sport enough to care about a death, much less a low-ranked team manager's death. That's just how it is. Mamyles (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
"Obsessed enough to care" isn't a qualifying standard, as far as I'm aware. I think if you are having difficulty expressing yourself about a subject you clearly know very little about it's time move on. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose its unfortunate, but I don't feel being coach of the Welsh team makes him important enough. The team's only appeared in one world cup (in '58) and is 45th in FIFA rankings. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for me he is not a global interest story. For me this is a typical "english news" just because the guy was manager for an UK team he suddenly becomes of world interest. Would this nomination pass had it been lets say a Swedish manager? I dont think so.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support. As a player, Speed held the non-goalkeeper record (for those unfamiliar with football, goalkeepers can play into their 40s) for the most Premier League appearances and the most caps for Wales. If someone with a similar record in even a minor US sport died prematurely, the story would get posted. --FormerIP (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I was unaware of that. I don't think being the one to appear in the most games is that major of record in North America (though they'd likely have others on the way), but how is it viewed in the UK? Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I would say international caps and number of Premiership appearances are the two most prestigious records a player can hold. There's number of goals scored as well - the FA website says Speed is ranked 36th - but not all players have an equal chance of scoring and Speed usually played midfield. By way of comparison, David Beckham, also a midfielder, didn't score enough to make the list.--FormerIP (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
David Beckham has notoriety far beyond his sport though. Beyond495 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose -- This is good but I think its not notable for now. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Welsh football just isn't prominent enough for this to be of interest outside the UK. Hut 8.5 17:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support there's no reason that reasonably niche items shouldn't be listed at ITN. And for those who say this doesn't impact outside of Wales, they should learn to read, or not comment at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Not supporting this (i don't support most deaths), however comments based on "this isn't prominent outside UK" should all be disregarded given we recently posted a scandal of a college football coach. Importance needs to be based on prominence within the field. -- Ashish-g55 17:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because we made a mistake once doesn't mean we should make a similar one again. Getting "revenge" for a bad posting does not help the project. Mamyles (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither does a clearly mis-informed attitude to the untimely death of a highly prominent footballer and national football coach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I wouldnt post this for few other reasons (as i said i dont support) but "not being prominent outside UK" is not one of them. This has nothing to do with "revenge", Its about being a little more neutral towards other nations. -- Ashish-g55 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment NASCAR got a mention and that is an extremely niche sport, it's not even major in it's own country. Football is not a niche sport and Gary Speed will be well known to the 500 million people who watch the English Premier League every week - especially as he held the record for appearances. Torqueing (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment If someone died off the track in NASCAR, that probably wouldn't be notable, I don't see why it should be notable in Soccer unless it's a death of an individual who set a significant record or irrevocably changed their industry (i.e - Steve Jobs). Beyond495 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment Dan Wheldon got a mention when he died Torqueing (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as recipient of MBE and holder of several records (see Hot Stop)--♫GoP♫TCN 20:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment "85 caps"?!?!?! I'm inclined to support purely on the basis that he seems to be the Imelda Marcos of headwear. Danthemankhan 21:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Not at all hilarious, and utterly disrespectful. Try Cap (sport) for your education. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Disagree, I think that comment was an attempt to lighten the mood in what is becoming more and more needlessly acrimonious discussion, which should be closed soon since no consensus to approve posting is likely to be found soon. Beyond495 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • One Final Comment Wikipedia will lose credibility if this is posted any later than tomorrow, so as my last piece of evidence in favour of the motion, just look at the newspaper front pages and then come back to me about notability. [5] doktorb wordsdeeds 23:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia will lose credibility if this is posted and other similar figures in other sports are not posted. Speed was not a notable figure on a worldwide scale. Beyond495 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly per Crispmuncher. Posting every nat'l football manager's death would be a slippery slope. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Gary Speed was a major figure in the Premier League and was forging a promising managerial career. While that alone would normally not meet the ITN threshold, the complete surprise about the manner of his death and the resulting level of coverage does. This is even getting covered by the New York Times for goodness sake! The arguments above might carry more weight were it not for the fact that Tony Stewart clinched his Championship eight days ago. —WFC— 03:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the death of a current international team manager is news, especially when it is of a team from the International Football Association Board. Mtking (edits) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment How big is this person? I remember when Al Davis died earlier this year and the ITN nomination got shot down pretty quickly. It wasn't even close. He was the owner/general manager of the NFL Oakland Raiders, which experienced both wild winning streaks (three Super Bowls and 15 playoff appearances) and losing streaks (eight losing seasons from 2002-2010), and caused all sorts of controversy off the field by suing the NFL, moving the team around, and hiring minorities in positions of power. I'm not saying that "no Davis = no Speed" but I just want to know what distinguishes the two; why this entry has so much more support than Davis; if this is proper "American football equivalent" in terms of accomplishments/popularity/"notability"; if we made a mistake in not featuring Davis (if this gets posted) or it's proper that the deaths of football managers not be listed. (note: Davis was aged 82 died of heart failure, so Speed's is different in being significantly younger and very much unexpected) hbdragon88 (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Relatively minor in the overall scale of things. I'm a football fan living in Wales, so agree that it's a big story in the UK, shocking, tragic, etc. - but not major enough for ITN in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, major figure dies unexpectedly and very young. — Joseph Fox 08:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I have never heard of this person, there is a recent deaths link for those who might care. Speciate (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this represents UK-centric bias, but I do think it represents a bias towards stories about sports and stories that are emotionally disturbing (but not necessary significant). JimSukwutput 17:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted Yes, I know this is controversial, because there is certainly no consensus to post. But, at the same time, there isn't consensus not to post, and during slow periods on ITN (which seem to be increasingly frequent), I am willing to post well-updated articles with poor consensus to post (as opposed to poorly updated articles with strong consensus to post). This article fits in that category. -- tariqabjotu 08:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - read the above discussion earlier today, and was intending to come here and support, but found it had been posted. The wording is not good, though. "found hanged"? All you need to say is that he has died and say something about his career (he was, as others have noted, more notable for his career as a footballer, rather than being manager of Wales). Putting the emphasis on how he died shows a lack of respect. This has been the major story in the UK sports news for the past few days, and the BBC have had many separate articles on many aspects of this story (at least 10-20 separate articles, which is an extraordinary amount for a single person's death). An example is here, which includes a picture of many of the tributes fans have made, plus: "politicians in the Welsh assembly observed a minute's silence in his honour" and an Early Day Motion has been tabled in the House of Commons: "MPs from all parties in the House of Commons tabled a motion offering the House's sympathies to Speed's wife and two sons" and "Supporters have left scarves, football shirts and flowers across several football stadiums - including Everton's Goodison Park, at Leeds United's Elland Road, Newcastle United's St James' Park, the Millennium Stadium and Cardiff City Stadium", plus the opening of a book of condolences and tributes planned at the start of football games this weekend. There is plenty there for a more respectful hook than "found hanged". Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    The wording of that has been changed a few times already, due to issues raised at WP:ERRORS. Nevertheless, I have changed it to "found dead". I think "dies" suggests that it was of natural causes or, at the very least, an accident. If he were murdered, for example, we wouldn't have said "dies"; we would have said "killed". But, I agree that the method of death is not central; we just also shouldn't suggest it was of natural causes (n.b. I think "found dead" was similar to what we used for the death of Amy Winehouse). -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thank-you. I edit-conflicted with you in an attempt to use the original wording suggested above, but your wording is good. The only quibble is that I would have tried to include the age somewhere, but what is there is good now. Hopefully it will get more people reading and (productively) editing the article to reflect the balance of the news relating to this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is really quite a trivial matter, but the word "Cheshire" might be removed from the blurb. It's slightly jarring because - although I doubt many people would reach this conclusion - it might suggest that Speed was a disabled person living in supported accommodation. --FormerIP (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment So, apparently these discussions are pretty meaningless, huh? Beyond495 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Reply No meaningless at all. The Occupy nominations were evenly balanced between support and oppose but the ultimate ruling to reject them (rightly) was based on a rounded decision on the general consensus *in addition to* the story's weight. Tariq has made the right choice here too - the arguments are very well advanced from either side, though taken from a few steps back the view is that there is reason to post. It would be meaningless had there been a clear rejection of the story, and Tariq had concluded a biased anti-whatever view was clouding the discussion and posted it anyway. (Ditto Occupy - had Tariq posted the stories despite the mass objection to them). It is also worth noting that we have been growing increasingly slow in posting news events on the front page - in some cases three or 4 days between updates - which would have helped the case of a story for which there was a view of significance. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Reply I'm still somewhat new here (around 250 edits, someone referred me to this part of Wikipedia), so I guess the take away from what you're saying is No Consensus = Do Whatever You Want. It would be a huge stretch that there was a consensus here for or against the story. Beyond495 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pull I disagree with the "better update gets posted" logic. The bridge collapse, the Grey Cup, and the Gambian election were better choices, and it wouldn't have taken long on the main page for them to be expanded further. Fancruft got an utterly insignificant event expanded, and that content got it posted. Bummer. -- (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

November 26

Indonesia bridge collapse

Article: Kutai Kartanegara Bridge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 720 m Kutai Kartanegara Bridge in Borneo collapses, killing 12 with 33 missing. (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm nominating this because there are really good photos of the collapsed bridge in the article already, and because people will have a hard time finding this article without knowing the name of the bridge. Speciate (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC) --Speciate (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not clear why this is significant on a global scale. Beyond495 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As I've discovered, it's not significance, but interest that must apply globally. Anyway, it is a substantial bridge, relatively new, and it is a spectacular failure. Bridges don't collapse every day. -- (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other, but there are two observations I would like to make. A similar collapse, the I-35W Mississippi River bridge, was posted in 2007. Also, the article about this bridge needs a lot more work before it is ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not exactly an anomaly in a country like Indonesia. Minus the drama, this is just another case of things that are supposed to work not working. JimSukwutput 07:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose sad, sure, but not unexpected to have industrial and traffic accidents with death tolls in the scores. Not news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] NATO attack on Pakistani checkpoint

Article: Pakistan–United States skirmishes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​26 Pakistani soldiers are killed as a result of a NATO helicopter opening fire on a Pakistani checkpoint. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN)
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Largest NATO "friendly attack" on Pakistani security forces in terms of casualties. Mar4d (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak support -- The article meets its requirements but I think this is not important for now actually. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- I agree with nominator. This is by far the most serious event to have taken place in Pakistani - U.S. relations for years, and it seems the U.S. has given very little evidence to support itself, saying only "[we] regret any loss of life caused". Could you imagine if Pakistani soldiers killed 26 US servicemen in the US? Would that not be considered frontpage wikipedia news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.devincenzi (talkcontribs) 17:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was "the most serious event to have taken place in Pakistani - U.S. relations for years". But your point is apt. Hard to see how the death of so many Pakistani troops to "friendly fire" isn't notable. OakWoodDoor (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I think this will be one for the history books. Mamyles (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support since it is very well covered and marks a beginning of a new serious skirmish in Pakistan.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant (and tragic) event, and a good article too. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 19:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thou shall not begin a sentence with a numeral. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: How did this get posted without a decent update to the article? It barely says more than the link text does. Disappointing. (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have to agree with the above that this shouldn't have been posted until it was ready, as the linked section is very under-informative, and only a few lines long. When I looked, it was also full of poorly-written original research, which, to be fair, I suspect wasn't there when it was nominated. Bob talk 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Pakistan is on the frontier of a war zone. There have been accidental drone attacks in the region before. Not regular oppose due to the strong possibility that this will impact Pakistan - U.S relations for the foreseeable future. Beyond495 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Giant Nasa rover launches to Mars

Article: Mars Science Laboratory (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA launches the Mars Science Laboratory. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I'm not well informed on this topic; I need someone to write a decent blurb or even suggest a better target article. --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment ITNR emphasis for interplanetary probes was recently changed from launch to arrival. I'm not opposing this because of that, but it is something to bear in mind when assessing notability: previously discussions have suggested the old post at launch approach is still in people's minds. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

Well, the arrival will happen next year. This is one of the biggest recent missions and the largest rover flying to Mars so I'd support it now already. The article needs some update on the launch, though. --Tone 16:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with Tone there. The fact that something is not on ITNR doesn't preclude it from being posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support -- I actually agree with User:Tone Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This has more significance following the failure of a similar Russian/Chinese probe. Mamyles (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. We have a detailed Wikipedia article, and personally, I think the launch is a fine opportunity to highlight that. Presumably there will be other stories once it lands or when it discovers interesting things, but that's most of a year away and I think it is okay to post this now and then cover other events later as appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • support just post both. Its not like they launch mars rovers every day or that ITN is so bogged down with news that we need to slow things up -- Ashish-g55 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Yes we can post both. The landing will be more significant news, but it isn't until August. --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the article has been sufficiently updated. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I fail to see what needs to be updated. Hektor (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It wasn't when I looked at it earlier. No issues now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support most capable robotic system ever sent to space. Hektor (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with Hektor. Marcus Qwertyus 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A very important new and innovative mission for NASA. This is needed to balance the idiotic reporting around the time of final shuttle mission that NASA had closed down, or words to that effect. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Marked [ready]. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] New Zealand general election

Article: New Zealand general election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In New Zealand, John Key's National Party is re-elected. (Post)
News source(s): It hasn't happened yet - results due some time on the 26th

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.

 --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (for YuMaNuMa)

I just realised that the New Zealand has a general election which will occur on the 25th in the Western hemisphere and 26th in the Eastern. Due to time constraints, I cannot make a proper nomination but will be grateful if someone can do that for me.

Thanks YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 10:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support ITNR, as soon as the results are in the article. Crnorizec (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support -- Great Coverage Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support General elections are ITN/R, aren't they? The article and its supporting articles are all excellent doktorb wordsdeeds 19:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, but the "electorate results" table seems incomplete at the moment. --FormerIP (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The electorate results table now looks to be complete. The "Christchurch Central" electorate line may look incomplete to a quick glance, because the preliminary results have it at a dead heat so no winner can be declared.-gadfium 01:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support National elections are generally notable IMO. I know it's posted, but I wanted to put in my two cents.Beyond495 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

November 25

Gambian presidential election

Article: Gambian presidential election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Yahya Jammeh is re-elected president of Gambia in an election disputed by the second place UDP. (Post)
News source(s): [6]

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.

 --JMiall 13:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support -- Great Coverage Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - short but well written and sourced. Please post. -- (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support -- National elections should be generally included IMO, although apparently this one was not free and fair and it was for a very small nation, so it's borderline. Beyond495 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

November 24

2011 Basra bombings

Article: 2011 Basra bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In triple bombings in Basra at least 19 people are killed and more than 65 are wounded. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Many would probably say that this is not uncommon for the region, but it really looks not so frequent like in the years before. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment re-filed under correct date. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Support -- Great coverage, but this happened on Friday. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The BBC source is dated Thursday, and UTC is local time for them. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose Bombings in Iraq have become common in the past decade. Beyond495 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

'CIA spies' arrested in Iran

Article: CIA activities in Iran (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Twelve CIA agents are arrested in Iran for targeting nuclear plants. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: It was announced that the agents were co-operating with Mossad and other regional agencies. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment The article is in very poor shape with no recent updates, but we could look for another one documenting this story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment re-filed under correct date. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Weak support -- Great coverage but I think this is not notable for me. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

November 23

[Posted] Dersim apology

Article: Dersim Massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 80 years after the Dersim Massacre, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gives an official apology. (Post)
News source(s): [7]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Our article may be problematic because, whereas the BBC report 13,000 deaths in the massacre, we give estimates which are many times higher. --FormerIP (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for there to be differing estimates for stuff like this. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree. But I think maybe it would be a good idea to conduct an NPOV check on the article. I'm not saying I know it to have a problem, just that it is a considerable variance with what is in the BBC article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Reasonable news, only problem is the article needs to be expanded significantly. WikifanBe nice 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've made some improvements to the article now. --FormerIP (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Rather notableOlegwiki (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think such apology can change the world, but it surely is a news of wide interest across many regions with ongoing inter-ethnic tensions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
For some reason our blurb says 1938-39, whilst our article says 1937-38. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Er, yes, that's right. Fixed. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose no formal apology (in a binding manner) was stated. It is just one politician saying something and later backing down. I do not believe this is worth being headline news. I do not quite see the significance aside from some media hype here and there. On an unrelated incident Merkel stated Neo-Nazi Bosphorus serial murders were "Germany's disgrace" but that wasn't even noteworthy enough for that particular news to be posted. I think there is an overreaction in terms of estimation of this piece of news. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pull - By precedence we generally do not post apologies of any sort, as they really have no lasting or significant political impact.--WaltCip (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    Until you have something better to post, I'm not at all interested. I don't understand why some people here seem to prefer a stagnant section to a dynamic section that includes things "we generally do not post". We can't just post elections. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Unless there's something better to post, this should stay. Mamyles (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Elections have more lasting impact. They determine the fate of countries. Far more significant than an apology with dubious implications. -- (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no precedence that we don't post apologies of any sort. The Dersim Massacre is one of the great atrocities of the 20th century, and it's impact continues today not only between the two countries but in other countries such as France and the US. This was an apology by the Turkish PM; while it's not a binding resolution, it's not the apology of some random politician.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Saleh resignation

Article: Ali Abdullah Saleh (talk, history)
Blurb: Ali Abdullah Saleh steps down as president of Yemen, following months of protest against his rule. (Post)

Article needs updating

 --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. Change of a head of state that had been 'in the limbo" for months... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose he agreed to step down, lets wait until he actually does that. which will be 23 December 2011, in 30 days from now.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: He said that he will resign soon in March, April and October - at least three times this year, so ... Crnorizec (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the difference is that he has previously said he intended to sign his resignation, but on this occasion he has actually signed it.--FormerIP (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Didn't he say he'd step down in December when his term ends??? –HTD 04:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - major development of the crisis in Yemen.Oleg-ch (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait until we have the official resignation announced. In the meanwhile it's only rumors, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed Beyond495 (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - until the actual resignation -- (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

November 22

Bulbophyllum nocturnum

Article: Bulbophyllum nocturnum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover Bulbophyllum nocturnum, the first orchid known to flower at night, on the island of New Britain. (Post)
News source(s): [8]

Article updated

 Stemonitis (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. The article is in good shape. --Tone 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Support An interesting story and a good article. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, but this just isn't a significant news story. I don't deny that it is interesting but I suggest that it would be a better candidate for T:TDYK. --FormerIP (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with FormerIP. While a new flower is interesting, it is not particularly significant. Mamyles (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I agree DYK is a better place for this one. --Tone 16:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

November 21

[Posted] Egyptian government resigns amidst protests

Article: Timeline_of_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution_under_Supreme_Council_of_the_Armed_Forces#November (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The interim government of Egypt resigns amidst violent protests in which at least 30 people were killed and more than 1,500 wounded. (Post)
News source(s): [9]

Article updated


Crnorizec (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. There's resigning and then there's offering to resign. If the story develops so that we have a new cabinet, then I'd give this a strong support. But I think it's too much ahead of the curve just for the moment. --FormerIP (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The news is that there are renewed violent protests in Egypt, with many casualties, and government offering resignation. Regardless of whether the military accepts the resignation, these events are significant enough to undermine the fragile provisional political setup. Crnorizec (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support now, since it calls back to the deadly protests with an instability caused by the resignation of the government. We don't need to wait until the new cabinet is announced, as the violent protests anew seem to be sufficient for posting anyway.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to wait until a new cabinet is sworn in, just until this one's resignation has actually been accepted. If that doesn't happen, then that doesn't mean we can't post anything else that's going on in Egypt. But I don't think the cabinet resignation is the story until it happens. In which case, it most definitely will be the story. --FormerIP (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The offer for resignation is not the only notable ongoing event here. Protests anew with immense media attention and death toll are surely more significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, but the blurb that's been proposed says: "The government of Egypt resigns...". --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That's the least problem. I did note the wording lately and you have my excuse for it. How about a blurb saying: "In the most recent protests in Egypt at least 23 people are killed." And if the resignation is accepted: "Most recent protests in Egypt in which at least 23 people are killed follow with a resignation of the government."--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That's better, but I'm not convinced that another round of protests in a region plagued with violence over the last year is really newsworthy. The deaths are tragic, but what's another 23 after the 100's already? -- (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Offering to resign" is not a notable event doktorb wordsdeeds 21:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support to be posted immediately. Their offer of resignation will be accepted or declined within a day, and we can update the blurb then. Entire governments don't offer to resign often, so this is significant. Mamyles (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support right now. The renewed protests are significant, and per Mamyles, when talking about a whole government, the mere offer of resignation is notable/significant. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is a local problem of limited global interest. We can't post to ITN every time XYZ government says it might do something. There is already the "intends to run" in Myanmar, and the intent for a Eurasian union. What's next? Syria promises reforms? Greece proposes new bill? Post to ITN when something actually happens, not when some government says it wants to do something. -- (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Every first and second-world country is following the events in Egypt. It it far from limited global interest. And we can post every time a significant proposition is made, judging from the 16-36 hours between each ITN update. Mamyles (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If every politician making a promise to placate an angry populate got on ITN, the page would be 200k of empty claims that never came to fruition. -- (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Users can safely ignore remarks posted by like the above one. Notice how he appeared out of nowhere and started making a stream of nonsensical opposes against obviously notable items. Then when I exposed his bullshit for what it is, he proceeded to follow me across five AfD nominations and vote the opposite way in every one of them. This, my friends, is the clear mark of a troll. The best strategy will be to ignore his inane comments from now on; once he gets bored, he will start trolling elsewhere on Wikipedia with a new IP. JimSukwutput 04:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support for obvious reasons. As far as I'm concerned this is ITN/R material - an entire government is being reorganized as a result of violent protests. In a country of 80 million people nonetheless. JimSukwutput 04:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support merit, but until the government is actually dissolved this isn't ready to be posted. "Offers" is also a rather informal word. Maybe something like, The interim government of Egypt tenders its resignation following violent riots that killed at least 30 protesters and wounded more than 1,200. Interim should be emphasized because no official government has been elected, yet. WikifanBe nice 05:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Sources are now saying the government has actually resigned: [10]. Significant development. --Jayron32 05:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support - major news, new stage of the Egyptian revolution.Olegwiki (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Blurb Updated I updated the blurb in the light of the new developments and some users' suggestions. Crnorizec (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The news here is the protests in which 30 people died and that's what should get the focus. The government is fragile and unstable they can say we resign all day it doesn't mean they're gonna do it and they can't do it anyway since the military has to accept their resignation. If you want this to be posted you should amend the blurb and drop the resignation speculations. --Tachfin (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Thirty deaths is not all that notable in the large scheme of things. The government is the news, imo. --PlasmaTwa2 15:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This [11] seems to be what is going on behind the scenes, in case anyone wants to check through his article for issues. --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This just in: [12]. Suggest blurb: Egypt's military rulers agree to form a new government following violent demonstrations in Cairo and the resignation of the country's civilian cabinet. --FormerIP (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait. I've always been in favor of posting things when they happen, not when they're announced. --bender235 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No point to wait any longer. According to VoA [13], new government will be appointed, which means that technically the old one has resigned.Crnorizec (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The old one has definitely now resigned and had its resignation accepted. That's clear from all the news reports. Bender: in terms of a government being out of office, that happens when it is announced, surely? --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

November 20

[Posted] Tony Stewart wins NASCAR championship

Article: Tony Stewart (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In auto racing, Tony Stewart wins the final race of the season to win the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series championship. (Post)
News source(s): [14]

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I'm signing off for the night, so I will not be able to handle any issues that may arise until tomorrow late morning or afternoon, Eastern Time. Feel free to be bold and fix things yourself if stuff needs fixing.   jcgoble3 (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Appears to be updated. Truthsort (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nominator comment I've added a (non-bold) link to the race article to the blurb, now that I've written up a reasonable race report. The article is still tagged {{under construction}} due to the results tables not yet being filled in, so if there's any particular reason an {{under construction}} article can't be linked on the Main Page, feel free to remove the link. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The article could do with a good proof-read and copyedit - there are one or two jarring changes in tense in the 2011 paragraph in particular, which could probably do with breaking up in any case. I don't think its a lot of work but I'm not volunteering since I need to be somewhere else right now. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
      Done Copy-edited the 2010, 2011, and "Other racing series", and also removed a section that was out of place and which I have no clue which year it belongs under. The rest of the article looks to be in fairly decent shape on a quick scan. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This is in the US, right? Just pointing out that neither the blurb nor the article lead/lede give any indication of where this takes place, and, in my part of the world, it is not so much unimportant as unheard-of. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    The very first sentence of Tony Stewart identifies him as an "American auto racing driver". I've mentioned the U.S. in the blurb. (Interestingly, I looked through the history of the ITN template to see how this was worded before, but I could not find it in either of the past two years despite it being on ITN/R.) jcgoble3 (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    In sports blurbs, it's standard to begin with In (name of sport), ...; i.e. In auto racing, .... I don't think it it's necessary to say it happened in the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    Good point. I've changed "In the United States" to "In auto racing". Thanks for the tip; this is my first significant experience with nominating something for ITN. That said, can we get some !votes, please? This is going to become stale soon. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    There's no need for !votes since it's ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    Ah, OK. Still, it needs to be posted soon... jcgoble3 (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 05:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Spanish elections

Article: Spanish general election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Mariano Rajoy's People's Party wins a majority in the Spanish general election. (Post)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Results due around 9 pm UTC, Rajoy expected to win. --FormerIP (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support As ITN/R and undisputed front page news candidate. In any case, an important election in the region doktorb wordsdeeds 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Once the result has been announced. Lugnuts (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 03:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

November 19

Crystal Cathedral

Article: Crystal Cathedral (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Crystal Cathedral, founded by televangelist Robert H. Schuller, was sold to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange for 57.5 million dollars. (Post)
News source(s): [15]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Even though the Cathedral isn't historical it has a profound impact on the world especially with its show The Hour of Power. It is a major landmark in Southern California. And we dont see Cathedrals(even though it wasn't a Cathedral technically) auctioned off to often. Spongie555 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support 57.5 million is not less--♫GoP♫TCN 19:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just a real estate transaction. From one church to another. It's still going to be a church. If the price were somehow recordbreaking, or if it were going to be demolished, then maybe, but neither apply. --Golbez (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Blurb would need work to distinguish the institution from the building: one does not 'found' a building indicating these two are confused. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Warship Svärdet found

Article: Svärdet (talk, history)
Blurb: Svärdet a Swedish warship that sank in 1676 in the Battle of Öland during the Scanian War is found by divers off the island coast of Öland. (Post)
News source(s): The Local

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The finding of such an old ship is historic.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article nominated is two sentences long. Nightw 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
More a stub than an article, I agree. If this is important someone would take interest and edit. The Norwegian version could be sufficient when translated. Mamyles (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Also: are there any major news links from international sources? Nightw 19:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Discovery News--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I was earlier considering nominating this myself, but article should be expanded. Definitive support if expanded. --hydrox (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nominate an article, not a stub. If the article has no content, what's the point of nominating it? JimSukwutput 20:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if expanded. I always thought we need more history-related stuff here. and such findings are quite rare. GreyHood Talk 21:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Greyhood puts it nicely. Swarm X 01:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Greyhood, this is "nice news". I suggest we bold the Battle of Öland article -which is in good shape- with a section there about this new finding as frankly there isn't much to say about the ship. Tachfin (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's not a very famous battle, so if we post an article about the ship, most readers are going to refer back to Battle of Öland anyway. The article for the ship should be deleted. JimSukwutput 06:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Why should the article for the ship be deleted? --Hegvald (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Because, despite the attention that the two-sentence stub has received from numerous users here, nobody seems able to come up with anything extra to say about it. If it's only two sentences, it's perfectly possible to put the relevant information in a list or in the article referred to above. JimSukwutput 10:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
          I think there's plenty of scope for expansion. It's a very notable ship in historical terms. The Norwegian article is already expanded. It may not be suitable for ITN posting right now as a bolded article but I think it's worthy of an article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
          The Norwegian article has one inline citation, even if we dump a translation it still wouldn't be enough. Furthermore, it has only a section about the specs and another about the Battle of Öland. I'm not saying the ship article should be deleted but the battle article has much more substance potential that would interest the average reader and is already nicely expanded. Tachfin (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[Pulled] Saif al-Islam Gaddafi detained

Article: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The second son of Muammar Gaddafi, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, is detained near Ubari in Southern Libya. (Post)
News source(s): Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Self-explaining. One of the most wanted figures, after the capture and death of the father. Pantherskin (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Current, relevant, very important development. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "the last key Gaddafi family member to be seized or killed", according to the BBC, and he's wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. Hut 8.5 18:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
It has been posted as captured "while attempting to flee to Niger." While some news agencies are making this claim, many are not. Some sources have been saying for weeks that he has been trying to get into Niger, but frankly, it can't be that hard a border to cross. At the moment, I don't think that detail is one we are confident enough of to incorporate into our blurb, nor is it essential to the newsworthiness of the item. Suggest deletion of that detail. Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this definitely should be removed. GreyHood Talk 21:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Article has been pulled due to poor update and neutrality tag --Tachfin (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Ultralight Metallic Microlattices "World's Lightest Material"

Article: Metallic microlattice (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A team from HRL Laboratories claim to have developed world's lightest material consisting of ultralight metallic microlattice. (Post)

Article updated

 ---- Ashish-g55 21:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientists claim to have created World's lightest material. I was skeptic at first but its been published by ScienceMag and reading few articles (BBC) it looks like a very legit claim. Very encyclopedic but i believe we will need a new article for this or maybe update in Truss if that's acceptable. there is also a free image available for it. -- Ashish-g55 01:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support pending article. There may be some debate over whether it is the material, or the structure of the material, that gives this its "light weight" property, so one might argue that the title "World's lightest material" is a tad misleading. This is a minority topic. Btw, that is a wonderful image that would look great on the front page. Deterence Talk 05:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - great DYK material, but I am not so sure about ITN. Pantherskin (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
care to explain why? I think this is perfect for ITN given the encyclopedic value and fact its current news. And we now have an article Metallic microlattice :) -- Ashish-g55 21:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if this indeed is current news, and if the article is expanded at least twice in size and includes the information on who and when developed the thing. Currently the article lacks this key info. GreyHood Talk 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
added mention of HRL Labs. -- Ashish-g55 11:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Immensely interesting. Swarm X 01:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm in two minds about the notability of this: it doesn't strike me as a development of Earth-shattering importance that everyone has been waiting with baited breath for. On the other hand it is legitimately asserted to be a minority topic so possibly it hits that reduced threshold. However, the article is not currently up to scratch: I personally don't see why a new article needs ten times the work putting in compared to wedging a minimal update into an existing article, but that is the way it is and the article falls short of the minimum coverage for a new article. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I enjoyed seeing Aerogel associated with the featured picture a few months back. It's interesting, especially from an engineering background. The update associated with this event (new article and multiple sections) is much more than the typical few sentences. Mamyles (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Article is ready. Mamyles (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. The article is a very pithy eight sentences. The recognised minimum article[16] is almost three times longer. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC).
Is the article missing something that you would like to see? That article is example of update it does not mean we need to count its lines to match with all ITN items. We have posted one para articles many times as they satisfy ITN update and get expanded as soon as they go up. This is a lot more than that. -- Ashish-g55 18:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what I like to see specifically, just a more developed article. It doesn't matter how you assess that article, it comes up short. You compare it to the recognised minimum it is shorter, it lacks a summary infobox (not that I'm saying a gratuitous and mostly empty one would be a good idea) and far fewer references. "There's nothing to say" is not a rationale to post in the absence of an update - it is actually a compelling against posting. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Most updates we see here are 2-4 sentences. This update is an entire article/stub or 8 sentences. While I believe this minority topic is worth posting, I also can't see anything more specific to add. If the information on the event is complete, then I assume it is ready. Mamyles (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
To a certain extent I agree with you, hence my comments above about a new article needing a lot more working than wedging an update in an existing one. However, that is the situation as it stands. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Supoport The article really is ready now, and it's an interesting engineering story. C628 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree now - it's looking in a lot better shape. Marking [Ready]. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    I am curious why this was mentioned above as a free image (and why I was not notified of this nom) Materialscientist (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
the image is OK for non-commercial use according to HRL copyright notice. Even though its free i dont think its free enough for main page. initially i thought it was. the one in article seems to be off of news site. -- Ashish-g55 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

November 18

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo arrested

Article: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is arrested for sabotaging the 2007 Senate election. (Post)

Nominator's comments: An arrest of a former president should be on ITNR. Her case is "electoral sabotage" hence "sabotaging" is the verb used.

If one's into digging stuff, these are the relevant past ITN/C discussions in this ongoing case: August 2011: not posted, June 2007: Nobody cared. –HTD 15:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose I do not see the importance of the story in the round for front page inclusion. Having looked at the earlier links you provide, I think the consensus stands up here too doktorb wordsdeeds 15:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It's sorta like Obama jailing Bush for screwing Kerry. This case was for the 2007 Senate election, not for the 2004 presidential election.
    • As for the August 2011 discussion, that was the first time that it happened, and it was not posted. For the June 2007 discussion, that was the result of the general election, usually automatically posted, but no one even bothered to check if it was updated (LOL). So essentially, this story was skipped upon twice (going on thrice) already. –HTD 15:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per HTD. JimSukwutput 10:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] NLD rejoins politics

Article: National League for Democracy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi's banned National League for Democracy announces that it will register as a political party. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very significant move, possibly indicating confidence on the part of the NLD that forthcoming byelections will be fair. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment BBC link broken. Deterence Talk 00:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
OK fixed. --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Let's face it, short of a nuke going off in downtown Naypyidaw, Suu Kyi is the only reason anyone cares about Burma/Myanmar. While the registration of a political party would be a trivial event in most countries, the registration of Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy is one of the most notable events to occur in Burma's political arena for years. I would also be open to waiting until the National League for Democracy actually registers as a political party, (or attempts to register), especially given that the response of the government/military to such an act will also be quite notable. Deterence Talk 00:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd support waiting if we can be sure it is going to happen like that, but I don't have the info. It may just be a bureaucratic process that may not get reported and might not even get announced, in which case we lose the story. In terms of the government response, it seems like a fait accompli that the application will just be processed. Suu Kyi has been in talks with them for much of the year. I don't think there is any chance of it being declined. --FormerIP (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant political force, in a country of 60 million people. JimSukwutput 03:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A notable development, a highly important event in that country's history and a rare inclusion for Asian politics on the front page. Question - do we have "Myanmar" in parentheses? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO, we should just defer to the WP consensus on the naming. --FormerIP (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Burma seems to be the norm. Mamyles (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a local issue with no global significance. Announcing an intention and setting a target date is all politicians do! We can't promote every piece of political clap-trap which gets spewed out, especially one as insignificant as this.-- (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • This is the second time you used this idiotic line of reasoning. You previously claimed that the start of the Syrian civil war is a "local problem of no real international significance". Now you claim that the largest political party in a country of 60 million people being allowed to rejoin politics again is somehow another "local issue with no global significance". Yet the only nomination you've ever supported on ITN is 200 people being evicted from Zuccotti Park. You gotta be kidding me here. Read the third point of the "Please do not..." guidelines above. JimSukwutput 20:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Please Jim, there is no reason to be uncivil. "Idiotic" is a cruel and unnecessary word to use. Global significance is different, and is consistently a factor on ITN. If HIV were cured in Sweden tomorrow, it would be news. Some politicians in a repressed country claiming they'll do something is not. If they do manage to run, win or lose, with or without being imprisoned, then it's good for ITN. -- (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • "global significance" was, is, and will never ever be a part of the criteria. –HTD 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Einstein fail

Those damned neutrinos exceed the speed of light once again, this time at CERN.[1] Perhaps not something to list immediately, but certainly something notable in the under-represented (at ITN) world of particle physics and its consequences... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose. Actually, what happened was that some scientists sought to find a reason for why the original experiment had its results, which runs completely against empirical evidence and thus is unlikely to be valid (even the original team who carried out the experiment said this much). One of common hypotheses was that the length of the bunches of neutrinos that were produced could introduce errors with the time difference measured. So the original team addressed this criticism by producing shorter bundles and somehow came up with the same results. This does not tell us at all that their original experiment was valid. In fact, this is not even a replication, since it was ran by the same team with almost exactly the same conditions. If some other fault with the design is to blame, then that fault still exists and so we would expect the same incorrect results to come out.
  • In short, we still do not know whether special relativity is indeed mistaken or whether some experimental error is to be blamed. In either case, this experiment is only a tiny step towards finding out. The independent experiment that is scheduled to be run a few months later in Japan would be a much more important stage in this process. JimSukwutput 17:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Fine, but whatever your hypothesis, it's "in the news" as reported by BBC etc. Whether it's true or not is not the matter, verifiability over truth! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Of course. I'm not opposing this on the basis of whether the experiment is valid. My point was that this is a very small step towards finding out whether the original experiment was valid or not. As such, it is not notable. It's true that this is appearing in some newspapers, but so are thousands of items every day; besides, news items are based purely on interest, and our nominations are decided based on notability and quality. JimSukwutput 17:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. That's why it was a cheeky nom. Perhaps in years to come this will prove to be the ITN "we should have posted". Who knows. Perhaps I should go back to finishing off that time machine I was working on...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Hopefully in weeks to come we won't have to put up with dickish remarks like whatever your hypothesis from a bureaucrat. If you can't stop yourself from putting other editors down, with self righteous and inaccurate commentary, I'd suggest you shut up Rambling Man. Pedro :  Chat  21:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Jim Sukwutput, congratulations. Your little WP:SOAP provides one of the clearest examples of the theory-dependence of observations I have ever seen - the scientists MUST have made a mistake because their data conflicts with the theories I believe. I'm especially impressed by that mountain of WP:OR that you've provided to show just where those hapless scientists went wrong. Thank goodness you're here to steer them back onto the right track. Now, if you could just solve that silly little Palestine-Israel squabble by lunch, that would be positively spiffing. *golf clap* Deterence Talk 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Did you even read what I wrote? At no point did I make any claim whatsoever about the validity of the experiment. As I am not a working physicist, I am not in a position to do that. That is why I rely on the testimony of working scientists, whose consensus opinion I stated. My friendly advice would be to read what you're responding to next time rather than citing some exotic philosophical article that you have little comprehension of. Thomas Kuhn, really? I'd have a little more respect for you if you bothered to read the sources and figure out what's actually going on instead of starting another one of your little rants about how everybody on ITN is in some kind of conspiracy to oppress your favourite topics.
  • Did I at any point claim that certain scientists are wrong? I claimed that the experiment might be wrong, and the scientists who carried out the experiment themselves concurred that that was the most likely scenario. The entire point of revealing the experimental results was to hopefully let someone else figure out what the error was, rather than to attempt to discredit mainstream physics. No working physicist disputes the results of general relativity, just as no biologist disputes evolution and no serious mathematician works outside of the axiom of choice. But instead of educating yourself of the basic facts in this case, you choose to go and cite some metaphysical nonsense about how all science is really subjective and hence we cannot trust empirical evidence, so every little "anti-establishment" experiment that you favor for some reason deserves to be posted on ITN, and everyone who disagrees is just a delusional Einstein fanboy.
  • My statements about the possible errors of the experiment was not even the main thrust of my argument - in fact, you completely agree with me on my argument that regardless of the validity of the original experiment, this repeated experiment is not noteworthy enough to be posted. So you initiated a pointless discussion filled with personal insults for what? To show how intelligent you are and how the rest of us are all dimwitted idiots with little understanding of analytic philosophy? I bow to your wisdom. Now please leave me the fuck alone. JimSukwutput 03:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess you didn't notice that I voted Oppose in this nomination, lol. Deterence Talk 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That was my point, Deterence. You agreed with me in substance, yet you chose to waste your time making snarky remarks on my comment and throwing insults. What exactly is your problem? Been too long since your last ban? JimSukwutput 06:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • this is same experiment done with shorter beam length to reduce errors. We have already posted this once. Now we wait till we can say in our blurb that our last 100 years were useless -- Ashish-g55 17:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This entire subject has been the target of a veritable avalanche of abuse and scorn from the cult of Einstein in recent months and I always wonder what they're hiding when people start having conniptions in their efforts to censor/ridicule a subject into oblivion. But, we have already posted the original public announcement in ITN. An independent verification of the results would be notable and obviously worth posting in ITN, (not withstanding the stubborn declaration by armchair critics that any data that conflicts with Einstein must be wrong), but, this is simply a modified version of the original experiment conducted by the same people. It's significant, but not significant enough for ITN. Deterence Talk 21:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this experiment does not constitute verification of the results, it has merely removed one potential problem. If there is some systematic flaw in the design of the experiment then this would not have caught it. What's more if the neutrinos aren't travelling faster than the speed of light then we probably won't post that on ITN ("neutrinos obey known physics" isn't much of a news story) so we risk misleading our readers by posting this. Hut 8.5 12:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The speed of neutrinos at CERN is a local issue of limited global significance. Do people in the rest of the English speaking world care how fast some European neutrinos are traveling? I don't think so. Now, when we can post "General relativity proven false, humans vacation on Risa.", that should be newsworthy. -- (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see your point. Laws of physics affect all of us, so are more global than literally every news item we post here. Mamyles (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
This is either a joke or what is possibly the dumbest comment ever posted on Wikipedia. JimSukwutput 20:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Again Jim with the cruelty. I don't understand why you use these terms. Since the header for this item was "Einstein fail" and was obviously doomed, I figured I would have a little fun with it. -- (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Hence why he left open the possibility of your comment being a joke. The sarcasm wasn't very obvious. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Eurasian Union

Article: Eurasian Union (talk, history)
Blurb: Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia sign a cooperation agreement, setting a target of establishing the Eurasian Union, modelled on the EU, by 2015. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's an important step of integration between these three countries and other post-Soviet states. A new continental union and reminiscent of a partial re-creation of the Soviet Union. GreyHood Talk 15:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support This gets much more attention than anytime before, and seems to be a stepping point to establish another large union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Seems they agreed to create the Eurasian Commission functioning like the European Commission, from 1 January 2012. GreyHood Talk 17:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. The Eurasian Union is only a distant possibility so far, but if it were indeed carried out, the long-term implications are immense. In any case, the cooperation agreement itself is quite noteworthy, if only as an indication of the shifting geopolitical climate in the region. JimSukwutput 17:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral I can see the long-term significance of the agreement and think this story would be a welcome addition to the front page. The Union has not been formally created though, has it? Maybe the blurb and article should be looked at to make sure it is clearly explained. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
At least they formally created the Eurasian Commission and the Eurasian Economic Space, which both would start working from Jan 1 2012. Perhaps we could post it on 1 January if not now. Still the treaty is quite significant per se as a demonstration that re-integration starts. GreyHood Talk 19:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This proves the success of the European Union, by having the former Soviet Union want to imitate its processes. The treaty could be the start of something big. As the formal agreement is the news, it would be better posted sooner than later. Mamyles (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Using that logic, the creation of the European Union with the same confederate form of governance "proves the success of the" Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Newsflash: all these mega-States are wonderful successes, until nationalistic squabbles lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide. Deterence Talk 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is expanded and updated. GreyHood Talk 00:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Cheers Tariq, first news story in nearly 3 days! doktorb wordsdeeds 15:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oil spill off the coast of Brazil

[17]. Needs an article. Already significant, and has a chance to develop into major story. GreyHood Talk 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Estimates of the size of the oil spill range from "a trickle" to around 650 barrels of oil, depending on who you believe. Either way, even 650 barrels is a lot less oil than the average cargo ship carries so this is hardly Earth-shattering stuff. However, the notability of this story may come in the near future as there are some indications (from the Brazilian government) that Chevron has been breaking a few drilling rules. Deterence Talk 21:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

November 17

Journalists arrested in New York

Article: Occupy Wall Street (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following efforts to remove Occupy Wall Street demonstrators from Zuccoti Park, at least a dozen journalists are arrested in New York City. (Post)
News source(s): Atlantic, Boston Globe, Huffington Post, RSF, Salon

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Among those arrested are journalists representing the Agence France-Presse, the Associated Press, DNAInfo, IMC, Indypendent Reader, In These Times, NPR, RT, Television New Zealand, the New York Times, and Vanity Fair  — C M B J   04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: Since this happened on the 15th, I've moved it to the date's heading. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The former event happened on the 15th, but the latter includes arrests as of the 17th. Refer to the second source.   — C M B J   05:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Those arrests aren't included in our article though. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Working on that now.   — C M B J   05:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose on consistency grounds. If we did not post anything about the actual protest, it makes no sense whatsoever to post this one. Most of the event occurred at the same time as the nominated event below (Nov 15) and is merely one of many results of what happened. JimSukwutput 06:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree that we should conflate these arrests with the progression and day-to-day affairs of Occupy Wall Street. These arrests were carried out against individuals other than those who are participating in the protests. The two subjects are related but fundamentally distinct.   — C M B J   07:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The NYPD used unconstitutional threats and violence to silence and "detain" journalists and create a media black-out during the eviction in clear violation of the 1st Amendment (this isn't soapboxing, this is what just about every media organisation is reporting, except Fox). But, this was just one small (albeit very significant) aspect of a topic (the forced removal of the Occupy Wall Street protesters) that has already been nominated below. Regardless, the Occupy nominations already have bugger-all chance of being posted by this editorial community. Add to that the complete and utter subservience and sycophantic hero-worship that these editors display when grovelling at the feet of the NYPD, then you have WP:SNOW chance of getting this posted. Remember: you are completely forbidden from ever suggesting any wrongdoing by American cops in ITN/C ;-) Deterence Talk 06:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
"Small," but "very significant" subjects are almost always afforded reasonable consideration for ITN inclusion.   — C M B J   07:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is still kidding themselves into believing that nominations about Occupy events are "almost always afforded reasonable consideration for ITN inclusion". Aside from a couple of wikilawyering robots with sticks up their ****, the opposition to the Occupy nominations is almost entirely partisan. Deterence Talk 08:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just a detail of an event and not a news story in its own right. The Occupy "movement" has had its news events nominated here before and consistently failed to persuade the community that they are notable enough for inclusion. That journalists are arrested as part of wider unrest is just a consequence which does not move the story forward and is certainly not credible enough for a front page mention. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The "Occupy" movement may have failed to persuade the community of its periodic newsworthiness, but I hardly see how that absolutely precludes any and all consequential stories.   — C M B J   07:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Because we need to look at these nominations in the context of the wider issue. Occupy is a "special case" insofar as those pushing for front page credence seem to be very hasty in nominating every little blip and bluster that occurs. It is significant that almost all Occupy "movement" stories have failed to make it to the front page, and equally significant that people feel it necessary to nominate every latest little local difficulty (be it at Portland or New York or London). I have said before and do so again here - the race to get a front page story seems to have overtaken the Occupy "movement" itself. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, we do not disagree about the fact that those passionate about the Occupy movement have made many ITN nominations which do not pass muster. That's essentially going to be a given with any prolonged event that sparks the innate interests of our contributors. But if we're looking at this particular nomination within the context of its "wider issue"—the context of journalism within international human rights, as opposed to just the "Occupy" movement itself—then it's difficult to trivialize what has happened. Statements of concern and condemnation have been issued by the Society of Professional Journalists, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and, perhaps most strikingly, the OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. These bodies do not pander to the lowest common denominator; they're serious organizations that involve themselves only in the issues of most significant effect.   — C M B J   10:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I take your point, though a Google search suggests these arrests have not gathered much coverage, even in the 'alternative' media, and there's a sense that the news agenda has already moved on in any case. I don't think front page coverage of this minor development would be appropriate. It might put into question issues of bias and politics. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Arguably, this subject fails (or not) on notability grounds. But, your suggestion that posting this nomination is inappropriate because it "might put into question issues of bias and politics" is absurd nonsense. How does posting an ITN article about the NYPD's treatment of journalists covering the Occupy protests raise any inappropriate questions of "biased and political"? WHAT inappropriate bias and WHAT inappropriate politics would Wikipedia be facilitating by posting this topic? Deterence Talk 12:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently getting 2,090 hits on Google News for 'Occupy journalists arrested' articles within the past 24 hours, which is up ≥5% in the past five minutes. Somewhat ironically, the Atlantic actually ran an article titled "Press Is Not Forgetting the Journalists Arrested at Zuccotti Park".   — C M B J   12:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I chose a slightly different search term within Google News, I apologise. Looking from a neutral perspective, journalists have been mistreated and expelled all the time, it is part of the job in certain jurisdictions. Is it not likely to give Occupy undue credence by giving front page coverage to a story like this? I can't see anything particularly notable when the Occupy "movement" itself is of questionable worthiness. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What? Doktorbuk, your primary objection to posting a story about journalists is that it might allow some mention of the Occupy protests to slip into the back corner of the room? You are completely OBSESSED with Occupy. Deterence Talk 13:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
In those regions where human rights abuse is so common as to be reasonably anticipated, the inherent repetition and triviality of coverage would be the disqualifying factors for ITN. That's simply not the case here, though. It is notable when multiple mainstream journalists are arrested, while covering a peaceful demonstration, in a stable first world country. Insofar that the story lends credence to the Occupy movement, I'm prepared to concede that it most likely will in some way. But as for whether or not that credence is undue under these circumstances will undoubtedly come down to a matter of personal opinion.   — C M B J   13:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • CMBJ, whilst we disagree on allowing this nomination to be given front page inclusion, it is good to see that a topic can be discussed without personal insults. I was struck by how quickly personal digs were thrown around in discussions elsewhere, it's constructive to have discussions without having to resort to that. I cannot change my mind on this, unfortunately, although the case you make is very sound. It is not convincing enough for me, ultimately, and even observed neutrally the event looks more of an Occupy-based story than a police-based one. Because of that, the lens through which the story is viewed becomes more important than the story itself. That is why I voiced concerns earlier about bias and politics. Have you put this story into today's (or the relevant day's) current affairs template? I know that is no longer as popular as it once was, though it does allow you to make the news event known through Wikipedia whilst leaving this discussion here for people to see the debate which led to its ultimate rejection as a front page lead? doktorb wordsdeeds 13:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this seems to be very minor, even more so than the protests of a few hundreds. Pantherskin (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Article has now been updated to reflect the nomination.   — C M B J   12:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lots of people have been arrested. I don't see any reason to highlight this relatively minor event. Swarm X 13:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • New York Civil Liberties Union: "Swooping in, deliberately when no one is around, and then depriving the news media of access to information is entirely unacceptable."
  • Fordham University: "...rejected the mayor’s explanation that police were trying to protect reporters by keeping them away and instead accused them of trying to limit images that might rile up the public."
  • MoJo: "Cops just violently shoved me away as I tried to shoot this man in a stretcher being loaded into ambulance."
  • The Village Voice: "Rosie Gray, a [staff] writer, recounted telling a police officer, 'I’m press!' She said the officer responded, 'Not tonight.'"
  • RT: "...said she was hit with a police baton while trying to film the protests. She told another reporter for her network that she had her press credentials clearly visible, but was still struck. She also said that she witnessed another [network's] reporter being 'slammed against the wall' and arrested."
  • The Daily Caller: "The police officers were beating the protesters with batons, and were also beating the media. They hit Direna and me with batons. They hit other members of the press in order to get them to move out of the street. Direna had a camera in her hand and I had a microphone, and we were being hit."
  • NY1: "...reporters and photographers were thrown to the ground and 'pushed to the wall if they get in front of the wrong officer.' 'Those 20 minutes were some of the scariest of my life.'"
  • WBAI: "...was recorded on video by witnesses as police -- including four-star Chief of Department Chief Joseph Esposito -- subdued her both on the ground and against a wall, and handcuffed her. 'She's a journalist! She's a journalist!' cameraman Evan Shamar can clearly be heard screaming on a YouTube video he shot of the arrest, while his colleague was being taken down."
  • Brian Stelter: "They took a Post reporter and threw him in a chokehold."
  • Scott Stringer: "I cannot remember any time this many reporters were arrested during a protest … [T]he brash manner in which officers ordered reporters off the streets and then made them back off until the actions of the police were almost invisible is outrageous."
  • OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression : "...disproportionate restrictions on access to the scene of the events, the arrests, and the criminal charges resulting from the performance of professional duties by reporters violate the right to freedom of expression."
  • PEN American Center: " obvious abridgement of the First Amendment right of all Americans to monitor official actions that clearly carry their own First Amendment concerns."
It's debatable whether or not this story is ITN worthy, but these statements are not reflexive of an event we would usually consider "minor."   — C M B J   14:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of how strongly you feel about this issue, CMBJ, this nomination is not going to pass now. Let's focus our efforts on something else. JimSukwutput 17:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, consensus is not determined based upon popular support. It is "ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." Conclusions are not decided by "the mere weight of public expressions of support."   — C M B J   22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but one person versus ten does not make a consensus, and you know this. I don't understand why you're wasting your time prolonging this discussion. You admit yourself that it's debatable whether or not the story is ITN worthy. JimSukwutput 03:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
A valid discussion does not simply end because it meets a swath of opposition. In this case, we have two central arguments ocurring: (1) that all events related to the "Occupy" movement are automatically precluded from consideration because of precedent, and (2) that the event is too trivial for inclusion. The former has no basis in policy as it applies to this nomination, and the latter has been claimed but not demonstrated. Lastly, I admit that the nomination is debatable because I recognize that all nominations rightfully are; no objective contributor can ever claim otherwise.   — C M B J   03:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
...though such discussions can, ironically, sometimes end by default due to obsolescence from a paralyzing lack of rebuttals or new participants. The number of hours before that inevitably happens is now actually growing slim.   — C M B J   12:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Seriously. A dozen journalists being roughed up and arrested is not notable to an international audience. And why are we even discussing the rights and wrongs of the police action? How is that even relevant towards establishing notability? And is the list of "police brutalities" given above supposed to shock our conscience? Hell, I got caned by the cops with a lathi for dancing in the middle of the road while celebrating the World Cup victory earlier this year. Talk about first world problems. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
You've got to wonder about the mentality of someone who seems positively happy to have been the victim of police brutality... Deterence Talk 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Too much soapboxing going on in this discussion. Please keep conversation relevant to nomination. -- Ashish-g55 20:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a false equivalency to compare the use of force against participants of a sporting event with that of permitted observers at an internationally televised protest. Moreover, the issue of significance is not police brutality, but rather that credentialed reporters were quashed indiscriminately during an event of journalistic significance.   — C M B J   04:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

November 16

[Posted] Iran nuclear program

Articles: Nuclear program of Iran (talk, history) and International Atomic Energy Agency (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The International Atomic Energy Agency releases a report accusing Iran of conducting research and experiments to develop nuclear weapons. (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, Reuters,USA today

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: IAEA has published numerous reports on Iran, none of which have been as strongly-worded and explicit as this one. The report has generated a unique response from the international community and world powers. WikifanBe nice 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose They've been saying this about Iran for more years than I can count and they wrongly accused Iraq of the same thing for over a decade. And do we want to open the IAEA-is-a-spineless-puppet-of-the-White-House can of worms? Deterence Talk 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment IAEA has never conclusively accused Iran of building nuclear weapons. Review the sources. This a major revelation. WikifanBe nice 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It is definitely more than a political threat, at least this time. I'm just really not sure what to make of it without further investigation by the IAEA or other international bodies. And right now, it doesn't seem to have garnered a very public reaction so far. No judgement on the merits of the actual nomination, though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Iran has been suspected of that for decades. The IAEA can only point a finger at someone - if a country takes unusual action because of it, that would be more meaningful. Mamyles (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I agree, Iran has been "suspected" for decades, but the IAEA has never made an official stance on Iran until this week. Former IAEA chief EB denied Iran may be weaponizing its nuclear program, but Yukiya Amano came out and announced it to the whole world. The report is leading to a showdown at the UN. So countries are taking unusual action in this situation. WikifanBe nice 01:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This blurb passes my standards for NPOV on a internationally notable and important news story. It is the fact of the report itself that makes this item ITN-worthy; the validity of the report is moot and our personal opinions about that are, or should be, of small import. Jusdafax 02:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Internationally significant story. Swarm X 02:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support significant allegtaion by IAEA with international implications.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment - It appears the main article in the blurb lacks an update, which obviously must be corrected. Jusdafax 03:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Depending on your personal political views, IAEA's report might or might not be a fair accusation. But there is no doubt that the very accusation itself is significant politically. It's also incorrect to say that IAEA has been accusing Iran of the same thing for many years. This as far as I know is completely incorrect; just a few years ago they released a highly controversial report (contradicting U.S. official position) saying that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. This is by far the strongest accusation (and evidence, if you believe it is legitimate) that Iran has a nuclear weapons program from an UN agency. JimSukwutput 05:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - given that this comes from a politically independent organisation, this is big news. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "politically independent organisation"? I almost lost my dinner over the keyboard reading that, lol. Deterence Talk 07:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Could you please stop a) following me around and b) throwing insults at me (and at other editors)? Pantherskin (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support What we might think about the organisation is irrelevant. What we think of the news itself is the thing, and given the nature of this report and its contents, I would be very happy to see this on the front page. It is clearly a notable additional extra element to the wider story. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. If a little-known group of Japanese politicians condemns the US for terroristic actions, that would be startling news by a worthless organization. The organization, and what action it can do, must be considered. Mamyles (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
True, but this is not a little-known organization, it's an international agency affiliated with the UN. As Deterence claims, there might be some controversy over political influence from some countries, but that does not by itself make the organization's accusations any less notable, particularly if countries still decide whether to act based on these accusations. Take for example the numerous calls for war in U.S. that arose as a result of the report. I believe they are ridiculous, but they have real-life consequences. JimSukwutput 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Report with accusations is not quite a news, but only a suspect against someone. Even if proven, many other countries use their R&D to produce nuclear weapons, but we don't post it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing really new here. Iran seems to be accused in that for many years. GreyHood Talk 14:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Of major economic impact (financial markets and explicit threat of oil embargo by Iran), political impact (vide international relations, Sarkozy, Obama et al comments, Israel comments and potential actions) etc. These have not occurred "for many years." Using political concerns to keep it out of Wikipedia is like keeping the German warning ad about the Lusitania out of a putative Wikipedia a century ago. Collect (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support First time they publish the reports of what the world knew but didn't want to hear.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Not ready. Sorry, but the wrong article is linked, both articles are not updated and have yellow hatnotes, and the consensus on posting this in principle better be more substantial. GreyHood Talk 18:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Updated the article, doubt anything about Iran should be added to IAEA. If editors want to switch out nuclear program with Iran and weapons of mass destruction I wouldn't object, it would just seem less accurate. Any editors oppose the arguments in favor of posting other than "nothing really new here"? WikifanBe nice 19:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    I can't read your mind. Updated "the article"? Which article? None of the ones above look updated to me. If I'm mistaken, tell me where. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    You can read my contributions.. Nothing can be added to IAEA, that is just a standard article. If editors want to add more feel free, I think it's fine for now. WikifanBe nice 00:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    Well, if the update is supposedly in Nuclear program of Iran, as of now, that's not good enough. -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, what's not good enough? What else needs to be added Tariq? Be explicit, or post this. Majority of editors support posting. Very little reason not to. Nuclear program of Iran is already an extremely bloated article. Waiting for this to get stale is a mistake. WikifanBe nice 03:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment US is now raising already-existing sanctions and europe might as well. WikifanBe nice 04:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a local issue with no global significance. "The IAEA accuses Iran of research" is a long way from an active weapons program or functional device. Should they develop a weapon, admit to having a program, or have some Vanunu style extravaganza then maybe, but for now, no. -- (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support with a slight feeling of disbelief this has not been posted. What is wrong with people here? A "local issue with no global significance"? On that basis we may as well shut down ITN now since nothing is going to hit a significance criteria set that high. There is a world of difference between hostile countries alleging essentially without foundation that weapons development is in progress and the recognised authority that regulates these matters releasing formal finds of fact based on investigation and solid evidence. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC).
I don't know why it's not posted yet. Article is updated fine, I added the "ready tag" but it was removed. Didn't realize noms weren't allowed to add it. Unless editors provide a serious rationale why this isn't ready to be posted I suggest an admin post it. Certainly more significant than Euroasian and NLD, events posted with far less support. WikifanBe nice 03:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikifan, don't make me repeat myself. The issue is not support. As had been said several times, it's the fact that in none of apparently three relevant articles, there is no sufficient update. This is quite typical of the ITN process. News items get adequate support, but articles don't get updated -- even after being told that the roadblock is an update. Nominators simply argue that updates are sufficient, further delaying the nomination's addition to ITN, rather than just adding a couple more sentences. Greyhood said the article was insufficiently updated thirty-six hours ago. Instead of fixing that problem, you've just argued and badgered me about it. Yeah, so what if the article is very long? If anything, that makes putting a sufficient update easier as it won't take up an undue percentage of the article. And if this is so significant, surely it warrants a more lengthy explanation than, I don't know, the fact that Iran didn't let two inspectors into the country last summer. I don't need to "be explicit". We have guidelines that specifically state how long the update needs to be. It doesn't even meet that. This seems to be a very significant development in Iran's nuclear program, but the supposed update does not communicate that. In fact, it communicates little more than the proposed blurb. -- tariqabjotu 08:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay Tariq. I have since added more to the article that hopefully meets the criteria (greater than five sentences). Contributions include additions to the lead and a totally unique section. Hard article to edit considering the shape it is in. I don't know what can be added to IAEA. I don't think anything can be added to IAEA. So if there aren't any other issues I believe this can be posted now. WikifanBe nice 09:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted Yes, that's good enough; thanks. -- tariqabjotu 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - the word 'accuse' is extremely unnecessary and shows bias. The report identifies. The report does not accuse. (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

First major attack by Free Syrian Army

Articles: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk, history) and Free Syrian Army (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Free Syrian Army partially destroys the Syrian Air Force Intelligence building in Harasta in the first such attack of the anti-government uprising (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, Telegraph, NY Times, Al Jazeera

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Currently the top world news at the BBC and has been covered extensively in the UK at least. This has been described as the Free Syrian Army's (made up of anti-government deserters) highest profile attack so far. It was made against the feared Air Force Intelligence Directorate building in Harasta and other targets in Zamalke, Hamuriya and Douma. The attack was well co-ordinated and planned and is the first on a major security facility in Syria, I feel this is a major development. Perhaps could be used as an amendment to the current blurb. --Dumelow (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. The most recent story in the box is also about ongoing events in Syria. --FormerIP (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Syria is about to become a 2nd Libya. --bender235 (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now the current top story is about Syria and has been for DAYS, we're not going to post every little development in that conflict. Bombing has been routine over there this is nothing new, partially destroying a building (BTW "partially destroying" could mean that they just broke a window glass) is not exceptional and is still an unconfirmed report based on Syrian opposition claims (Remember how the Libyan NTC repeatedly lied about making major breakthroughs in the war?). Also I just realized that the current story featured seems wrong; the BBC says "The meeting is expected to ratify last week's vote to suspend Syria and also debate possible further measures against Damascus.", [18] So basically what they did is agree on suspending but have not actually done so as of now. --Tachfin (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article, neither bolded article has any substantial mention of the attack. --`Golbez (talk)
  • Support Obviously. And just as obviously, the usual suspects will oppose anything to do with Syria. Deterence Talk 22:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The update is more important than the consensus. Work on the former before the latter. -- tariqabjotu 00:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a local problem of no real international significance. -- (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - does not appear to be a major development. Pantherskin (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
*facepalm* This place seriously needs an IQ prerequisite. Deterence Talk 05:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, just fresh off a block, and incivil again. See also your other recent contributions. Pantherskin (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, go have another cry to mummy. Deterence Talk 07:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep this crap out of ITN/C, Deterence. JimSukwutput 16:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. You have not been civil in many of the discussions on this page (the Occupy protest POV pushing, for instance). doktorb wordsdeeds 16:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Doktorbuk, this from the guy who has made it his Wikipedia life's work to censor all things Occupy from ITN and in AfD? Deterence Talk 21:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This should have been posted months back, while this isn't the ideal incident to start posting, the commencement of the civil war which is closely foreseeable should be swiftly posted with a low consensus. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. As for whether the articles are ready - it's true that the updates for this specific events are minimal, but given that we haven't posted anything about the uprising except for the Arab League decision, a substantial part of the latter article can be considered updates of recent events. The article is also of exceptional quality (well-written and well-cited). JimSukwutput 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Soyuz TMA-22

Article: Soyuz TMA-22 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Soyuz TMA-22 with NASA astronaut Dan Burbank and Russian Cosmonauts Anton Shkaplerov and Anatoli Ivanishin docks with the International Space Station (Post)
News source(s): [19]

Nominator's comments: --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support: In fact, all manned missions are ITN/R. So hopefully there wont be any challenges based on notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This is an international event of significance. Mamyles (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support news but not article for the time being.--♫GoP♫TCN 13:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. GreyHood Talk 14:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Usually, we don't write names in the blurb. However, if we omit the names, the blurb is too short. Yet again, we cannot say like ... with three astronauts.... as there are one astronaut and two cosmonauts. With 3 men sounds lame. Any other suggestion? Ready to post otherwise. --Tone 16:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
How about (a) "The Soyuz TMA-22 carrying a crew of two Russians and an American docks with the International Space Station" or (b) "The Soyuz TMA-22 with two Russian cosmonauts and an American astronaut docks with the International Space Station" ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I may have forgotten something, but isn't the significance of this being the first docking with the station since the final Space Shuttle mission in July? That at least helps put this in perspective. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as i remember expeditions to ISS were made an exception unless it was more than just crew change. I am going to oppose this one since nothing significant has taken place that differs this Soyuz mission from last one or next one. This should not be ITNR -- Ashish-g55 19:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is especially significant as there was consideration of having to abandon the station, because of the crash of an unmanned Progress cargo ship in August (mentioned in the above source). That they were able to successfully conduct this flight provides continuity of operations. Mamyles (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Progress and Soyuz missions are very different though. If the last Soyuz (TMA) crashed i would totally agree. Its quite a bit like saying a delta rocket crahsed so we should post the next shuttle launch (obviously ignoring significance of such launch). -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
When we were updating the space criteria I argued that routine crew rotation shouldn't be on ITNR. Consensus went against me, and they do indeed qualify under the new criteria. I obviously disagree with this, but it was what was decided at the time. Modest Genius talk 21:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Forget about semantics over the blurb; the article has one sentence about this docking. What's going on at ITN lately? -- tariqabjotu 20:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
There is little to tell about docking other that it was successful. The news item is about the launch and the entire mission. GreyHood Talk 09:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant for a number of reasons, including the fact that the USA is now hitching a ride to get to the ISS. Disagree that this should not be on ITNR; this is an important moment in international relations, and of major interest in the wake of previous talk of abandoning the station, as noted by Mamyles. I do agree that the article needs more than one sentence for the update. Jusdafax 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Question All the shuttle missions were on ITN, but were the Russian and Chinese manned missions as well? I remember at least one Chinese (their first I think) made it to ITN. I'm honestly just curious. -- (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes we posted Soyuz TMA-02M, Soyuz TMA-01M, Soyuz TMA-19, etc.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Marking [Ready]. The article in the whole seems to fit the minimal requirements. This last proposed blurb seems to be OK: The Soyuz TMA-22 carrying a crew of two Russians and an American docks with the International Space Station. GreyHood Talk 09:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

November 15

Liberian presidential election

Article: Liberian general election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is re-elected President of Liberia, following a vote boycotted by her main opponent. (Post)
News source(s): There are piles of sources in the article; is one example

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: Never before made an ITN nomination, so please don't castigate me if I've caused some problems. Someone please fill in the "ITNR" and "minority" columns for me, because I don't know what they are. --Nyttend backup (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Ready Extensive article with considerable referencing. It is certainly better quality than the majority of election ITN/R we see on this page. While the election was 8 days ago, the official results have only just been released, on the 15th of November. I've removed the minority topic tag. Deterence Talk 23:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support but the use of the term "disputed election" in the blurb does not seem right. There doesn't seem to be any allegation of fraud or irregularity, but the strong possibility of an effective voter boycott. I'm not sure how we succinctly express that, but we need to. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly my problem. I didn't want to leave out Tubman's dispute, but I didn't know how better to express it. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Something other than the tables in the Results section would be nice. Perhaps a couple sentences or a paragraph summarizing the results? -- tariqabjotu 02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What if we changed it to something like "is certified as the winner"? That would allow us to leave out the disputed part without sacrificing NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
EJS is reelected as the president as Tubman boycotts the second round? Not perfect either... However, I remember some time ago when we had the parliamentary election in Egypt, we just stated the winner and not the fact that the biggest opposition party boycotted the election. --Tone 08:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Mistral's comment makes me wonder if we need to say that she was elected, since that's relatively old news: the news is that she's now known to be the winner. Couldn't we just ignore the question of dispute by concentrating on the announcement that she's the winner? Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support posting this government's presidential election. Mamyles (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this just waiting for wording? If been bold and changed it. --FormerIP (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    This is not a long section, so I imagine it wouldn't take too much of your time to read what everyone else has said, including my still unanswered comment as to why this isn't up to standards yet. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    Considering our normal standards and the fact that this is an event with a whole 70K article dedicated to it, I'd say there is such a thing as over-fussy. --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    Your attitude and Tone's capitulation still doesn't negate your laziness. The article does not mention the results in the appropriate section, which is the key news item here. ITN has taken quite the dive over the past several weeks. Posting the same types of trope articles with poor updates out of desperation because second-tier events with much better updates get shot down. Refusing to post poorly updated articles like these is not "over-fussy"; it's maintaining the quality of the section, which some people -- like, apparently, Tone -- are not willing to do. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't get what the issue is. A table is as good as a paragraph for explaining who got what number of votes in an election. In fact, it's better, unless you're a fan of extremely boring prose. We normally ask for a few lines of update, but here, we have paragraph after paragraph of a new article dealing with the elections. And this is our first news since fucking Saturday. I can agree with you about items being shot down, but blocking other articles as a response would be childish. I assume that's nothing to do with your trivial objection here. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You're tripping over yourself, and in doing so are proving my point. You basically say that because we haven't gotten any updates since Saturday, we should lower our update standards to push an article onto ITN (yeah, don't pretend as if I'm making up and raising standards as some sort of "response"). Like I said, I don't think that's acceptable. If there's any standard to lower in times of drought, it's the consensus standard. Our goal, after all, is to showcase updated articles, not showcase articles that everyone wants on the Main Page. So, well-updated updates with borderline consensus should take precedence over poorly updated articles with unanimity. And about tables... don't your remember your high school science teacher who docked points for failing to put a caption and title for your tables? This is the equivalent. Yeah, these tables have titles, but you need some context, an explanation, a paragraph explaining what the tables just put in numbers. It's not so difficult to put that together. And I fully intend to take Tone up on his offer to pull the item should this not be corrected in the next few hours. -- tariqabjotu 00:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, for now, I'll just go with the standard blurb. Feel free to correct later. --Tone 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the results and all relevant info were in the introduction the last time I checked. Still, feel free to pull the item until the issue is solved, I don't mind. --Tone 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - significant story, article is clearly ready to go (a disagreement over the best way to present results really shouldn't prevent it going up). Warofdreams talk 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Solly Tyibilika murdered

Article: Solly Tyibilika (talk, history)
Blurb: Solly Tyibilika, the first black person to score a test try for the South Africa national rugby union team, is shot dead at the age of 32 in Cape Town. (Post)
News source(s): AFP
  • Oppose I would be uneasy in supporting a nomination about the murder of an internationally famous celebrity, let alone the murder of a relatively unknown rugby player whose main claim to fame is based on the colour of his skin when he scored a try. Deterence Talk 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] First gas summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum

Article: Gas Exporting Countries Forum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first Gas Summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum is held in Doha. (Post)
News source(s): Gulf Times, AFP, Trend News Agency

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First summit of the organization which members have 2/3 of world natural gas reserves; continues movement towards "Gas-OPEC". Beagel (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. The summit only has a few sentences in the article, but featuring the GECF is important and significant as an international development. Mamyles (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article, the article is internally inconsistent (the map doesn't match the member list), and there's only 12 words devoted to the update, which demands a much more substantial treatment. Mamyles says featuring the GECF summit is important, and they may be right, but as it is the article doesn't explain what's special about the summit. Nothing sets it apart in the article from the 13 meetings before. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Updated. However, summit and ministerial meetings are not the same thing. The last (thirteenth) ministerial meeting was held on 13 November 2011, the first summit was held on 15 November 2011. Also, the map is correct except about Oman, which was accepted as a full member last Sunday. All other members and observers are correctly presented and correspond to the information in the article. Request have been made to update the map about Oman. Beagel (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Unsure, but leaning to oppose. It looks to me like the news is that a group a ministers that has met every year since 2001 has this year decided to brand its meeting a "summit" instead of a "ministerial meeting". --FormerIP (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually no because the ministerial meeting was held just a few days before the summit. Beagel (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Gas OPEC is an important development, though the article needs improvement. GreyHood Talk 20:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - in itself not a very significant event, but it's certainly such an important long-run development that it warrants a posting. Pantherskin (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article was updated, and the summit is not just a re-brending of the annual meetings of the gas OPEC ministers, as Beagel has shown. This answers most of the concerns voiced above. As this is a minority topic, we may do with a lower level of consensus here, so marking [Ready]. GreyHood Talk 00:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Police in New York launched a pre-dawn raid to clear the Occupy Wall Street protesters

Articles: Occupy Wall Street (talk, history) and Occupy movement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Police in New York launched a pre-dawn raid to clear the Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Fox CNN Al Jazeera
  • Oppose Here as in the nomination from yesterday. This is not front page material. It is "local police clearing a public space". The numbers involved in this specific incident is not enough to justify a notable front page news event, nor is the police behaviour more than would be normally expected under the circumstances. As has been mentioned before, no Occupy incident has yet been proven notable enough by the nominator for front page inclusion. This little local difficulty does not change that. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "local police clearing a public space"? Your assessment is so utterly simplistic that it is bordering on the ridiculous. Or you are trolling. Deterence Talk 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in contrast to most of the OWS hooks we have seen posted, this is a significant development. The NYC camp is the flagship and the government shutting it down by force will be a game changer. A check with Google News shows that this shutdown in being covered in depth by basically every news organization. JORGENEV 11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Beatniks being moved by the police isn't frontpage material. Lugnuts (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose just another aspect of an ongoing thing and not particularly notable or interesting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already posted the Occupy Wall Street protest; why do we need this?--♫GoP♫TCN 12:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That "everyone else is covering it" does not make minor protest changes significant. Media are only covering these in depth because a small group would again complain loudly if it wasn't covered 100%. Mamyles (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Adding to my reasoning, this action is expected and used often with protests on private property. Protestors were breaking the park rules (camping), repeatedly warned and asked to leave by police & owners, then arrested for trespassing. The temporary eviction, to clean and prevent further camping, is not startling. Note that the legal rationale for eviction is trespassing, as owners explicitly asked police to conduct the operation.
I agree that these events are of diehard importance to a small group. This could qualify for ITN. However, the blurb now is heavily biased toward protestors. I would weakly support a blurb like "Occupy Wall Street protestors in NYC were temporarily evicted from Zuccotti Park by police for safety and trespassing violations," which is a neutral POV stating the fact, duration, and reason of eviction. Mamyles (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • That isn't anywhere close to being a "neutral POV stating the fact". For a start, the eviction is not temporary (and only the most gullible ever believed it was going to be temporary). As for the reason behind the eviction being public "safety", I didn't think anyone was naive enough to swallow that line. Deterence Talk 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article and nom - the article only states that on Nov 15, police started clearing it. Is it ongoing? Did they completely clear it? The article update is not sufficient for ITN. I would probably support if the update were more substantial. Also, the nom is issued in bad faith, apparently some people still can't get their lives past the fact that Joe Paterno got on ITN. --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis of my vote yesterday. HurricaneFan25 13:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support correct me if I'm wrong, but we've posted protested from Greece, Spain, and the UK among others. Yet this doesn't a have a snowball's chance in hell despite its international coverage. Its CBC's and BBC's top headline yes, I realize everyone gets a different BBC headline and at some point we need to realize this isn't some minor fad. I'm not saying we need to post the minutia of it, but the clearing of the main camp does seem important. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: would it possibly make sense to combine the Portland one below with the NYC one here as a single blurb on the Occupy protests? --MASEM (t) 13:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Arguments based on describing something, removing the noteworthy elements from your description and then asking why the event is noteworthy are not valid. The same can be done with any event. This event is noteworthy because the world's media finds it so. It's not our role to second-guess. Plus we need to post something new. Note to Hotstop: I don't think we have posted Occupy protests from Greece, Spain and the UK. Those places are not in the US, after all. --FormerIP (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • lol I get it, we only post news from the US! that explains why we would never post about Syria, Italy, Mexico, Greece, Africa, or cars that aren't in NASCAR! --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I meant protests in general. 2010–2011 Greek protests has been posted twice and the 2011 Spanish protests was posted in May (I'd consider both related to OWS as all three were caused by the current economic crisis). The unrelated 2011 England riots was also posted back in September. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, therefore what the media posts is not always relevant. ITN serves simply to bring significant event articles of wide interest to the community's attention. Events are notable when consensus here proves so. Mamyles (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. A major and unexpected raid on the original OWS encampment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Look at our current ITN: we have one country-wide violent uprising that has been about to turn into a civil war for quite some time; three changes to major political players on three continents; one guy becoming the all-time greatest motorsport driver in world history; an extinction of a sub-species; and a minority topic from fine arts. Now just ask yourself: what has our New York's finest evicting 200 people from one place to another anything – just anything at all – to do with these other stories? It compares not even closely to them in significance, even if it is drummed by all media outlets 24/7. It might suffice as a counter-culture minority topic, but as counter-culture is almost always very much politically radical, I don't think that we, as an encyclopedia and a reference work, should dwell too deep down that road. I would be inclined to exclude anything having to do with political philosophy from the definition of a "minority topic," not only due to immerse problems with original research. It just somehow.. doesn't fit the dignity of an encyclopedia to post fresh news of (mostly young) people democratically protesting the police on its main page. I hope you can understand.. --hydrox (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: for reasons stated by other editors above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Further Comment re:Hydrox It is worth understanding that Hydrox has nailed the issue on the head for this nomination and others. This eviction has been, gone, and disappeared in the night. It's already just another stale story amongst dozens (if not hundreds) in this on-going leaderless narrative that is the Occupy "movement". Wikipedia rightly gave prominence to the Arab Spring because the event had "Point A, Persons B and C, and Event D". Occupy has got every letter of the alphabet in a bag and refuses to even lay then out for inspection. This story is, as Hydrox says, "200 people evicted from a public place". And that's it. There's nothing more to the story, so why put it on the front page? I would go so far as to suggest that all Occupy story nominations are automatically shut-down by way of WP:SNOW. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per hydrox and doktorb. Agree that excessive nominations of trivial Occupy events need to be stopped. (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as from what I can tell the protesters have gotten a court order allowing them to return. --PlasmaTwa2 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Suggest rebranding this. The occupy protests are being raided in many cities today (New York, Toronto, London), one month after the global day of action, and the overall shutting down of the occupations may warrant a posting in the very near future. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Major event making headlines across the world. --GoldenMew (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we can't post every new development in the occupy XY saga. Not really a newsworthy incident, given the small numbers of protestors involved. Pantherskin (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - the rules are wrong here This story is a real problem for ITN. There is a global movement happening, and it's now at the stage where many instances of that movement are being closed down by authorities. (It has happened in my city.) No single instance of a close down will satisfy ITN guidelines. The Opposes above are technically correct. The real news is the fact that it's happening in many places, more or less concurrently. But no news outlets are reporting on it that way. They are all looking locally. We are the GLOBAL encyclopaedia, but for us to somehow combine instances here would be classic WP:SYNTHESIS, and totally unacceptable according to our rules. But it is happening, and it's significant. Our rules are preventing us from telling the real story here. I don't know the solution. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There's T:TDYK to bring attention to articles. In Portal:Current events there are 5 specific incidents covered in the last week and a list of the articles about the occupy movement. People who want to know about it will just type Occupy (whatever) in the search box. We are not hiding the information. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • HiLo48, I couldn't agree more. And we're experiencing similar difficulties in ITN with nominations about the Syrian civil war, the Eurozone debt crisis and even Greece. Of course, it wouldn't be a problem if more editors would use a bit of common sense instead of wikilawyering every topic they don't like into oblivion. Deterence Talk 23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's just another day in the occupy something scene. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I don't understand the hate-on for the Occupy protests here. The end of the New York protest is significant. The movement was in ITN when it was born, now it's dead and deserves mention. -- (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The movement isn't "dead," just legally interrupted for a few hours. Protestors are already back in the park doing their thing. Mamyles (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi Mamyles, NYT says "judge upheld the city’s move to clear the park and bar the protesters from bringing back their tents or staying overnight". [20] Whats your source? -- (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Protestors are in the park now, as shown by the image depicting police allowing them back, and the article you just quoted. They may not legally camp there, including tents, which was actually in the park rules (as set by the land owner) throughout the protests. That development is not really anything new. Mamyles (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So they can no longer permanently occupy the park, just visit for a while, as per park rules. Sounds like the death of "occupy" wall street to me... The NYC movement, as it was for months, has been killed. Major shift, major story. -- (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know ITN/C isn't a simple majority vote. I've seen numerous "occupy" events shot at in the last few weeks, including 1000s of protesters closing down the port of oakland. At the same time, I saw "Support support support, JoePa!". I don't get it. Anyway, kindly consider:
User Last ITN/C edit ITN/C discussions this month Link
Lugnuts 7 days 4 [21]
Cameron Scott 12 days (both edits of 15th are occupy related) 5 [22]
GreatOrangePumpkin 3 days 6 [23]
Mamyles regular regular [24]
Hurricanefan25 5 days 4 [25]
Chocolate Horlicks 2 days, highly irregular 6 [26]
Plasma Twa 2 5 days, highly irregular 2 [27]
Pantherskin 2 6, first ever ITN/C 12 days ago [28]
Richard-of-Earth 14 days 1 [29]
Ashishg55 11 3 [30]

-- (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) A good faith edit from a genuine anonymous editor. I'm not a troll. Please don't revert my edits.

Hi, Could you elaborate ? I didnt get the significance of the above table. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. A major milestone at the originating location of this world-wide movement. In agreement with other support comments. el.nuevo.miguel 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've heard more negative comments about Wikipedia in the preceding weeks than I have ever, due to the failure to cover this movement in ITN. Many users that do not understand how Wikipedia works think that the company/organization itself is censoring major news on this important movement. I submit my personal theory (and likely shared by more than a few) that this continued oversight is costing Wikipedia support. el.nuevo.miguel 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Although I support inclusion of this event, your personal theory is just that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • oppose how is this any different than occupy protest situation in toronto right now? -- Ashish-g55 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't know. But it's probably not identical, is it? I think your comment is over-cryptic. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Has the one in Toronto been shut down by police? -- (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously? The Occupy Wall Street protest is the FLAGSHIP protest that inspired similar protests by countless thousands of protesters in literally hundreds of towns and cities in every country in the Western world, and you cannot appreciate why this is "any different"? Ashishg55, it's taking a hell of a lot of personal self-control not to tear you a new one over that remark. Deterence Talk 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
point i was making is many cities have same situation where people are being forced to leave. Just because New York was first one does not mean we need up to minute updates on ITN. And if i wasnt in good mood then i would be looking to get you blocked right now for that comment Deterence. -- Ashish-g55 02:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
And we post lots of situations where people are being forced to leave. This was the seat of a movement which had off-shots in 100s of cities. Portland, Toronto, Miami, DC, and so on and so forth. It was the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, and now police have run them out at the end of a bayonet. That's a big difference from chasing the homeless out of downsview park. I do appreciate your restraint in the face of some passionate but clearly inappropriate remarks. -- (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm a bit dismayed by the wall of Opposes here. Several people here seem to be setting the bar for the inclusion of Occupy Wall Street on ITN way too high. Yeah, we don't need to post every development in this event, but we haven't. We posted about this a month and a half ago, and that's about it. Even then, people complained this wasn't of international significance (especially because the previous event was even more minor and fleeting), just a localized hippie-fest. When it went global in mid-October, that wasn't sufficient. And, now, with the New York flagship protest dramatically dismantled (and note the eviction has now been upheld by a judge), that's not good enough either. It's fine if you still think this hasn't met your standards, but, frankly, short of the protesters being murdered, it seems some people just don't want Occupy Wall Street anywhere on the Main Page, often because of dismay with the movement (lack of organization, unclear goals, etc.). Okay, I got that. You don't have to support the movement. You don't have to think their protest is effective. You don't have to think the people involved are productive members of society who can't afford to put their lives on hold for days or weeks on end. But, you can't deny that the protest, and particularly last night's incident, has received international attention, even if it's not the most important event, or among the fifty most important events, happening in the world right now. For the umpteenth time, this section is called In the News, not What Should Be In the News. So, while it's okay to oppose this nomination, please don't be so closed-minded to nominations related to Occupy Wall Street or celebrities or Theme X because you personally don't think they're meaningful -- especially with ITN as stagnant as it is now. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well said.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The events in NYC were boring. There was no bloodshed. Compare this when they took over the Port of Oakland (mayhem). If there was an ITN-able event from the OWS movement, it was the event in Oakland, not this. Unless of course they (the NYC occupiers) riot over this. –HTD 03:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm one of the guys who opposed this and yes, I've seen the threshold for ITN generally being pushed higher and higher over time. My personal guess for the reason is that notability being a subjective criteria, everybody has their own inherent bias and difference of opinion on how important a topic is, and when a nomination gets shot down for reason of lack of notability, this leads to situation where people think "You think X topic is not notable enough to cross the notability barrier? If that's where you are drawing the threshold, then I dont see how Y topic (which in my mind is far less significant than X topic) can cross that threshold." This has lead to the threshold being pushed further and further up with a something bordering on crab mentality preventing nominations from going through. I cant really think of a solution to this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article Occupy Wall Street is not really fit to be linked to by the main page at this time, the section on today's events confusing, it is not clear what has been done and what stage everyone is at. Mtking (edits) 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    Strong oppose : given this edit it looks like the page editors don't even think this was a very significant event. Mtking (edits) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Given this edit, I'd beg your pardon.   — C M B J   05:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that your edit came over 12 hours after I made the above comment, and it still does not warrant a mention in the lead, it cant be a significant episode in the whole event. Therefore I stand my my Oppose Mtking (edits) 06:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The rhetoric that I used was not intended to be taken literally. Regardless, on what basis do you assume that these details do not warrant inclusion in the lead? Content contribution, or the lack thereof, is unrelated to the merit of a subject. And just to be clear here, we're talking about the confiscation of a NBC reporter's press pass, an assault on a New York Post reporter, the grounding of NBC and CBS news choppers, and the arrests of reporters for the Associated Press, the New York Times and NPR. I'd reason that if this many journalists encountered similar belligerence in virtually any other part of the world, it would be easily fast-tracked through ITN within a few hours time.   — C M B J   07:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub - if it happened in any other part of the world, those disgraceful acts (and unlawful acts, unless the 1st Amendment has been repealed in recent days) would not have been perpetrated by the NYPD. As we have seen in the past, the majority of editors in ITN have zero tolerance for anything that even hints at negativity or disrespect or anything short of 100% subservience towards their beloved American cops. Especially the NYPD. If ever you wanted a clear insight into the conservative demographic that dominates in ITN, it is the tantrums they throw whenever anyone dares to criticise an American cop. Deterence Talk 07:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - let's address this more broadly I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:In the news to address the fact that the rules won't let us talk about the whole Occupy movement here. Feel free to contribute. (Constructively please.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support - The documented use of force against multiple professional journalists—anywhere in the world, and by any organized body—is automatic ITN criteria in my books.   — C M B J   05:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

November 14

Nicaraguan prez

Article: Nicaraguan general election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Daniel Ortega is re-elected as the president of Nicaragua. (Post)

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: Results should be confirmed in a day or so,Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: article currently has a cleanup tag on it. Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Moved because the results have now been announced. --FormerIP (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice that the results were actually announced on Thursday. This could maybe just scrape in still, but perhaps it is stale. The article looks ready. --FormerIP (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Stale This really should have peen posted, per ITN/R, but, unfortunately, it has gone stale awaiting the necessary updates. Deterence Talk 19:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Normally I'd say post it anyway, but the article looks pretty bad. The update's there, but the lead is a single sentence and most of the sections lack substance. Plus the fact that the result was no surprise. Nightw 20:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How has this been declared stale (results announced 10 Nov), when the photo (auctioned 8 Nov) is posted??? Kevin McE (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Riot police shut down Occupy Portland

Article: Occupy Portland (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Riot police forcibly shut down the Occupy Portland rally and arrest dozens of people after threatening the protesters with "chemical agents and impact weapons". (Post)
News source(s): BBC News Aljazeera RT presstv NZherald
Article updated
  • Oppose, seeing no information in article on this, nor the use of "chemical weapons" (I'm sure we could find a more hyperbolic term for 'tear gas' if we really tried.) --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

BBC has it as chemical, doesn't mention tear gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As a chemical agent, not a chemical weapon. The article remains unupdated, my vote remains oppose. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not unupdated. Chemical agent redirects to Chemical weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, now it's not, but as of the moment you made your nom it had no information that was in the nom. Striking my oppose as the primary reason was the lack of update, but I still don't think it qualifies for front page. --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Didnt expect such a quick reponse. When you said "The article remains unupdated" it was not unupdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Not to be pedantic, but we made our edits in the same minute: 15:21 UTC. So it's reasonable for me to still see an unupdated article. Updates should occur before the nom. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Global coverage, local impact. HurricaneFan25 15:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is worth noting that almost none, if any at all, Occupy stories have ever made it to the front page. Consensus on this page has been very clear - this is a little local difficulty, it is not a front page news event. This development is just a small point in a largely self-generated story. Nothing in this story is worth giving credence. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
So that means they should never make it to the front page? Riot police, tear gas, et al isn't a small point or a little local difficulty. Not here anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • <e/c> Neutral - There exists a dissonance between WP:ITN and the rest of Wikipedia mainspace regarding the notability of these events. According to the Occupy AFDs, they are considered notable enough to be posted, yet WP:ITN consensus states that it is not. Should this dissonance perhaps be resolved?--WaltCip (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
AfDs discuss notability for mainspace retention: that is a lot lower threshold than ITN notability. If people are making comments at AfD about ITN-worthiness that is in the wrong place: this is where eligibility under those higher criteria are properly scrutinized. There is no inconsistency there. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Oppose on neutrality concerns: the current blurb is part of the problem: it's simply too emotive and not remotely compatible with NPOV. I have similar concerns, albeit not a strong, about the actual article: I could easily run through it placing half a dozen issues templates and who knows how many "citation needed"s. The whole "chemical weapons" thing is problematic but so are the impact weapons comments. These are normal law enforcement tactics, and dressing up the story in hyperbole for political ends does not alter that. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC).
WP:Sofixit. Change it to whatever you think is suitable. Chemical and impact quoted by lots of reliable sources from the global community, Britain, Russia, New Zealand, et al. Chemical agent on Wikipedia = Chemical weapon, Impact weapon on Wikipedia = Club (weapon), this is the simple truth. If agent does not equal weapon then Wikipedia is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Despite being carried daily my all the major media outlets in the western world for many weeks, the Occupy protests have been virtually ignored by ITN. Sadly, I suspect (read: know damn well) that there are a lot more personal politics behind the opposition to posts about the Occupy protests than honest assessment of the ITNworthiness of the Occupy nominations - the votes of some editors on these issues are more predictable than the rising of the sun.
  • Golbez, Crispmuncher, etc, clearly, the use of the term "chemical agents" (which redirects to "chemical weapons") is rhetorical, bordering on hyperbole. As is the idiotic term "impact weapons". But, if you had done ANY reading on this matter then you would know that that is the ridiculous language used by law enforcement on the scene: "while officers used loudspeakers to warn protesters that anyone who resisted risked arrest and could be "subject to chemical agents and impact weapons"." I guess the mayor's PR office thought "chemical agents and impact weapons" sounded better than "our crack team of wife-beaters are going to stomp a bunch of hippies into the pavement with battons and tear-gas". Deterence Talk 19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "ANY reading" Not my job. The article did not contain any reference to chemical anything so all I had to go on was the nomination; I had no reason to believe the hyperbole was caused by the police and not by the nom. When it was pointed out I clammed up but if you insist: I apologize for accusing the nom of hyperbole. (Though, it should have been contained in quotes, should it not? Especially since the nature of said agents exists solely in a statement and we don't know what these agents and impact weapons are?) --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with you 100% that the phrase "chemical agents and impact weapons" should have been in quotes. Especially given the provocative nature of such language. I have amended the blurb accordingly. As for not knowing what "chemical agents and impact weapons" the police use, I rather hope we all have better imaginations than that. Hint: the "impact weapons" are not feather dusters. Deterence Talk 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If you any reading you would have seen the blurb has been revised since my post: it did refer to "chemical weapons" which is a truly ridiculous stretch. However, my concerns stand: this is essentially a minor and routine detail of standard law enforcement practices. Putting in the blurb like that is still POV due to undue prominence. Are we trying to suggest police don't reach for their batons everyday when dealing with low-level disorder? Crispmuncher (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course I know the blurb has been revised. I revised it. Regardless, no one is denying that this is a routine behaviour by American cops. It is the scale of the Occupy movement that makes this development notable. Isn't that obvious? Deterence Talk 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment on the blurb: There are no "U.S. riot police". I suggest omitting "U.S." altogether, or saying, "In the United States, ". Also, no hyphen in shut down. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this has nothing to do with college football. -- (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Good faith edit by legitimate anonymous editor. I am not a troll.
  • Oppose per Seriously I'm neutral on this, but I believe a major protest (I have no idea if this one is) in a major country should deserve a mention sometimes, it's not as if it happens every other week. --Tachfin (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Whether or not this is a "major protest" really depends on who you ask.--WaltCip (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What? Countless thousands of protesters in hundreds of towns and cities spread over every country in the Western world (and more than a few in the developing world). The only people who are still kidding themselves that this isn't a "major protest" (indeed, a contender for the biggest protest in the history of Democracy) are trolling Republicans. I'm a right-winger who treats The Fountainhead like a bible and disagrees with 90% of the Occupy agenda, but even I'm not tarded enough to pretend this is a non-event. Deterence Talk 03:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • But this nomination isn't about the thousands of protesters in hundreds of towns and cities spread over every country in the Western world (and more than a few in the developing world). It's about Riot (sic) police shutting down Occupy Portland. Yes, there is something global happening, and it is newsworthy, but I'm not sure how we include it here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think the blurb is that bad, though I don't see a good reason to include the police's "threat" (how about mentioning some of the "kill the pigs" chants from the protesters?). But overall this event does not strike me as being particularly notable. JimSukwutput 06:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you have a link to a video source for the Occupy Portland protesters chanting "kill the pigs"? (Video please, not Fox News commentary). Deterence Talk 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • UPDATE "Police in New York have launched a pre-dawn operation to clear the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zuccotti Park" - BBC Deterence Talk 09:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Updated Blurb Continuation of existing nominated story adds only that protesters are now being removed. This is a natural continuation of the story and does not add further credibility to the nomination or notability to the event. That a local police force are clearing a protest from a public space is not news, certainly not front page Wikipedia news doktorb wordsdeeds 09:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • At this point, I doubt that you would support an ITN nomination about the Occupy protests even if the NYPD charged in with tanks and opened fire on a group of hippy school children. Btw, I wasn't proposing a new blurb. I was quoting the BBC news source. Deterence Talk 09:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - just don't see the level of notability an item for ITN should have. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

November 13

Diego Rivas shot dead

Article: Diego Rivas (singer) (talk, history)
Blurb: Diego Rivas is killed in a drive-by shooting. (Post)
News source(s): bbc
  • comment Wrong Diego. The article says that Diego Rivas was a singer who was shot dead, whose band (Arriba Mi Sinaloa) he was briefly part of doesn't have an article either. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Non-notable either way. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the nominator not even making sure the proper article was linked, which implies the nominator didn't even see if the article was updated, which implies it can't make it onto ITN. --Golbez (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Now that we have a proper link, my vote stands: No assertion of notability made, I would say the article as it is would not survive AFD. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I've modified the nomination to link to the correct article: Diego Rivas (singer). Oppose due to article quality issues – no inline citations and almost no formatting – and unclear significance (see WP:ITN#Criteria). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, and for info, I've taken it to AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

America frisks President Abdul Kalam

Article: A. P. J. Abdul Kalam (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of India A. P. J. Abdul Kalam is frisked and has his clothes inspected for explosives by officials in New York, with the United States apologising for its breach of protocol. (Post)
News source(s): The Times NDTV BBC Wall Street Journal
  • A dignitary cannot be frisked by an entire country. The blurb should be more specific.--WaltCip (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The bolded article doesn't mention this incident at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Its kicked up quite a row and the US apologizing isn't common. But the article and the blurb need some work. Also, "has his clothes removed", makes it seem like he was strip-searched, but reports say only his jacket and shoes were removed. [31]. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In my opinion this isn't really news. Some important figure had to go through security checks most of the world submits to without incident. Beyond tabloid talk of US bias against India, I don't see why anyone should care. Mamyles (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not of international significance. Overblown. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is America and we're all equal here, if I have to take off my jacket and shoes so does he. Not news. --Golbez (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you cracking a funny? Are you seriously suggesting that a former American President or the UK Prime Minister would be equally be subjected to such treatment? Deterence Talk 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't they be proud to take part in our wonderful security apparatus? If not, then aren't they saying that 'normal' American citizens, by virtue of not being elected or rich, are presumed guilty before innocent? I would say the bigger news would be if he was searched without regret, but sadly our government has already apologized for following the procedure it inflicts on everyone else who flies through our airports. With the apology it officially becomes a mistake in procedure that, at worst, has issued a minor insult upon a former leader. Shit happens; not news. Now, if India wants to make something of it, by withdrawing an ambassador or calling for sanctions, first the world will stare blankly at the stupidity of it, and then we would post it on ITN, because then it would be news. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that former Presidents of India (and the USA) should be subjected to the same degrading and intrusive security measures as the rest of us. I just don't think that a former Indian President should be treated worse than a former UK Prime Minister. Deterence Talk 20:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Then the news would be that the former British PM was not subjected to standard security screening, not that the former Indian president was. And that story is likely stale. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think planes should be made out of glass and everyone should ride it naked.</sarcasm> Seriously though, this is greatly off topic. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Roebuck

Article: Peter Roebuck (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Internationally famous cricket columnist Peter Roebuck dies in Cape Town at the age of 55. (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, Guardian, Hindu, Sydney Morning Herald
The article is in decent shape but I don't think this would be appropriate for ITN. --Tone 18:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Reason? HiLo48 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This has been front page headline news in my part of the world for a day now. A name instantly recognised by all cricket fans who haven't just been sucked in by the frantic T20 trash. HiLo48 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Very prominent and revered figure in cricket. Circumstances surrounding his death add to the notability of the incident. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant enough person, in my view. I agree that he was "one of the finest cricket writers of his generation" but I don't think that's enough. Also, about 60% of his biography is dedicated to controversies: Peter_Roebuck#1986_controversy, Peter_Roebuck#Assault_conviction, and the circumstances of his death. If he really was one of the greatest writers of his generation, a good biography would surely have more to say about it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
So, we have "one of the finest cricket writers of his generation" dying in unexpected and dramatic circumstances, but that's not significant enough? I feel for all those current and aspiring cricket writers out there. None will ever appear here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I guess that Roebuck counts an internationally known figure, but not in recent years and not to the extent, IMO, that his death qualifies for ITN. Also, considering the circumstances of the death... --FormerIP (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
By "circumstances of the death...", are you referring to his apparent suicide? Developing media reports suggest that it wasn't just your average suicide. And even if it was, should it stop us listing him? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of respect for the dead, I don't think we should go into it too much. But, reading media reports and our own article, people might read between the lines, rightly or wrongly, and make assumptions about Roebuck's personal life. we don't say anything that isn't sourced. But, all the same, I think we should not link the article from the front page whilst it is subject to likely speculation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, come on. There has been speculation about Michael Jackson's death for the past two years, and we didn't stop posting about him. The seeming controversy about Roebuck's death makes this event more notable. And I really don't accept "Out of respect for the dead..." as a reason for leaving something out of an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about leaving it out of the encyclopaedia? Just not linking from the front page at a time when eyebrows are raised and the facts are not known. Probably a bit academic anyway, since the predominant view seems to be that Roebuck is too obscure in any case.--FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he may be a former captain of Somerset County Cricket Club, but he's not really globally notable: even within cricket circles, he's not a huge figure. As part of an ongoing project I aim to significantly improve the article in the future, but as said above, the circumstances are getting murkier too. Harrias talk 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lacks international significance. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Now that's just a silly thing to say so soon after we very rapidly posted about purely American college football paedophile story. Roebuck's story is far more international.(Even though we're told it doesn't have to be.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
We made a stupid error. That's not a good argument for making further stupid errors. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure: my gut says, "No, he's not important enough, no one outside of cricket would care". However, Roebuck is clearly "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" (from WP:ITN/DC), that is, over 600 major cricket matches and one of the best known cricket writers of his generation. His death received attention in a number of countries over a number of days, so "lacks international significance" is hardly an argument. IgnorantArmies 03:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Some fields are limited enough that being a very important figure in that field is not enough. If there were a way of identifying the top journalist, or even top sports journalist, there might be a case for inclusion. If there were a way of categorising and tabulating influential ex-cricketers, there might be a case. But the narrow field of cricket journalism (and what grounds are there that he was outstanding in that field anyway), that is not enough. Oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
There's plenty of grounds to say he was outstanding. This would be a start HiLo48 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A publication's opinion on one of their own writers is scarcely disinterested. Post-mortem tributes are prone to hyperbole. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Barely noteworthy even in cricket-playing countries. Circumstances of his death are irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Now, that's an idiotic post. Immediately after I posted a link to very clear evidence of how noteworthy this person and the event is, you say it's not. And I have seen several attempts here to post an old age death of someone famous, rejected precisely because the circumstances of death were not noteworthy. This time they obviously are. Now, I don't mind if this doesn't get posted after a sensible, objective discussion, but that post is rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm grateful for your considered and well thought out response. I didn't say he's not "notable" as a person deserving an article here - I'm saying his death is not sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned on the main page here. The fact that it's mentioned, somewhere probably not generally on the front page, in media in cricket-playing countries is not important. It's not a very big item of news. He was a sportsman and a writer who died. Happens all the time. Not important enough. "Idiot" = Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm the first to admit that cultural differences between people across the world can sometimes cause difficulties in communication, but in that little chat we've just had your responses seem to have been made as if you have read nothing of what I have just posted in each case. I find such things very frustrating, and shall leave our little chat with that comment. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Kevin McE pretty much nails it for me. Even if he is one of the 'best ever cricket journalists' that's a narrowly defined field.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It cracks me up that the strongest opposition to any ITN nominations about cricket usually come from the most passionate advocates of ITN nominations about American football, which inevitably have considerably less international notability. Deterence Talk 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The largest favela of Brazil cleared of drug gangs

Article: Rocinha (talk, history)
Blurb: Rocinha, the largest favela of Rio de Janeiro and Brazil, is cleared of drug gangs by the military police. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Seems a notable development. Brazilian favelas are ill-known around the world as bastions of crime, and the event is a major sign that the situation is changing. GreyHood Talk 11:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - Historically and in contemporary criminological studies, drug sweeps decrease the crime rate in the short term, but in the long term cause a rebound that results in a return to the original crime rate (perhaps even slightly higher). This is why I would be hesitant to post a news story such as this as it most likely would have no lasting effect.
  • Oppose - No mention of it in the Rochina article. If the police operation itself were noteworthy, perhaps that operation should have an article which could be nominated. -- (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Good faith anonymous editor. I'm not a troll. Please don't revert my comments

November 12

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi

Article: Silvio Berlusconi (talk, history)
Blurb: Silvio Berlusconi resigns as Prime Minister of Italy as a result of the country's debt crisis. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
  • Conditional Support pending his actual resignation. With a consummate game-player like Berlusconi, actions speak louder than words. Deterence Talk 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable by itself and even more notable considering the context. This is likely to have a significant effect on whether the euro will survive, evident by the stock market reactions today. JimSukwutput 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
and the PIIGS are all done in 12 mths...obvious support but think a new article on the election should be added.Lihaas (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He's a Prime Minister, not a President. The resignation of a Prime Minister does not entail that a new election will take place. Under Italy's system of government, the new Prime Minister would usually chosen by the caucus of the former Prime Minister's political party, and even that is subject to the coalition agreement and that party remaining the dominant political party within a coalition government. Deterence Talk 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that a new govt could be formed, but after his meeting with napolitano yest theres an even chance pf elecions partuicualrly at a time like this when its harder to command a majority govt. lets wit and watch.Lihaas (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support only when he is no longer prime minister anymore. These sorts of situations change very rapidly, and politics is a funny business. If and when he isn't the PM, it should end up on ITN. However, the sort of political negotiations going on which may lead to him resigning if certain conditions are meant is not the sort of thing which normally makes ITN. --Jayron32 07:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
were some weeks away from that..Lihaas (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait until he actually resigns. The key point is when he goes, and he's ducked out of promises before. I refrained from nominating this myself for that exactly reason. Waiting also gives time for a proper update to be written. Modest Genius talk 09:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait per Modest Genius. --bender235 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait - Agree that waiting is called for, per MG. Jusdafax 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Hold, then post as soon as it happens - As above. Neutralitytalk 02:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Moved, because it just happened. --FormerIP (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
BBC are reporting that the Italian Presidency has connfirmed he's gone. I think it's good to go now. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose until such time a successor is appointed: that is usually the convention on ITN. It shouldn't be very long either, most commentators are expecting a new government before the markets open on Monday at the latest. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. DS (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Posting. Belrusconi is such a prominent figure that naming his successor will be a separate story. --Tone 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a revised blurb would be appropriate if it happens quickly. --FormerIP (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
True. Let's see. --Tone 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hate to take a jump start on that debate, but no I don't think that's the case here. Unlike election results, we usually do not post resignations or appointments, unless generally notable. We already posted the resignation of Berlusconi, but the nomination of his successor would not normally merit a mentioning. --hydrox (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment "Super" Mario Monti to introduce the new cabinet in 10 minutes (Reuters) --hydrox (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Attack on Taraz

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​Seven people are killed in an attack on the city of Taraz in southern Kazakhstan. It is one of the worst attacks in the country's history. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
  • Support. Such attacks on Kazakhstan do appear rare. ~AH1 (discuss!) 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning oppose. Rare place, but small scale. GreyHood Talk 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now: What type of attack? Who did the attacking? Blurb needs to be re-written. Even so, seven deaths is peanuts in comparison to what is usually posted on here. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Arab League suspends Syria

Article: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk, history)
Blurb: Arab League agrees to suspend Syria's membership amidst continued violent crackdown of civilian internal uprising. (Post)
News source(s): AJE, BBC, CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Following earlier calls to end the violent crackdown, Arab League seems to be now putting some real pressure on Syria. --hydrox (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong support once updated. --FormerIP (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if Saudi Arabia thinks you've been behaving bad, you must be doing something really wrong. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Easily. However, since this will not take effect until November 16, we should wait. --bender235 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Note that current blurb wording does not suggest the decision would enter into force immediately. --hydrox (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
True. However, Syria can avoid the suspension by stopping the crackdown. Although this is not likely to happen, the blurb then would be incorrect. As of now, the Arab League only threatened to suspend Syria. --bender235 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, technically correct yes, depending on which is your source. AJE thinks Syria is only being threatened at this stage, while CNN formulates it "move takes effect Wednesday". Most sources seem to share CNN's view. --hydrox (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Jassim al-Thani said Syria will be suspended by 16 November if it does not implement the Arab peace deal that it previously agreed to. That's a fact, not a matter of interpretation. If Assad implements the plan (which is highly unlikely, tho), Syria will not be suspended on Wednesday. So let's wait until Wednesday and see what happens. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support, as Syria is definitely doing something wrong with international implications. The news is the decision to suspend, so I would prefer immediate posting. Mamyles (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - While tempted to support on the face of the importance of the news, is it consensus here that a three sentence update way down in the article (3.2 Reactions -International) is enough? I'd like to see a bit more of an update prior to posting this on the Main Page, and perhaps a brief mention in the lede. Jusdafax 16:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  Done I've added a paragraph about major international reactions to the lead. --hydrox (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd propose to change the blurb to Arab League suspends Syria's membership amidst continued crackdown of internal uprising. it is shorter and more neutral: Syrian rebels act at least as violently as the government. GreyHood Talk 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"Rebels act at least as violently as the government" is a bit of an overstatement as far as I know, as the government forces are the ones killing civilians. But you are right – there are some armed factions too among the rebels – so "civilian uprising" is not correct. I've changed the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really. A very high share of victims are soldiers and officials, and many of them were killed in quite a violent way. GreyHood Talk 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
[citation needed] --hydrox (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Over 1000 security officers have been killed. This is not in dispute. But the government says rebels are responsible while the protesters say they're in fact killed by the government. Doesn't matter which side you believe, this is clearly not as simple as government shooting civilians. JimSukwutput 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Thanks to Hydrox for the update. I consider this item newsworthy and the blurb ready to post. Jusdafax 23:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The grammar in the suggested item is poor. It should be something like: The Arab League agrees to suspend Syria's membership amidst the continued violent crackdown of an civilian internal uprising. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support In addition to above-mentioned significance, the League has suspended members only twice before in 66-year history. PopularMax (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. International agreement to end crackdown; crackdown continues; Arab League suspension...sounds familiar? This is definitely notable, regardless of what the Syrian government decides to do. JimSukwutput 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Marking 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

APEC summit

Article: APEC United States 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation member countries meet in Honolulu, United States (Post)
News source(s): Voice of America, BBC

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: APEC meeting this weekend (12-13 Nov). The article needs some serious work, but this is an ITNR item. I hoping that this nomination will encourage editors to improve the article for a story they might otherwise not have been aware of. Modest Genius talk 12:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is now better, but still needs some work. Modest Genius talk 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Andreas Gursky

Article: Andreas Gursky (talk, history)
Blurb: Rhein II, an image by German artist Andreas Gursky, fetched $4.3m (£2.7m) at Christie's New York, becoming the most expensive photograph ever sold. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I suggest the article Andreas Gursky to be featured in the news. His image Rhine II (1999) has fetched $4.3m (£2.7m) at Christie's New York, setting an auction record for a photograph. Source: (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Would be an interesting item indeed. However, it would be nice to have a separate article on the artwork, as is usually the case when we feature works of art. --Tone 13:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Support, though it's a shame we don't have an article on the photograph itself. Even Gursky's article has an orange-level tag, so we can't bold that. Modest Genius talk 13:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the tag as outdated. Is anyone willing to create an article on the photograph? GreyHood Talk 13:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  Done. The article's a stub so obviously needs expansion and if we could keep some eyeballs on it for now as I'd worry someone might nominate it for deletion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Since Johnsemlak neglected to mention it, the article is at Rhein II. Modest Genius talk 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, sorry :).--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Good job! We still need an update of Andreas Gursky, as well as a decision which article to highlight. GreyHood Talk 17:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded the article on the image itself to the requisite length (currently 4 paragraphs, 6 references, and one image). Modest Genius talk 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've bolded the image article and placed [Ready] mark. Andreas Gursky better be updated more, but I've inserted the key information in one sentence. GreyHood Talk 18:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Ready to post. However, fetched? Is that really the proper expression here? --Tone 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
BBC used it. But we may use any other expression except of "sold", which is at the end of the blurb. GreyHood Talk 21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
How about:
Modest Genius talk 23:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The article says this occurred on November 8, which is earlier than our oldest item on ITN now. Any reason it shouldn't be dated as November 8? -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
True. The oldest item in the ITN box dates from November 10. Too late then... Still, as the new article is well written, I suggest it is taken to DYK. --Tone 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The amount, and hence the record, wasn't announced until the 11th. Still, I can take it to DYK if you prefer. Modest Genius talk 23:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, DYK would be better. -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted Never mind; it fits on ITN now. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the need to be absolutely strict with keeping the ITN template in chronological order. I suggest we give this event at least a little more front page time that it will likely receive by dropping one or two items off of the bottom prior to dropping this one. The sale may have happened on 8 Nov, but it remains the record setting sale still obviously, and more to the point remains of interest to readers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bolt, Pearson Athletes of the Year

Oppose. We very rarely post these sort of awards in any sport, let alone in athletics. And the article is just a single table anyway. Modest Genius talk 13:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Awards are a reasonable thing to post for the arts or sciences, where there is no other formal top level competition. By definition, each sport has a way of determining its best in direct competition, and that is the result that merits consideration here. Kevin McE (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in the case of athletics (except marathons), we don't post the results of any regular competitions, unlike, say football (of any code). We only post the setting of world records.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

November 11

[Posted] Francisco Blake Mora killed in helicopter crash

Article: Francisco Blake Mora (talk, history)
Blurb: Mexican Secretary of the Interior Francisco Blake Mora is killed in a helicopter crash in Morelos near Mexico City. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
  • Support - notable figure and a key player in the war against the cartels. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Reasonably good article for being one day old. Big international news, with questions about the helicopter crash. Jusdafax 05:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Support, seems significant and the article is pretty good. Modest Genius talk 12:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Posting. Really impressive work on the article since yesterday. --Tone 13:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not an oppose or anything, but the article as a whole gives a lot of weight to his death. I'm not saying that the section should be reduced or anything, but perhaps additional parts about his life could be expanded as well. SpencerT♦C 19:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Or... perhaps... that content should be merged to another article. Undue weight. Yep.  Diego  talk  12:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly undue weight, but that's a sign of missing content on his earlier life, not that his death is overplayed. Not really surprising in an article which didn't even exist before he died. Modest Genius talk 13:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Egypt closes the Great Pyramid of Giza

Article: Great Pyramid of Giza (talk, history)
Blurb: Egypt closes the Great Pyramid of Giza outside Cairo. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
  • Oppose. Closed for one day. JimSukwutput 02:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My interest was piqued by this but I agree with Jim.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose. A one day closure which isn't even worth mentioning in the article, let alone posting on ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Sabbath reunites

Article: Black Sabbath (talk, history)
Blurb: Black Sabbath reunites for a world tour at Whisky a Go Go and announces a new album. (Post)
News source(s): [33] [34] [35]
Oppose. Less interesting than the recent reunions of Backstreet Boys, the Stone Roses or Steps. --FormerIP (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Black Sabbath invented heavy metal and this is a huge deal if you're a fan, but bands break up and reform all the time. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Notable band, not a notable story. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral I really like Black Sabbath, but this is not so important. Actually 33 years are pretty long, but as a "band full of old men" I am afraid they won't do the music they did in the prior years.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: bands break up and reunite all the time. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Sébastien Loeb

Article: Sébastien Loeb (talk, history)
Blurb: Sébastien Loeb (Citroën) becomes the first driver in any discipline of motorsport to become World Champion for the eighth consecutive time. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AJC, WSJ etc

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

Nominator's comments: Major achievement in motorsport. One more championship than Michael Schumacher --Hektor t 15:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support One greater than Michael Schumacher is certainly an achievement. Notable figure and notable sport. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This is on ITNR, so no need for support, but I don't like the way the blurb is phrased. We have a standard wording for a reason. I suggest:
Normally the bold link would go on the article for this year's event, but that is just a big data table and the eight-in-a-row is a major part of the story so I've put the bold on Loeb. Modest Genius talk 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Strongly agree with this modification to the blurb. --FormerIP (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the Modest Genius blurb. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The Guardian Here's a source for the "most successful motor sport driver of all time" story. Also, WRC personal titles are ITNR. Suggest MG's blurb. --hydrox (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Posted. --Tone 11:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Suggest image for main page. --hydrox (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 European floods

Article: 2011 European floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least seventeen people are killed in the floods in Europe. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AJC, WSJ etc

Nominator's comments: Significant ongoing natural disaster --Brandmeister t 15:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. There aren't that many casualties, and it seems like most of them occurred over a week ago. I don't even think this should be made into a single article - how are floods in Ireland and Italy three weeks apart related? JimSukwutput 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

American soldier convicted for leading a rogue "kill team" in Afghanistan

Article: Maywand District killings (talk, history)
Blurb: American soldier convicted for leading a rogue "kill team" that murdered civilians for sport in Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: The War on Terror meets Apocalypse Now. I'll bet my left nut that the same people who insisted that the resignation of Joe Paterno was sufficiently notable for ITN will now oppose this nomination. Deterence Talk 08:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - similar stories have been posted at ITN already, and compared to the other big news stories it does not make headlines outside the US. In any case, could Deterence refrain from abusing ITN as a soapbox? It's not helpful. Pantherskin (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • You can shove your caution about soapboxing where the sun doesn't shine. Deterence Talk 09:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that was helpful either. Pantherskin (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I gathered as much when you gave yourself whiplash rushing to report me in ANI. Deterence Talk 10:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, but currently oppose because the update is too slight - one sentence and bare URL references. The blurb could be phrased in a less emotive style as well. The Baha Mousa case is the nearest comparable case I can think of and there are significant differences to that: at first glance this to be deliberate premeditated murder as opposed to poor training and getting carried away. Crispmuncher (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC).
Seems like some good edits have been made in the article over the last day. Compare. JimSukwutput 22:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
We're now up to two sentences for the update. There's been a certain amount of clean up throughout the article but that is all the updated element amounts to. A two sentence update isn't enough to be collectively boasting about on the front page. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
This is one of those cases where the event is clearly notable but makes it hard to come up with more than a few sentences of updates. I personally think the article is suitable for posting. Note that we're not just posting the convictions on their own, but the convictions as the culmination of the entire scandal. JimSukwutput 03:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree. The update on the Gibbs article looks sufficient. Marking as ready. Nightw 05:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Not yet ready, as the headline as POV problems. Needs to be changed to something less tabloid-ish, and report just the matters of fact. Pantherskin (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with the update. The posting admin will change the blurb if there is an issue with it. Nightw 09:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There most certainly is something wrong with the blurb. --Johnsemlak (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
So change it. Nightw 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Not ready: this update is still pitiful. ITN is not a news ticker - it's very reason for existence is to highlight new content. If there isn't a lot we can say about an event that is not reason for for posting without a minimal update: it is a very good indicator we shouldn't be posting in the first instance. While people are still trying to fudge this issue I'm firming up to an oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Far more notable. Let's get the update sufficient. Nightw 10:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support once the update is substantial. Looks to be an important news story with international implications. Jusdafax 17:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral, because I'm unsure how this can be more notable than the EDF link. Black Kite (t) 19:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I'll be frank here: If you don't think war-time convictions for soldiers going on a rampage killing random civilians is more notable than two three-year sentences for corporate spying, you got your priorities fucked up. JimSukwutput 20:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Possible support but something needs clarifying. Is today's news about one in a series of convictions, some of which have happened, more of which will follow? That would tend to make it less significant in itself. --FormerIP (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Jim Sukwutput pending the update to the article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The 'for sport' bit of the suggested post doesn't actually appear in the article and seems rather tabloid (though it does appear in some of the references used in the article). Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael D. Higgins

Article: Michael D. Higgins (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael D. Higgins receives his Seal of Office and becomes the ninth President of Ireland during a ceremony at Dublin Castle. (Post)
News source(s): RTE
  • Obviously not. We posted his election weeks ago. We don't post inaugurations. Nightw 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Can we bookmark this for Jan 2013? Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 #nottheUSbiasshitagain –HTD 19:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Clearly the inauguration of Barack Obama -- and perhaps some other inaugurations -- was a news story in its own right. -- tariqabjotu 19:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Well of course can an inauguration of a person that can send an army half a world a away (for a minimum of 60 days) is equal in every aspect to an inauguration of a person that can't even send his 10,500-man army without consent of the UN General Assembly, which the first person has veto power. –HTD 19:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Radioactive particles found in Europe

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The International Atomic Energy Agency confirms the discovery of radioactive particles in the Czech Republic and other parts of Europe. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
  • Oppose - It was already known that much of the old Soviet Union was contaminated with radiation, and this isn't even mentioned in either article. (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Stale This was news about 20 years ago... Deterence Talk 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Döner murders

Article: Döner murders (talk, history)
Blurb: ​German police arrested a women and recovered the bodies of two other suspects with Neo-Nazi links of Döner murders that had taken place between 2000 and 2007 leaving 10 dead and one wounded. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Reuters Washington Post
I don't know if it would be better to include the ethnic makeup of the victims or their occupations in the Blurb as the victims are generally members of ethnic minorities as well as two police officers. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there something particularly significant about these murders that I'm missing? We can't go posting every serial killer, and the article is very short. Besides, we normally wait for convictions, for obvious WP:BLP reasons. Modest Genius talk 14:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of content exists on multiple sources and I would welcome any help in the writing of this article. It isn't an ordinary "serial killing" as it involves neo-nazi ties and the targets are ethnic minorities in Germany according to the prosecutor. I need not explain why this is significance beyond that I hope. :) We could indeed wait for the actual conviction, as event is fairly new after all. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
de:Mordserie Bosporus has more info it seems. I would also like to point out BLP isn't a worry since the names of the suspects are unknown to the public. Also the news has been upgraded to bbc main page "New German neo-Nazi probe arrest" at -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - not just run of the mill serial murderers, but apparently right-wing terrorists targeting ethnic minorities. That, and that several murder cases previously believed to be unrelated are connected. Given that the two main suspects are dead no point in waiting for convictions. Pantherskin (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above, but blurb needs some serious work. Suggest "German police arrest a woman and recover the bodies of two other suspects with links to the Döner murders. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    Suicides seems to have happened in an unrelated event where a bank robbery heist failed on 4 November a week prior to the woman turning herself in. This just gets better and better -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

November 10

EDF spying convictions

Article: Électricité de France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A French court imprisons two senior staff of the energy company EDF after it spied on Greenpeace activists. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian Telegraph Reuters Independent PA New York Times Le Monde France 24 Business Insider

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is not updated and could do with a fair bit of work. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Article updated. All over the European news networks, and mentioned worldwide. "Rainbow Warrior" part 2, with it being France as well. Black Kite (t) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Big news when energy officials are sent to jail for spying on activists. Of interest to a broad readership no matter what one's feelings are on the topic. Jusdafax 00:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. I don't care how much publicity this gets, the case is completely trivial by itself. We have in numerous occasions decided not to post incidents where dozens were killed. We let the Nigerian killings a week ago - where hundreds were murdered by terrorists - turn stale. And we posted almost nothing about the financial crises that went through the Eurozone and now imperiling Italy. Yet here we're discussing about two convictions for spying on anti-nuclear activists - and in a country where nuclear energy is not a contentious political issue. I can't help but think some of us are projecting our personal political views into the matter and being overly concerned about what we want Wikipedia readers to see, and not what is objectively notable. JimSukwutput 01:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh for Jesus' cock's sake. We've just posted a story about college football in the US. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
One that involves a child sexual abuse scandal involving at least eight kids over 15 years, and the resignation of the president of a major public university. More important than two corporate spies getting jailed, right? JimSukwutput 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Corporate agents convicted and imprisoned for spying on a lawful protest movement (something that happens once in a blue moon) has significantly more ITN notability than yet another resignation by an administrative bureaucrat and a football coach in a sex scandal (of the type that happens countless times every day). Deterence Talk 06:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Name me a couple of the "countless" cases of child sexual abuse scandals involving numerous children and top university administrators. JimSukwutput 07:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Go to any court in any country and you'll see sexual assault cases being heard every day. How many trials have you seen where big business from the nuclear energy industry is accused of spying protesters? Deterence Talk 07:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • They didn't actually spy on protesters. They hired a private intelligence company to monitor some campaign activists. The intelligence company went over the line by hacking into the activists' computers, and the judge thought that the energy corporation should be held responsible for this. I won't comment on whether his decision has merit, but this is clearly nothing as notable as the blurb and news stories seem to indicate. JimSukwutput 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per JimSukwutput YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - misleading to claim that this is all over the news, given that it is a minor story on BBC, and not on the main page of the Guardian at all, etc. And where is the article? Should certainly not appear in the EDF or Greenpeace article per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Pantherskin (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Like the Joe Paterno story then? Black Kite (t) 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Now that we have a precedent with the college football story, this minority interest event which covers an international company, spying, the environmental movement and foreign justice is clearly credible, recent, and relevant for inclusion on the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    There's no precedent on ITN, except this. –HTD 08:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The college football story (and to a similar extent the poker nomination) has blown two very large holes through ITNR. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The recently whined-upon college football story was not in ITNR, and the WSOP blurb was first tested in ITN/C and should be removed from ITNR once it goes stale and never gets to be posted. –HTD 10:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there are plenty of precedents (e.g. we post elections not inaugurations, results of tournaments not their openings, standard ways of phrasing things etc.). But what on Earth does the Penn State have to do with setting any precedent whatsoever? Or any relevance to ITNR? Modest Genius talk 17:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing similar to the Penn State event and this. Posting back-handed objections to the Penn State story here as 'support' for this is not helpful for consensus building.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the Joe Paterno posting.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious? Supporting other nominations out of spite because you disagreed with a decision made on a previous nomination is considered proper behavior now? Grow up. JimSukwutput 20:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Électricité de France has not been updated from what I can see. (If it has can someone link me? It's getting to be one of those days...) SpencerT♦C 19:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Done by myself and User:FormerIP. This could be en interesting one, actually; clearly a more notable story than some random sports coach in America, yet msy be declined; a pretty good poster child for an RFC on WP:ITN if it goes like that. Black Kite (t) 19:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • ...I still don't seem to see anything? SpencerT♦C 19:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I do find this an interesting item, the complete lack of significant news coverage for this makes me wonder how significant it is. There's no mention on the BBC 'Europe' page, nor in the Russian press. As I said above the Paterno comparisons are very unhelpful, and for me (not in the US) the Paterno story is still linked on the BBC website and is a top 10 read story, unlike this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure why you are looking particularly at the Russian press, but this is a two day old story now so I don't think seeing it not listed as a main story today tells us very much. It was the main story on the BBC's Europe page at the time. --FormerIP (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at the Russian press because I'm in Russia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I doubt that the story was not reported in Russia. Just that it is not among the top stories two days after the fact. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have an article on this? That's another problem.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Papademos named as new Greek Prime Minister

Article: Lucas Papademos (talk, history)
Blurb: Lucas Papademos has been named as the new Prime Minister of Greece. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Obviously notable. Some serious facepalming will result if anyone opposes this nomination. Credit where it is due, I was given a heads-up by anon IP that this announcement was coming. Deterence Talk 12:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Inauguration will be tomorrow, 12:00 (GMT). Let's wait until then. --bender235 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Tomorrow at 12:00 GMT per Bender235 above. --hydrox (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It is huge news here and the whole of Europe. --Athinker (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support No hesitation in supporting an important and vital development in an on-going news story doktorb wordsdeeds 14:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Obvious support, but the article is a bit lacking. It's just academic background, then suddenly he becomes prime minister. If he really was such a massive outsider from the political process, then surely there's something to say about that? If not, there seems to be content missing. Modest Genius talk 15:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact that he's an outsider indicates there's less to be said about his political experience. I agree a better transition can be made in the article, but I don't see a significant problem. JimSukwutput 17:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He's sworn in now. Should be posted. --bender235 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - If he is sworn in, this blurb is good to go on the Main Page. Update is thin but should be enough and will be added to in the next hours and days. Jusdafax 17:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This should be posted already. Consensus is pretty obvious and this is the biggest news item of last 2 days. --hydrox (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment blurb should say "sworn in" not "named as". Leaky Caldron 18:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Western Black Rhinoceros extinct

Article: Western Black Rhinoceros (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Western Black Rhinoceros has been declared extinct. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, SMH

Nominator's comments: . (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment While it would be impractical to make an ITN post every time a species becomes extinct, one may chauvinistically suggest that the extinction of a rhino species is more notable than the extinction of less awesome species'. At the very least, this deserves a post in DYK. Deterence Talk 06:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The article has not been recently created or expanded, so cannot be nom'd for DYK. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I want to support this but the article is barely beyond a stub, and needs considerable expansion. However the importance is undeniable... at the risk of stating the obvious, extinction is forever, and this was a notable and very large mammal. Jusdafax 06:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly oppose: I would support the extinction of a large vertebrate species, but this is only a subspecies. It is essentially the local extinction of Diceros bicornis from part of its range that has been announced, and that, while sad, is not big enough. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Support, but only if the blurb says 'extinct in the wild'. It still exists in captivity. (this was based on a misreading of a news report, sorry) Whilst we certainly can't post every extinction, rhinos have long been synonymous with conservation efforts, so I think losing this subspecies is symbolically important. Modest Genius talk 09:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Leaning support, per MG. This would definitely be a minority topic. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree that the article could be expanded, but think it is enough. Ideally, if anyone has time, the contents should be merged with Black Rhinoceros, then we can link to that instead. --FormerIP (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How about making a 'subspecies' section in Black Rhino, a paragraph on each per WP:SUMMARY, making sure that the Western Black Rhino includes the cited stuff on extinction, and then making Black Rhino the bold link? Modest Genius talk 15:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin McE. This is one of four subspecies of one of five species of rhinos, and many of the other species are not actually endangered. JimSukwutput 17:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Despite its being a subspecies, it's still as said above almost a poster-animal for conservation. It was the most notable part of the recent IUCN update. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support internationally notable, and would slightly balance the homo sapiens bias. It follows the local extinction of the Javan Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus) in Vietnam (Guardian). --Elekhh (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is pretty big news and we rarely feature conservation stories on ITN. Nightw 09:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Black Rhinoceros now has this content, albeit in quite a short section. Not ideal, but this seems to have plenty of support and despite what the timer says we haven't posted a new story for more than 24 hours. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 17:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning of imminent report

This is not the complete item but Greece is about to have a new Prime Minister after the resignation of the current Prime Minister. Be ready in the next minutes for the official announcement. Journalists in Greece are already sure. -- (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the heads-up. Deterence Talk 12:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard the rumours of who it will be too (Lucas Papademos), but then again a few days ago there were equivalent rumours about someone else. Stick to the official announcement. Modest Genius talk 12:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Lucas Papademos named as new Greek prime minister" - BBC. Deterence Talk 12:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Formal nomination made above. Deterence Talk 12:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

November 9

[Posted] Penn State University scandal

The story is already halfway down the template and this conversation's productivity is starting to wane, and our efforts could be better spent on other nominations on this page. If it really must be discussed further, take it to WT:ITN. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Joe Paterno (talk, history) and Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: Penn State University president Graham Spanier and head football coach Joe Paterno are fired in response to a child sexual abuse scandal. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN BBC CBC

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Obviously becoming one of the biggest scandals in the history of college sports, if not sports in general. Affects one of the most legendary and beloved coaches in the history of the game. Should be mentioned in passing, even if we have to wait until Parteno officially reigns. Secret account 19:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Would someone please find Lihaas a bloody spell-checker. Deterence Talk 22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Can I just prevent the inevitable removal of the ready tag by Lihaas by kindly asking him let another user judge if it really not is ready? –HTD 05:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I won't go so far as to say the articles aren't updated, but I would say they could use with a bit more substantial updating...perhaps a couple lines in Paterno's article about outside reactions to his announcing of his retirement. Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral Please avoid the word "winningest" in the blurb if possible. It may be established among US sports writers, but it looks very odd to the rest of us. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 4:24 pm, Today (UTC−5)
  • Oppose Even though there were pre-emptive strikes against what I'm about to write over in Wikipedia talk:In the news, one really must still ask what impact will this have outside an amateur sport of interest only inside the USA? Maybe a sound answer to this question could even sway my vote, but hyped up garbage like "...if not sports in general" from a nominator never will. That just demonstrates a complete absence of global perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with some of that sentiment. I couldn't care less about this story since I've heard precisely nothing about it, but I was tempted to oppose simply because of those WT:ITN comments. Attempting to portray opposers as unreasonable even in advance of a nomination is extremely bad form. The fact it was felt necessary suggest weaknesses in the case for posting, not that it is somehow exceptionally meritorious. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC).
I don't think Jayron and HTD meant to offend anyone or question anyone's motives. I think they were just feeling trepidation that we were about to have the "American sports argument" for the 500th time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say I am glad that I was wrong, but the length of the discussion tells me otherwise lol –HTD 02:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry. It may be a ballache that people outside the US don't care about college football, but they don't. --FormerIP (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It is very difficult for an outsider to judge the notability of a scandal involving a leading figure in a sport that only really exists in one country. But, this does look like a simple criminal/ethics issue of the sort that occurs countless times every day. Such items are not worthy of ITN, no matter what sport/industry they tarnish (with the obvious exception of leading public officials). Oh, for the love of God, do not use the word "winningest" if you wish to be taken seriously. I won't oppose this item candidate for ITN, if for no other reason than it illustrates what a douche-bag this "legend" really is for standing back and letting a co-worker continue to sexually assault children. Deterence Talk 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • One last comment he's the highest paid state employee in the state of Pennsylvania if that changes anyone's mind. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A football coach? That just pisses me off. Deterence Talk 22:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Highest paid state employee"? That's appalling. Maybe THAT should be the ITN item. Does the state hire any scientists? HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well the New York Times and National Public Radio are comparing it to the Catholic church scandal [36], [37] the Associated Press is saying that no college scandal can compare to this [38], and so forth. (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Paterno being the highest paid state employee wouldn't be news, since the same situation exists in many states across the U.S. Though their salaries, like Paterno's, aren't paid by taxes or public money.Boznia 00:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "their salaries ... aren't paid by taxes or public money", that is extremely disingenuous accounting, to say the least. Deterence Talk 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  •'s fairly straightforward. Athletic department revenues from ticket sales, TV contracts, etc, and donations from private citizens to the athletic department pay their salaries.Boznia 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Let's face it...he's a legend in the sport. No coaches in the sport have ever had more success than him. I would support his retirement even if it wasn't with these extra newsworthy circumstances. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral If this ends up on the main page, please take the word "winningest" out, to people outside the US it sounds like a "word" a five-year-old would make up because they don't know any different, and there are far better ways of phrasing it. Black Kite (t) 23:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is huge. It was the lead story on all three network news broadcasts today. It's the top story in the New York Times and there are 13,388 Google News hits. Joe Paterno is possibly the best-known living sports coach in America and the most famous person in Pennsylvania. ("The King of Pennsylvania" according to an NYT headline.) He's been in charge of one of America's biggest football programs since 1966. Jayron suggested on the talk page it would be like Alex Ferguson resigning due to a sex scandal in the UK. This story is far from over -- the whole university administration may go down. But there's a lot of reader interest in this now, the story is getting a ton of media play and there won't be a better single point at which to put it on ITN. There were 85,000 hits for Joe Paterno yesterday. Waiting until January when far fewer people are looking for information on this would be kind of dumb. By the way, by "winningest" they mean he's won more games than any other coach in major college football.
Other stories: BBC, SkySports, column in Toronto Star -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I sort of guessed what the word means, but it's not used anywhere outside of US sports journalism and it looks lazy and unprofessional - if you need to say that someone has won more games than anyone else, then say it. This is the Main Page of a top ten website, not a sports blog. Also "agrees to step down in the end of the 2011 Penn State football" isn't even grammatically correct either. Black Kite (t) 00:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, no problem with that. Black Kite (t) 00:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Bleh, I thought winningest was a very common term in the English language, until I saw the spell checker on Firefox, it's used all over sports journalism that's why I got so used to the word. I was typing the blurb on Internet Explorer at my work place as well, so I didn't double check. I agree that Mwalcoff blurb is better. Secret account 00:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • ...and maybe that highlights the whole problem with this nomination. It reads like tabloid sports journalism. I cannot imagine the resignation of a coach in my country's biggest football code being nominated here, no matter what the reason. Yes, it would be big news here, even on the front page of the tabloid papers, but I would not expect any American editor to support it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Umm... This is on the front page of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. It's in The Christian Science Monitor. It's on Bloomberg. It led all three network news shows, as mentioned above. These are all very "serious" media, not tabloids (or sports media). This is not your typical sports story, any more than the Catholic Church abuse scandals were your typical religion story. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I dunno; as someone said above, if this story is equivalent, say, to Alex Ferguson being implicated in something similar, then fine ... having said that, that story would be front page news not only in the UK but most of the way round the world, as opposed to only in the US. Black Kite (t) 00:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, not in the US... But anyway, I think what Jayron meant was this is as big in the US as Ferguson resigning due to a scandal involving raping children would be in the UK. There's no question that Ferguson is a bigger figure globally than Paterno is, but we're still way past the threshold in terms of enough reader interest for the Paterno/Sandusky item to fly. Yes, half our readers don't care, but I'm sure 90% of them don't care about the NYC marathon or Russian unmanned space mission. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Winningest" is not a word in the English language. And this story has not left the shores of America, ergo, not notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Nothing that happens in America is notable unless people overseas care about it? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in any country, IMO, should be included in ITN if it is not cared about - in the broadest sense; I'm not necessarily saying it has to be major news - in any other country. --FormerIP (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree about that... If we can post an item that is of interest to 5% of Wikipedia readers spread across the world, I think we can post something that is of interest to 25% of the readers even if they're all in one country. But anyway, Canada is a separate country. And one of the rationales for ITN is to point out to readers articles they might not have been looking for but are quality content that may turn out to interest them. I think this story fits that bill for Europeans. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

      • You will not find this story anywhere in any print editions of serious UK or European newspapers. It's a story that has not left the US, other than here. So, your statement is pretty accurate. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm sure many of our readers would be offended at the notion that nothing in America is important unless Europeans care about it. Would you say nothing in Europe is notable unless Americans care about it? We can say goodbye to the annual Eurovision entry then. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Not sure about that; here in the UK, I found The Guardian, and Daily Mail in 2 minutes. Black Kite (t) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
            • We're never going to agree. I'll just leave my objection here. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of hits from Mexican media: [39]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - It's a big story both in and out of the world of sports, and both in and outside the USA. ITN-worthy, in my view. Jusdafax 03:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if the reports that he's actually out immediately now are true. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • confirmed. Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Changing the blurb to reflect the latest news. Press conference shown live on CNN. Currently the lead story on websites of CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, USA Today... -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Paterno is an icon of college football, and either his dismissal or the scandal would be notable enough individually to justify inclusion. Add them together, and it's almost a no-brainer. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The football angle isn't all that vital here; this is the 10th largest university in the U.S., one of the Public Ivies and the coverup to this scanadal has led to the firing and resignation of the University President, Athletic Director, several other prominent officials, and, incidentally, JoPa. The Beeb thinks it important enough, given this story is running on their main page right now. Worldwide interest is demonstrated, article is decent, I say run with this. --Jayron32 04:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
How many times do I have to point this out? The BBC tailors its front page based on IP geolocation. Just because it's on the front page in your country does not mean it is anywhere else in the world. It's not even at the top of the US/Canada section as seen from the UK. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • As an aside, propose the following blurb:
    Several major university officials are fired or resign from Pennsylvania State University in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal.
    This skips the sports angle altogether; this is so much bigger than sports that I don't think that should be emphasized here at all. This is about a major sex abuse scandal that has brought down the entire administration of a major university. --Jayron32 04:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support if the blurb is reworked to emphasize University President Graham Spanier rather than football coach Joe Paterno. OCNative (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I believe that the firing of the most successful coach in NCAA history - who served as head coach for 46 years at one of the ten largest universities in the United States - is notable enough for itn. If there was a football equivilent I do not believe there would be so much protests. The fact that he does not coach professional football is irrelevant, in my opinion, as he argurably was more well known than most NFL coaches. As for the international criteria, this has made headlines all across Canada (both the abuse scandal and his resignation/firing). --PlasmaTwa2 04:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is essentially a US domestic story, not of wider interest, so the bar has to be higher as a consequence, and we're not even talking about professional sport here. Would this even be considered if it was the Oxford or Cambridge rowing teams? I strongly doubt it and college sport doesn't get any higher profile than that. The current headline is a mess and too broad a target to consider too. Where is the main bold article? We have no idea. How then can we consider it? At the very least the headline needs trimming for length and the number of links trimming. The very last thing that should be done is wedge yet something else in as suggested above. If you have to link too many terms that implies a lack of familiarity with the story is expected from the users, in which case that surely weakens the very case for inclusion. Flying Llamas (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    Flying Llamas (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If this counts, it's a trending topic on Twitter in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. That's like 84% of the population of North America. College sports does have a higher profile in the U.S. (and a few other countries) than in the UK; for example, college football games have higher TV viewership than the Stanley Cup Finals. The article on Joe Paterno had 85.4k views yesterday. –HTD 04:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Suggest bolding the Joe Paterno article, which is updated sufficiently, to make it the main article in the blurb. Jusdafax 04:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are people quoting hit-counts as if they have any relevance? I guarantee that the Britney Spears or Kim Kardashian hit-counts would dwarf them all - does that mean we'll be posting Kim Kardashian's divorce on ITN? Deterence Talk 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it's surprising that this story received so much frontpage attention in the U.S. I think we have way too many sports-related items on ITN. I think it's ridiculous that the highest paid state-employee in Pennsylvania is a football coach. But none of that has anything to do with this item's notability, which IMO is fairly well-established. JimSukwutput 05:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted I'm a bit surprised at the support this got, especially because of the hyperbole at WT:ITN, but OK. -- tariqabjotu 06:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Bravo for putting the picture of the University President with the story and for the blurb placing the president first. A university president resigning at a major research institution over a child molestation scandal is an ITN-worthy story. OCNative (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that it was Joe Paterno's extraordinary prestige within America's football industry that made this story notable for the yanks. Who cares about some administrative bureaucrat? Deterence Talk 07:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This saddens me. It would have looked a lot healthier if this had been posted by someone who was not an American, especially an American directly associated with another tertiary institution. Hard to believe it was an objective judgement given the number of clear opposes above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yeah, and I'm also male. I also like watching football. I've also been to Pennsylvania, and to Penn State. Twice. I also watch Law and Order: SVU, which deals with sexual abuse. (They even had an episode with a similar plot earlier this season!) Yup, you got me. Never mind that I twice explicitly, including in my posting statement, expressed disdain for this nomination; this was an inside job. -- tariqabjotu 07:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • So, you posted simply on the basis of popular vote? I didn't think we voted here. Surely these decisions are supposed to be based on quality of argument? Where was that in this case? HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that it being posted by an American, who I never seen edit any American sports articles, and who goes to a college that doesn't even have college football and has nothing to do with Penn State mattered. Plus consensus was forming that it was more than an typical American sports headline, with the administration of the university, which is one of the biggest in the U.S. put into question. If the same thing happened in Harvard or Cambridge, or any other "Major" world university that their administration is covering up a similar scandal that was formed by a notable faculty member, and controversy and major media coverage happens, it would have made ITN without any objections. But because it is related to an American sport, there's the typical objections. Secret account 08:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • To be fair, I haven't updated my userpage in ages -- I go to Stanford now -- and they most certainly have college football (as I'm sure you know). Also, Penn State is no Harvard or Cambridge. -- tariqabjotu 08:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Penn State is still a top 50 World University according to Academic Ranking of World Universities, and 51st in The Times rankingthough not in the top 10 like those two. It is also considered among the top public universities in the country. We not talking about a typical university. Secret account 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Berkeley ranked at #2 and Oxford barely scrapes into the top 10? Evidently, that list is total crap. Deterence Talk 08:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Secret - show us how many non-Americans are part of this alleged forming consensus. (And surely we should wait until it has actually "formed".) I certainly wasn't part of it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Post-posting oppose. The coach of an amateur university team gets fired? So what? This isn't even the top level of the sport. The discussion about the relative academic merits of the university above doesn't seem relevant to me. Modest Genius talk 10:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh and I don't think that 'this is only of interest in the US' is a good reason to oppose, which is an argument which has been used several times in the above discussion. Modest Genius talk 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not just "only of interest in the US" that's the issue. The fans, mostly (if not all) American, don't seem all that good explaining to us non-Americans why it's important at all. I posted earlier that I wouldn't expect a similar event in even the biggest sport in my country to be posted, so why this one? HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW - "It just IS important" won't convince me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess it'll depend if a similar event in the AFL gets to be mentioned a homepage story at the BBC website. –HTD 10:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
As has been noted above, the BBC alters its main page depending on the location of your IP. I certainly don't see it on the BBC homepage. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm neither on the U.S. or Europe, and it's linked on the BBC homepage above the fold. –HTD 10:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm in New Zealand. I don't know how these things work, but this story is merely a text link in a list of "other stories" when I go to BBC. But, I'm not sure how relevant even this much attention is worth, given that such a scandalous story was always going to attract significant media attention simply because of its ready-made sensationalism for moronic Joe Public to feed on. Deterence Talk 11:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently we see the same version, so it can be argued that this is newsworthy. I was going to say we'd follow the ITN criteria, only to find out the criteria is pretty much nonexistent. I fail to see why a scandalous story is automatically excluded from ITN -- after all, this is the BBC, the stuff people listen on the radio for fear of punishment on some parts of the world, and not News of the World. If the BBC finds this as worthy to be linked in their homepage, above the fold, along with the situation in Greece, it's probably no laughing matter. –HTD 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that, none of the stories current on the BBC homepage qualify for ITN (with the possible exception being the story about the stalled economic growth of the Eurozone, and I've long since given-up hoping that stories about the Eurozone debt crisis will get enough support to be posted). Deterence Talk 11:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • On the Eurozone, a blurb about it was posted last week, because maybe the FA was too long and they needed extra ITN blurbs that's why it was included. –HTD 15:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Dumbass move Whoever posted the photo to the front page with this WP:BLP violating hook should realise that they posted an image, with BLP violating vandalism photos still visible. Is anyone bothering to check such things before the absolute crap that was on the image page is posted to the front page? The violating images have now been deleted -- surprisingly they last for THREE years before being reported by myself. It was a completely stupid move to post that image to the front page as it was. Be more careful in future. Russavia Let's dialogue 10:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • How embarrassing. Can we at least trim the blurb? --FormerIP (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:ERRORS is probably the best place to suggest wording changes. SpencerT♦C 02:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose. This scandal seems to be of no significant interest outside of the U.S, Canada and Britain. This differs from the scandal with Rod Blagojevich and other such regional stories which enjoyed more global interest and were posted on ITN. Irrespective of media coverage, the significance of the event per se is unclear. Does it have a chance to really change anything in the world, at least in the U.S? GreyHood Talk 17:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Another post-posting oppose. It's of absolutely no interest to people in Britain either, for what it's worth. There is no global interest in this story. (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Time to pull this? (my personal opinion is that this should not be on ITN as it contains BLP issues and coach is not the same as a politician on executive position.) --Tone 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And I still cannot see how a scandal in the, what, fourth biggest sport in one country(?) should have even been considered for mention here. This really is making Wikipedia look like appallingly US biased rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The Anti-US bias is really annoying from many. Someone above mentioned Oxford rowing, and you know what, if they did have a scandal of this magnitude I guarantee there would be a bunch of support on here for that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The fact that people are still treating this as only a sports story shows how ignorant they are. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Calling people ignorant will not make them less so. Ignorance can be cured. Please try to do it. Much of my criticism here has been of the way a lot of Americans editors here won't actually present arguments but seem to think the rest of the world should just know why this is important. Well, some of us cannot see it. But I am always happy to be educated. DO please try, rather than just abusing. So, start with the perspective of an Australian who wouldn't expect a scandal in his country's BIGGEST sport to appear here. Why should this one about the US's fourth(?) biggest appear? HiLo48 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's been noted above several times that this is getting substantial press in Canada, which makes it "international" (which isn't a criteria anyway, but that's another issue). Also, Jayron pointed out above and Johnsemlak below that this also involves the resignation of the president of one of the biggest and highest ranked universities in the world, which goes to my point that this isn't just about a major figure in the fourth biggest US sport resigning. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you realise that you completed that post with yet another statement of what this is not? I wish you could explain what it IS. Why DID the president resign? Was HE the paedophile? And there have been several posts arguing the status of this university. How about presenting an actual factual case?— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs)
It's about the cover-up of a child sex abuse scandal at a major university. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really a major university, is it? Unless you think it's major simply by merit of being American. (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You must be kidding me. Penn State has nearly a hundred thousand students (45000 in one campus) and is considered one of the top public undergraduate institutions in the country, and also hosts numerous top-ranked graduate departments. I see where some of the oppose comments are coming from, but to say that PSU is not a "major university" is nonsense, and to imply that only an American would see this way is downright ridiculous. JimSukwutput 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Jim, it's highly likely "that only an American would see this way". The rest of the world simply doesn't mix major sport and universities the way the USA does. Only an American, or someone who has gone to a lot of trouble to understand this unique American approach, could be expected to understand. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not American and I don't give a damn about college sports. I was responding to the IP's comment implying that only an American would think PSU is a major university. If you want to familiarize yourself with the case as you seem to indicate above, the bolded article is a good starting point, and college football is an excellent article.JimSukwutput 02:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Jim, it'd probably do you well to outright ignore HiLo's comments. There are legitimate remarks here and even legitimate remarks that suggest this item is too U.S.-oriented, but HiLo's persistent anti-American trolling at every opportunity has basically devalued his remarks, even if actually relevant, to zero. And, I, for one, categorically ignore his remarks, especially when the United States is involved, when making decisions about ITN items. No doubt, HiLo will silently walk away from this sub-thread, rather than acknowledge the embarrassment of suggesting that only Americans would hold a view that an apparently Indonesian (or Indonesia-based) editor holds. He thrives off his confirmation bias. -- tariqabjotu 03:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_37#Topic_ban.3F Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I sort of see Greyhood's point above but this is certainly a big story. It's the 10th largest university in the US having its president has been sacked and a major sports icon sacked. The issue itself (child abuse is volatile and will certainly be of interest to people with no interest in the sport. Finally, global interest is not and ITN prerequisite.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Update BBC reports that "Penn State students have gone on the rampage after Joe Paterno ... was sacked amid a child abuse scandal. ... After the firings, thousands of students gathered outside a university administration building, chanting "Hell no, Joe won't go" and "We want Joe back"." (with VIDEO) Just to be clear, there are thousands of students protesting/rioting in SUPPORT of the man who stood back and did almost nothing to stop the rape of children by a co-worker. Pennsylvania just entered my s***-list. Deterence Talk 20:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • But what about your shitlist? And let me speak in defense of Pennsylvania: Penn State is in Pennsyltucky. The two separate areas that make up Pennsylvania are still vaguely sane. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not to mention it is the most read article in BBC right now. Secret account 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, that's done by region. Not even on the list as I see it from the UK. Modest Genius talk 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No sign of it on the BBC site from here in Australia. Can we drop that claim now please? HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't see any consensus reading above, and I was surprised to find this on the front page. A college sports coach was fired for covering up child abuse. No matter how great his reputation is, it's not really altogether unique news. It happened and is localised to just one higher education institution, unlike say the apparently comparable Vatican scandal where abuses popped up in multiple countries and coverups were seen by some to reach the Vatican. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • LOL 7000 rioters close a port in Oakland, CA: not notable. Global "Indigent/Occupy" protests: insignificant. A guy who might have known something about some child abuse allegations by an amateur sports coach: "OMG SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT". How absurd. -- (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Embarrassing, so much more than this happening in the world... a sad day for Wikipedia. --Elekhh (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If you think there are more notable events going on right now, help nominate them instead of complaining. (I'm serious - we do need more nominations). JimSukwutput 02:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Sheesh. All this complaining is sort of crazy. The story is almost certainly more followed than any of the other stories up there now. Joe Paterno was enormously famous and was one of the longest-serving head coaches ever in any major sport (45 years), particularly for a single team. Graham Spanier, the fired university president, had a 16-year tenure, which is exceptionally long for a contemporary university president. There's no lack of international reporting on it: The Guardian saw fit to report 10-12 articles on it. In addition to the massive U.S. coverage, the BBC reported on it, as mentioned above (Article 1, Article 2). Here are seven articles on the Toronto Star, Canada's widest-circulating newspaper. (Some wire services in Canada, but mostly original reporting in Britain). Now, I'm not saying this should remain up for a week or even three days, but certainly this deserves some Main Page play. Neutralitytalk 02:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Major news story comparable to the Catholic church sex abuse cases that have been posted. Additionally, the US Department of Education is getting involved and taking action [40]. Coverage in Australia, France, India, and Ghana among other places. SpencerT♦C 02:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose: I'm American and I think it's absurd something so parochial has been posted. Same level as the Catholic Church scandals? Something that was global and lasted for decades among dozens if not hundreds of people? Give me a break! Epic fail for Wikipedia. Cjs2111 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose: Sorry, but not a major thing outside the US. Websites from several countries can be listed, but that does not mean it has received prominent coverage there as a notable event. For example, an Indian website is quoted above, but this is practically a "Meanwhile, in the USA.." story here in India. This was not mentioned as a headline in a news bulletin or in a prominent place in any of the Indian news websites. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Not a major thing outside the US" is not in and of itself a valid criterion for an Oppose. The cancellation of a Sumo basho was not a major thing outside of Japan--it was still posted to ITN. I'm not posting this as a Support but I am seeing a lot of intellectually dishonest Oppose arguments. This is not just a report about a "football coach being fired"--the University President was also ousted and the Athletic Director and another administrator are under indictment for perjury. Also the idea that Penn State is "not a major university" is absurd on its surface. As for the Oxford or Cambridge rowing teams...if such a scandal resulted in the resignation or firing of an Oxford or Cambridge University President, then you can absolutely be sure that it would be proposed for ITN. (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Being "mentioned as a headline in a news bulletin or in a prominent place in any of the Indian news websites." was, is, and will never be a part of the ITN criteria. –HTD 05:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Completely agree. I was merely making a point that just because there is a news report from a country, that does not imply it has received prominent coverage in that country. And to respond to, "notability" is a criteria and if it is not generally notable outside a particular country, it gives a reasonable (may be not conclusive) estimation of its notability. If the allegation of intellectual dishonesty is directed at me (given that the quote was from my comment), I resent that - If my arguments are shown to be crap - I'll accept that they are crap, but not that they were intellectually dishonest. Because when I'm making them right now, I completely stand by them. As of now, I firmly believe that this is not notable to an international audience. Which is why I am opposing it. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The point was it received coverage in that country; no one is suggesting it was covered prominently there. Is the Liberian presidential election I suggested has an international audience? I'd even argue this one fits ITN's one of purposes: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them"; you might say "ZOMG! A college coach failed to report to the police sexual abuse by one his staff to one of his students, was fired, and the university president was fired too?!" Sounds tabloidy but real news agencies covered it. We just follow their lead, otherwise we're making up what stories should be newsworthy and we shouldn't do that because that's not our business. –HTD 08:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
[Posted] Penn State scandal (section break)
  • By the way It'd be great if the people complaining about this nomination were to work on an article that could unseat this one's position from the top of ITN. Without it, we would have gone 57 hours without a new item right now. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • LOL that is what I do (nominate) when they don't like a current blurb. Bury it with new ones lol –HTD 06:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - purely a US domestic issue. These individuals are not known outside US.

Olegwiki (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Please pull this. There's hardly a consensus to post. It's not even the paedophilia case being posted, it's the sacking of some university coaches! How is that news?! Nightw 10:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. I could count 12 supports vs 11 opposes here, with few people indirectly voicing their neutrality, support or oppose. GreyHood Talk 10:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Commment It is not a !Vote, it is consensus doktorb wordsdeeds 10:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Commment Yes, but the existing shares of support/opposes indicate the lack of a proper consensus, especially given the contentious nature of the subject. GreyHood Talk 10:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I counted 13 supports vs 15 opposes, but mine was done pretty quickly. Either way, it's not a consensus to post. Nightw 10:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
          • It was 10-5 in favor at the time of posting. After the fact opposes are generally ignored because its more likely someone will come to this page and say "Why is that story about X on here" than "Good job, please keep that story up" Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
          • I just came here to read the background of how this story got to the front-page of wikipedia. Best discussion I've seen in a while here! This story isn't notable outside the USA. Fig (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
            As our criteria clearly state, not notable outside the US is not grounds for exclusion. The majority of arguments for oppose seem to focus on that point. And, it's a dubious argument at best. Almost nobody has actually bothered to cite evidence that it's not notable outside the US. Mwalcoff and a few others posted very convincing evidence that the story is at least getting coverage in many places outside the US. It really seems to me that many people living outside the US are reading 'I haven't seen coverage of this myself' as not notable outside the US. I'll switch to support myself. If it were just a college football story I might not feel that way but this is much bigger than that clearly. We can debate how significant Pennsylvania State University is but it is a very large university at 45,000 on a single campus (are there stats on how that would rank worldwide, as a single campus?). It's president (not some lower 'administrative bureaucrat') and an iconic and record-setting coach have both been fired and a deep and long-running pattern of child abuse has been revealed. A google search shows many hits to news stories covering this both in the US and abroad. The first hit on my search was this article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The child abuse angle here clearly makes this highly notable, and will likely go down in history as one of the major such scandals over the last few decades.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
            • But it's not the sex crimes being posted. It's the sacking of some coaches for not reporting it. Nightw 15:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
              • There's only one coach (the other is the head of the university). And to Johnsemlak its about 49th in the world, but there are a lot of "open enrollment" schools above it on the list. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
                Nightw, Jerry Sandusky child sexual abuse scandal is the bolded article. The fallout of the scandal, which includes the sacking of a university president, and a coach, is the climax of it. The sex scandal and the cover-up, which implicates both of the above, are what's being posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: This discussion is four times longer than the actual article! –HTD 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose: If the president and head association football coach of Beijing Normal University or the University of Durham were fired, would we even consider putting it up on ITN? We can debate whether or not the fact that Paterno was the highest-paid state employee, or that the whole aspect of many state universities in that country seems to be a feeder for professional sports, but the fact it that it isn't important in any quantifiable way. The head coach and president of the 10th largest university (and innumerably lower ranked) in a country that represents 3% of the world's population were fired. So what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simfan34 (talkcontribs) 15:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • To anyone whose opposed based on the hypothetical "this wouldn't get posted at X non-American college" I ask you to show me a similar scandal that merited this much attention and wasn't posted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Congratulations This nomination has almost 7,900 words, more than many sub-articles. We've all done ourselves a great service. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Imagine if all the energy spent whining here could instead be spent updating articles, commenting on other nominations, etc. I can see why this is a controversial post, but seriously guys, get over it. JimSukwutput 20:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

2011 WSOP Main Event Winner

Articles: 2011 World Series of Poker (talk, history) and Pius Heinz (talk, history)
Blurb: Pius Heinz outlasted over 6800 other players to win the 2011 World Series of Poker Main Event becoming the first World Champion from Germany. (Post)
News source(s):

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 WSOP Main Event champion is the most prestigious poker tournament in the world. Almost 7000 people entered this years event from over 70 countries to compete in the event. This years final table had representatives from 7 different countries and the prize is the largest prize in any invidiual competition. Due to the popularity of the WSOP, ESPN has increased coverage of tournament and had near live broadcasts of the hands (15 minute delay) for much of the tournament. -----Balloonman Poppa Balloon 15:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Think it's mind-boggling that we consider this significant enough to be ITNR. But ITNR it is. The Pius Heinz article is really only a stub, though, and needs significant expansion before we can post. --FormerIP (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment This event should be struck from ITNR. A glorified card game is not notable doktorb wordsdeeds 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Two things: RE Pius, I've asked WP:POKER to expand the article as I can't do it right now.
As for it being significant enough why? We have the US Chicken Wing Eating Competition and every single Rugby title ITN. This is THE tournament in Poker. It is not a "glorified game" any more than soccer/tennis/golf/rugby/etc. Poker is huge (although a little hurt after Black Friday). Over the past few years there have been over 28[41] different TV series in the US alone about poker. Online Poker Revenue was around 7 Billion dollars in 2010 and an estimated 55 million people play poker.
At the 2011 WSOP there were players from over 90 countries (70+ in the ME) and over 68,000 entrants into the various tournaments and a prize pool close to 200 Million dollars.
The competition is so popular that ESPN doubled its coverage this year (after increasing it each of the last 3 or 4 years!) According to espn, the 2011 viewership experienced double digit growth over 2010[42].[43] 80 Million people watch the WSOP on espn annually[44] While official numbers are not in, it was estimated that between 10-30 million people globally would tune into online the Final Table coverage.[45] If this were nothing more than a "glorified game" then ESPN would not have won an Emmy for its 2009 coverage of the WSOP ME Final Table or be nominated again in 2010.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Coverage of this is in: CNN, Sky News, USA Today, MSNBC, CBS, ESPN, Bloomberg, Washington Post, Las Vegas Sun, Tulsa World, All Headline News, Seattle Times, International Business Times, NBC, Marketwatch, Houston Chronicle, Fox Sports, Las Vegas Review Journal, Bleecher Report, Peoria Journal Star, SignOnSandiego, Albany Times Union, TheNewsTribune, Turkish Press, ABC News, Deseret News, Reno Gazette Journal, AP, Greenfield Daily Reporter, Greenwich Time, BBC News, San Fran Chronicle, San Antonio express, The Chronicle, eTaiwan News, Huffington Post, etc. This is just a partial list of reliable sources that cover this "glorified game."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is somehow confusing, lots of tables and different events, but it does not state clearly what was going on this time. Also, the winner's article is really short. I may support better articles, but not at this point... --Tone 18:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the guidance on length for an article? I'll work on them this evening when I get home from work. (I suspect more news sources to carry the event tomorrow as well, because the event concluded at 3:30 am today, thus too late for East Coast and European countries.)---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, for non-standard ITN nominations, such as in this case, an excellent an informative article can sometimes tip the scale ;-) --Tone 18:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Pius Heinz has been expanded... working on the other.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The WSOP ME is a little different from Darts. Most of the tournament is done in June-July. Only the final table returns in November. In theory this is supposed to build up suspense and minimize the lag between the game play and the results---it used to be that ESPN's coverage was 4 months behind so by the time ESPN broadcasted the winner everybody knew who it was. By moving the final table to November, they hoped to accomodate ESPN to make it more prestigious. So they delayed the final table so that people wouldn't hear who won the event. This year, for the first time, ESPN had near "live" coverage available online (15 minute delay). Talk before the tourney was that online viewership might exceed 10 million in the US and another 10-20 million globably... but I can't find any numbers right yet. As for some hit numbers, let's make sure we are talking apples to apples: for 2011 WSOP July 36K, June 20K... PLUS 2011 World Series of Poker results 21K July and 20K in June... PLUS WSOP in June 201K and July 201K. If you look at the staying power of the WSOP articles, you will see that they keep their numbers up (the dart articles drop down rapidly showing a lack of sustainability.)
As for international flavor... 90 countries were represented at this tournament---about 1/3 of the Main Event were non-Americans. International coverage is on the rise, with the WSOP issuing more international press credentials than ever before. The final table (9 players) had 7 different countries represented. 4 of the 5 past WSOP champs have been non-Americans.
Coverage exists outside the US, here are just a few of the searches that I did on "2011 WSOP", I could have possibly found more using other terms:
Arabic [46] 17,200
Chinese (simplified) [47] 81,900
Chinese (traditional) [48] 48,600
French [49] 7,910,000 <--this number is probably artificially inflated as France hosted the World Series of Poker Europe this year, so a fair number of those hits are probably about the WSOPE.
German [50] 409,000
Swedish [51] 145,000
Turkish [52] 21,200
Korean [53] 30,800
Italian [54] 284,000
Russian [55] 700,000
Spanish [56] 368,000
Vietnamese [57] 42,400
Finnish [58] 38,300---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 20:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think people here can support posting a sporting event that was not carried live on its home country, in basic cable. –HTD 03:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
That eliminates most boxing and MMA events... America's cup and other events... but Poker isn't covered on a delayed basis because it isn't notable, but rather because a poker tournament takes days to play. The Heads up portion of this event lasted almost 6 hours. TV coverage is thus edited to capture the highlights.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well of course Boxing After Dark fights won't pass ITN standards (whatever they may be) but fights such as Manny Pacquiao vs. Ricky Hatton (what could've been the first boxing bout posted on ITN, as I needed a Brit to last 2 rounds vs Pacquiao as Pacquiao-De La Hoya was laughingly opposed to death lol) which was aired live on PPV was posted. The America's Cup might've been aired live in NZL (not sure on that), and cricket matches take days to finish, and they're aired live. –HTD 10:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support it's ITNR and gets coverage as shown above. But neither article is updated. The article on the event lacks a prose update, and the other is too short. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Commercial TV pap. Obviously not a sport, so such comparisons are meaningless. Is Monopoly next? Should not be here or in ITN/R. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Then why is chess a sport? Poker has lots more professional players than chess. --hydrox (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Poker isn't a sport... it's a competition.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 06:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's doesn't matter what it is except an ITN/R item. If it shouldn't be on ITN, it needs to be removed from ITN/R first. The whole point of ITN/R is to avoid having these silly debates every time a recurring item like this comes up. Start a discussion there rather than here to see what happens. --Jayron32 06:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support I have no notability concerns, but article is in dire need of major updating: playing history and personal history. --hydrox (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Not Ready Poker tournaments are a hell of a lot more gripping than the vast majority of meat-head sports, but, our support for this item is irrelevant. It's ITN/R and the only thing that matters is the quality of the article's updates. They need some updating and they're a bit confusing for readers who are unfamiliar with the terms and organisation of poker tournaments. Deterence Talk 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Conditional support While I am a huge fan of poker and would love to see the WSOP on ITN, I do think the relevant pages could be improved. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Pius Heinz has been updated. The 2011 WSOP article has been worked on. I'm going to add more later, but it's been improved.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 07:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The last big WSOP tournament got a 0.5 rating for the final on ESPN, compared with around 12 for a Monday Night Football game. Sorry, but this is not a major spectator sports event. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Is viewership the criteria??? If so, then many of the Rugby events which are ITN would be eliminated, as would table tennis, pool, chess, etc. Viewership is not the primary indicator of notability or importance. Also, ITN serves two purposes 1) it raises issues that are everywhere in the news and 2) it raises issues that are of importance to various communities that might be overlooked by some. With the popularity of Poker around the world, this is one of those trivia items that people have curiosity interest that they might otherwise miss.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 03:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Mwalcoff, your support or opposition is completely irrelevant. The only criteria that matters is whether the updates of the article meet the standard of ITN/R. Deterence Talk 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with that conclusion. Articles are always posted based on consensus. While ITN/R articles can be posted faster, if issues are brought up with its inclusion the posting can be stalled or even removed from ITN/R. Mamyles (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course the posting of ITN/R items can be delayed, especially if the updates of those articles are insufficient (it happens all the time - just look at this year's Nobel Prizes fiasco). But, issues of notability (or lack thereof) cannot be used in ITN/C to block the posting of ITN/R. As for removing topics from ITN/R, this is most certainly not the place for that. Deterence Talk 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Articles are updated, and it's on ITNR. Looks like a go to me... --Jayron32 04:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Winner of a card game is not my cup of tea for ITN. Strongly suggest we ignore ITNR and pass over this item. Suggest ITNR be modified asap to remove this event. Jusdafax 06:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
No opinion on the merits of the item, but when was this added to ITNR? I don't remember seeing it before, and as has been noted above this has never previously been posted. Modest Genius talk 10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support of course. Especially as updated. Biggest poker event. I wonder how it received oppose votes.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What update are people talking about? -- tariqabjotu 21:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The update is that some of the people who opposed at the top did so before the Pius Heinz article was anything more than a short stub and the 2011 WSOP article had one section of prose followed by the various tables. Both articles have since been worked on and expanded.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 01:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In the grand scheme of things, a minor sport. Mwalcoff's point that the last final got a rating of 0.5, compared to a rating of 12 for an ordinary Monday Night Football game, is meaningful. Neutralitytalk 02:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are not many who will watch poker hours long... so what?--♫GoP♫TCN 10:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As a Kiwi, I exercised some considerable restraint in not mentioning that ;-) Deterence Talk 11:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

[stale] Nigeria attacks

Article: 2011 Damaturu attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 100 people are killed in a series of attacks in northern Nigeria (Post)

Nominator's comments: Minority iopc in Africa>?Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a cultural minority topic, regardless of how you look at it. Period. --Tone 12:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not a minority topic. –HTD 10:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
culturrally africa is less represented.Lihaas (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If I was an African I'd be deeply offended if attacks such as this one is "culture". –HTD 10:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
WP is not to cater to sensitivities.Lihaas (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
My point is: how can this be cultural? Senseless killing is culture? –HTD 11:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, thats be your western pov, an secondly its the regionLihaas (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
So you are actually invoking this article about senseless killing as a cultural minority topic? –HTD 11:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This is no more a cultural minority topic than America's use of drones to bomb suspected Islamic militants on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is a cultural minority topic. Deterence Talk 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
see articleLihaas (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Support, the article is in decent shape. --Tone 12:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Rather obvious notability. The nomination could have done with a proper reference to source(s) and without that futile tangent about minority topics. Deterence Talk 13:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: According to the articles the attacks took place on the fourth, not the eighth. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. JimSukwutput 18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The news is from November 4 though, so it should be posted quick before it gets stale. GreyHood Talk 21:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    • For the reason above, marking ready. Hope this is OK. GreyHood Talk 21:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
this is more updated and ready than JF's death! just that hot stop doesnt want to go what he disagrees with!Lihaas (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is stale. This happened on November 4; in fact this was moved on the November 4 section but it was soon archived. Dunno why this is here again. –HTD 14:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Because it had support for the sam eready and yet with a bigger update wasntposted , though Joe demise was with crap all for an uptdate. Timer is up so a few hours could do too.Lihaas (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
and hot stop editorial view[] doesnt mark consensus or any authority whatsoeverLihaas (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Lihaas, it's too late for this from a technical point of view. When we add the next item, the earliest item in the box will be 6th November. But this happened on 4th November. --FormerIP (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose If this goes in the correct position it will be at best the last item on the template, and the supports above were for the previous nomination, not this one. To make matters worse, the copied previous discussion has been manipulated: my comments, which were essentially neutral were omitted. Finally, it has been repeatedly marker ready by its nominator.
The essential problem here is that it was nominated late. Too bad - that ship has sailed now: there is a reason we archive candidates five days after the event. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

November 2011 Van earthquake

 --♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Quoth the BBC article: 'Last month, a 7.2-magnitude quake in the same area killed 600 people.' I assume we posted that? Modest Genius talk 15:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Ya we did, but 7 deaths for a aftershock is a big number. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The main quake was notable enough for ITN. This is not. It doesn't matter whether it was an aftershock or not, it only matters whether the earthquake killed "a lot" of people (which IMO, should be 100+). HurricaneFan25 15:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Update Death toll now at 11. But, this tragedy simply isn't sufficiently notable to warrant a posting in ITN. Deterence Talk 08:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

November 8

Liberian general election, 2011

  • This is ITNR and the article, at first look, looks OK. –HTD 03:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Still awaiting the results of the second round (which was indeed held on 8 November). Modest Genius talk 11:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Launch of Fobos-Grunt

Article: Fobos-Grunt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian Phobos sample return mission Fobos-Grunt (spacecraft model pictured) and Chinese Mars orbiter Yinghuo-1 are launched from Baikonur. (Post)
News source(s):

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: First planetary mission from Russia since the 90s.--Hektor (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Another reason for significance: it's the first ever sample-return mission to a natural satellite of another planet (previous sample return missions were to the earth's moon and an asteroid) and, if successful, it will be the first mission to return a macroscopic (more than a few grams) sample since Luna 24. Perhaps blurb could be modified to reflect this? It's a very significant event. Nanobear (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. So far the launch seems to be successful. Modified the blurb a bit. GreyHood Talk 21:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support, especially if the sample-return aspect is emphasised. Modest Genius talk 21:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Posting. Let's wait half a day before changing the picture. --Tone 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Can the blurb be updated to include the fact that the spacecraft has failed to depart Earth orbit?[59] (for the record this is a spacecraft failure not a launch failure, and whilst it is unclear whether the spacecraft can be recovered it is a significant anomaly) --GW 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Roscosmos says they have three days for amending the situation. GreyHood Talk 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh bugger. Hopefully it will get fixed in the next few days, but I'm not optimistic. English-language source for the failure: Washington Post. Not sure how to incorporate this into the blurb without making it very long though. Modest Genius talk 09:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it could be just a software problem, so there's a good chance the mission can still be saved. Let's keep the current blurb for 1-2 days, and see if the first attempt to retry firing propulsion unit will be successful. If not, we can then change the blurb to reflect the fact that the probe is still stuck in initial Earth orbit. Let's not be too hasty; the blurb is still correct per se ("the mission was launched"), and WP is not a news service. Nanobear (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The spacecraft failure is ongoing and may well result in the vehicle burning up on re-entry. Last I read, the Russians had lost all contact. I'd say the blurb either needs an update (it is a big craft and the contents are toxic) or should at least be pulled from the Main Page asap. Jusdafax 05:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to do anything rash. It looks like the mission's success or failure won't be determined until well after the blurb has rotated off the main page in a day or two. A future ITN mention may be warranted if the thing comes crashing back down to Earth in a few weeks, depending on how and where it lands. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Read this recently updated BBC article [60] and see if you still agree. Bong, our ITN blurb is as stale as three day old bread, and makes ITN look uninformed and/or foolish. This quote from the BBC is serious: "The Russian Interfax news agency reported a space industry source on Friday as saying: "Several attempts have been made overnight to receive telemetry from the spacecraft. The result of all of them was nothing. The chance that the station could be saved is very, very slim," the translation from BBC Monitoring said. This needs prompt attention, in my view. Jusdafax 06:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should modify the blurb to make it clear that the craft has failed, but am not sure how to do that withuot making it excessively long. I don't think it should be pulled, because the failure in itself is a significant event. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is still a chance to save the spacecraft, and very soon it will go off the template anyway. GreyHood Talk 18:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Launch of Nord Stream

Article: Nord Stream (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Natural gas pipeline Nord Stream is officially opened in Lubmin. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Nord Stream is the shortest route to deliver the Russian natural gas to Western Europe.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied original nomination and alternative from WP:ITN/FE:

ALT1: Russia starts commercial natural gas deliveries to Europe via the Nord Stream, the world's longest submerged pipeline. (changed the blurb) GreyHood Talk 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, for GreyHood's blurb. --bender235 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and support new blurb if it fits. Marking minority topic as tech/infrastructure. --hydrox (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Moderately costly infrastructure project with a lot of political and environmental controversies. JimSukwutput 18:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 18:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that the present blurb does not describe the event in a proper way. It reads like an opening of some pipe in a German city, while in fact it is the world's longest submerged pipeline spanning most of the Baltic Sea, highly important for Russia and half of Europe. And we usually highlight the world records or at least the main technical parameters such as length when we post infrastructure items. Also, this is not the first or only opening and inauguration of the pipeline (though it is the main one), there was already an official opening/inauguration in September when Russia started piping technical gas into the pipe. That's the reasoning for my blurb:
Russia starts commercial natural gas deliveries to Europe via the Nord Stream, the world's longest submerged pipeline.
I should notice that Beagel's blurb is also better than the present one, even though there were also representatives of France and the Netherlands, not only Russia and Germany, and it is better to avoid mentioning controversial controversy. GreyHood Talk 19:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
And yes, post-posting support for the record. I'll copy the comment above to WP:ERRORS. GreyHood Talk 19:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, this event happened after Joe Frazier's death, so they should be re-arranged in the template. And could we post the map after some time? GreyHood Talk 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, replacing the text. The map is not very informative on such a small scale (cca 100px), so let's keep the present one. Also moving to the top spot, chronologically. --Tone 21:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The map indeed is not the best one... GreyHood Talk 21:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Support ALT1 - better to tell what that pipeline is and that its the longest undersea.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
+Western Europe (-Europe). I don't need to point out the geography right? (I will put this in Errors to)--Alcea setosa (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Fixed by Floquenbeam. --Alcea setosa (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Western-Europe is correct. Otherwise we suggest that Russia is not a part of Europe. Beagel (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Note to self: any news items that have something to do with the President of the Russian Federation usually have free good-quality press images under Creative Commons available at (realized this too late for ITN image :) --hydrox (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Joe Frazier

Article: Joe Frazier (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American Boxer Joe Frazier dies at age 67 (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sports Illustrated
Article updated

Now let's see someone oppose this. –HTD 04:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly leaning towards it. Have you read the article's death section? Its straightforwardness is blinding. Nightw 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That oppose doesn't really count anyway as we can't post anything w/o an update unless it's... –HTD 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, once sufficiently updated. One of boxing's all-time greats. Jenks24 (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Joe Frazier meets one of the requisite criteria for ITN/DC: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." I don't give a rat's fart about boxing but even I know he's "one of the greats". Deterence Talk 06:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support No hesitation at all. One of the leading members of his profession doktorb wordsdeeds 07:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Frasier was a champion when there weren't multiple world champions in each division as there are today due the appalling nature of the sport's administration these days. Truly worthy. (I don't enjoy boxing either.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support - One of the world's most succesful and famous icons with an article in fine shape, should be on the Main Page asap. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
support major player in his field, and was gonna nom myself.
Ofcourse thats penidng a sutaibel update of more than 1 line.Lihaas (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Going to post when there is some more update. Of course, the length of the update should be proportional to the length of the article, so that we don't run into WP:UNDUE issue here but still it needs more than one line. --Tone 08:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!. The article needs some work; I'm working on it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes --♫GoP♫TCN 13:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support he's obviously notable. I marked ready since we've posted with less of an update. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted. So it shall be written, so it shall be   Done. --Jayron32 20:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
PULLL WHAT REASOn is that? because an admin likes it? Articles with bigger updates adre not posted (and under the same guise as hot stop). The update here is TWO LINES.)Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Because THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. A death is a death. You can also describe every last seconds, but it is WP:TRIVIA. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the GreatOrangePumpkin - sometimes there simply isn't anything else to say about the subject matter. The pointlessness of insisting on substantial updates for ITN candidates was especially evident with the recent announcements of this year's Nobel Prize laureates, where candidates were needlessly delayed for days because of the brevity of their article updates when the hard truth of the matter was that, aside from announcing (and sourcing) the award of the Nobel prizes, there simply wasn't anything else to be said. Deterence Talk 12:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[Ready] Nicaraguan prez

Article: Nicaraguan general election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Daniel Ortega is re-elected as the president of Nicaragua (Post)

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: Results should be confirmed in a day or so,Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: article currently has a cleanup tag on it. Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - significant in the region, has made press over in the UK. Clean-up tag has gone, and article looks reasonable. Shame that the detailed results haven't yet been announced, but the re-election is the story here. Warofdreams talk 14:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I was going to mark this as "Ready" but there's nothing in the text that the competent authority (presumably the Electoral Council) has declared a winner. Once someone does an update this should be good to go. –HTD 14:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've added a referenced statement that the Electoral Council has confirmed the winner. Warofdreams talk 16:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'd like a few more sentences before this becomes ready. But if there's nothing else to write about, we might as well post this. –HTD 03:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Not brilliant, but that's probably as good as we'll get right now. Marking ready. Modest Genius talk 11:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I know this is not prerequisite but I think it'd be a bad idea to post it before Ortega's article is updated as well... --Tone 12:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

November 7

Conrad Murray

Article: Trial of Conrad Murray (talk, history)
Blurb: Michael Jackson's personal physician Conrad Murray is found guilty of manslaughter in connection to his death. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article has a "needs more citations tag". If that proves unfixable the Death of Michael Jackson article could be used instead.--FormerIP (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - definitly for itn. -- previously unsigned comment added by BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Please try to provide at least some rational while participating, or your vote may be ignored per WP:!VOTE Mamyles (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. What significance does this have? People are convicted of manslaughter every day, the only difference here is that the victim was a celebrity. So what? Modest Genius talk 21:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Groan. I knew someone would make that oppose. --FormerIP (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Groan. That post adds nothing to the discussion. Modest Genius has stated a relevant fact. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really. Everything that happens to people that we post on ITN is stuff that happens to people every day. They get a new job, they win a race, they get shot. It's the context that counts. The difference is that the victim was a celerity, and quite a big celebrity. So what? So it is newsworthy. --FormerIP (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - If Casey Anthony can get on ITN, so can Conrad Murray. - Presidentman [[User

talk:Presidentman|talk]]·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Who? (and yes, I did look that up after being confused, but there's no ITN tag on the talk page either; was that ever on ITN?) Modest Genius talk 22:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I just checked in the archive: it was not. Modest Genius talk 23:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose we're not into celebrity crap. FYI, Casey Anthony wasn't added. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the world isn't into celebrity tabloids. That's entirely a local issue, even years after a major English-speaking singer's death. Mamyles (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the kind of celebrity driven nonsense which should feature, at most, in the "current affairs" section of Wikipedia. This is not front page news. It is associated with a very famous person, but fame does not always equal notability, as many Wiki arguments down the years have proven. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Little value, we're not a tabloid. HurricaneFan25 00:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess today we'll have the distinction of being the only organisation in the world that provides news but isn't a tabloid, then. Really hard groan. --FormerIP (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess that we are an organisation which understands that this news story is just the development of a celebrity based story, and as such is not notable in and of itself. I cannot think of any other context in which we'd put the result of a court case like this on the front page. In current affairs, yes, that fits. But the front page? That would provide far more credence to a piece of showbiz doktorb wordsdeeds 06:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support One of the most well-known global musicians is found to have been killed by a doctor that committed involuntary manslaughter. I doubt we'd be debating the topic back in the day if it were Elvis's doctor that had just been found guilty, or if it were Mark David Chapman getting banged up. Moronic opposes fuelled by bias. Disregard them. Pyrrhus16 01:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You were doing so well until calling people "moronic". It is not moronic to point out that this conviction is just a minor continuation of a story which petered out years ago, outside the pages of the tabloid press. Wiki gives front page prominence to important developments in current affairs. This is not important, a development, and only just falls into the broad definition of 'current affairs' doktorb wordsdeeds 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Precedent-setting verdict on the liability of doctors in supporting the habits of drug-addicted superstars, regardless of mean motive or end intention. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Hurricane. WikifanBe nice 03:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am pretty surprised that the death itself wasn't posted (according to the archives at least), but the trial and conviction is pretty meaningless to most readers, probably the exception would be ardent fans. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
MJ's death was posted, I am not sure how it is with archives from back then but I know we don't have them for some current months already, if anyone wants some barnstars... ;-) Regarding this nomination, I oppose on the reasons presented above. --Tone 12:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose that is not news. This was discussed several times, and it was since his death self-evident that he was at fault for contaminating him, and he was the only person near Jackson.--♫GoP♫TCN 13:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Come on guys, this is Michael Jackson's death we're talking about, not some random celebrity. And the fact that someone turns out to be responsible for his death is certainly not "tabloid" material. People in this section know I'm generally against posting interest-based news items like this. But even I can recognize that there's a huge gap in consistency if we continue to post accidental deaths of motorcyclists and not the fact that the biggest pop star on the planet was killed by someone else. JimSukwutput 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
No, we posted his death a few years ago, this is the trial of a doctor. That's all.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I must agree that the oppose arguments posted so far are invalid. Michael Jackson's death is the most notable death in the last 10 years at least. His article had the most views in a day in the history of WP I believe. It's ridiculous to simply classify this as 'celebrity news' and oppose. And it's standard in court cases to wait for the conviction to post.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but are we posting Jackson's death or trial of a doctor? --♫GoP♫TCN 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a conviction related to the death of Michael Jackson, which in fact reveals (in part) the cause of the death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New Guatemalan prez

Article: Guatemalan general election, 2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Otto Pérez Molina is elected as the new president of Guatemala (Post)

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: Results should be confirmed in a day or so,Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is already official. I'd say, though, that the article on Molina is not great. It doesn't follow WP:LEAD and the biography is very thin. Given that he is a politician, you would expect it to go into detail about what his political positions are, how he has done in previous elections and how he has managed the feat of founding a new political party and gaining enough popularity to be elected president within the space of ten years.--FormerIP (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
True, an di guess you mean like Humala's article...but the bolded link is the election article.Lihaas (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

New Greek govt

Article: Greek_economy_referendum#Government formation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou resigns amidst a financial crisis leading to the appointment of X as prime minister. (Post)

Nominator's comments: Agreement reachesd on formation of new govt, tomorrow the announcement for who will lead it. (probs Venizelos). Thats 4/5 PIIGS that have/having election in 2011=2012...italy should soon make it all 5`Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Wait Evidently, the political situation in Greece is very fluid these days - there has been all manner of back-tracking (by media and the politicians themselves) and policy changes about everything from referenda to resignations to coalition formations to support/opposition for austerity measures. These days, 24 hours is a very long time in Greek politics. Deterence Talk 22:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support when it happens Obviously Mr. X would make an excellent PM. Additional sources L.A Times Greek PM will step down Monday CBS news Greek PM to step downTachfin (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Mr Ξ"? --FormerIP (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support when official It's still a bit foggy in details – who will be the next PM etc. – but speculation had it new PM could be inaugurated already this week (UTC). Evangelos Venizelos has been fitting the crown, but the situation in Greece is so volatile that it could change any minute. --hydrox (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Right now, the nomination is moot. There is no doubt, of course, that it will be posted. However, unless we know the exact details or whether or not it will actually occur, neither a post nor a substantial article update can be made.--WaltCip (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
update new pm announced.Lihaas (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Said to be Lucas Papademos, currently a visiting professor of public policy at Harvard. But the agreement seems to have met some opposition. source. JimSukwutput 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Papademos' name has been thrown around for a few days but nothing has been confirmed. These days, predictions regarding contemporary Greek politics aren't worth the paper the media pretenders write them on. I maintain that we should wait. Deterence Talk 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
To be announced today, apparently BBC. We still need to wait until something concrete is confirmed. Modest Genius talk 09:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

November 6

[Posted] New York Marathon

Article: New York City Marathon#2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Kenyan Geoffrey Mutai wins the New York City Marathon in record time. (Post)
News source(s): [61]

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.

 --FormerIP (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2011 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Important sports news as the New York Marathon is regularly among the strongest in the calendar season. It is also listed as ITNR.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
support is just needs a source. (which i now added)Lihaas (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ready Article is updated and sourced, per ITN/R. Deterence Talk 22:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 Colombia landslide

Article: 2011 Colombia floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A landslide kills 18 in Manizales, Colombia, as a result of the recent flooding. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

 --Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Major landslide and the toll is still rising, though potentially insignificant compared to ongoing flooding in the region. ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Update Death toll raised to 18. Deterence Talk 22:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  Done Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
hmm, split on this. while we generally seem to pick by severity of casualties this would not match, but its also a minority topic with the oft neglected Latam region.Lihaas (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support With 93 fatalities (and rising) and 69,000+ people rendered homeless, the 2011 Colombia floods appear to be sufficiently notable for ITN. Deterence Talk 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
i would then support, but we need a cite for the fact tagLihaas (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  Done Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 20:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is a stub, and the update is a couple sentences. The attention given to the article, and that flooding occurred last year as well, suggests that it is not so notable. Mamyles (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You have to wonder just how many people know someone/are someone from Colombia, have a computer, know english, and know how to edit wikipedia. As for everybody else in the weather department, if you may, they've been hard at work with all this crazy weather. When the snow storms stop, the tornadoes start. Then it's the hurricanes. There is no time for wikipedians who care about weather to deal about something like this. (What is rain compared to the Joplin tornado?) However, the weather has seemed to stop (besides a few droughts and some others), and this is the biggest weather event right now. And where are the wikipedians? Taking a breather. My god, we had snow already, and we just started November! Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 02:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Posting. There's enough update. Modifying the blurb slightly. --Tone 08:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Iceberg discovered calving in Antarctica

Articles: Pine Island Glacier (talk, history) and West Antarctica (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An iceberg the size of Berlin is discovered calving in front of the Pine Island Glacier (PIG) in West Antarctica. (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph
Possibly. Where is the article? --Tone 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a minority topic. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The glacier itself could be the article, and this is the first major calving event there since 2001. ~AH1 (discuss!) 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to the video in The telegraph source, "these things happen on a semi-regular basis...". Deterence Talk 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
contradictory repsonse from Deterence and AstroHurricane01...not sure which is true. if the latter is right then support otherwise oppose. Lihaas (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
They are only semi-regular in that calving events occur once every few years. I'm getting somewhat variable reports on the size of this block: New Zealand Herald puts it at 900 sq km, Fox News at 880 sq km and the Christian Science Monitor at 780 sq km. FOX suggests that the last "significant" calving was in 2001, from which the space photos are available here, and the iceberg that calved was about 715 sq km. The exact size of this one is likely to be 800 - 850 sq km when it does calve, though I did forget to mention that the last calving actually took place in 2007, with an area of about 680 sq km. Regular observations show calving events roughly every 5 – 10 years, though this latest one is (or will be) the largest in more than 10 years. However, this particular glacier potentially merits more attention than the recent Mertz Glacier break-off (2,545 sq km), and perhaps even the Larsen B ice shelf collapse (3,250 sq km), simply because Pine Island Bay is one of Antarctica's biggest contributors to land ice loss. In 1995, it released about 2.6 cubic km of meltwater into the ocean per year, a rate with increased to 10.1 cubic km in 2006; the rate was 6 gigatonnes in 2005 (AP via NZ Herald) and increased to 46 gigatonnes sometime between 2007 and 2010 (see the article on glacier). My research indicates that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet loses a total of 132 - 196 billion tonnes of meltwater per year, so the Pine Island Glacier alone contributes a significant sum of that, and this calving is likely to further increase melting. New discoveries continue to be made in the region, including this one of a deep warm-water channel underneath the glacier in 2009. ~AH1 (discuss!) 03:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

MTV Music Awards

Article: 2011 MTV Europe Music Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2011 MTV Europe Music Awards take place in Belfast. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
We never post MTV Music Awards. Grammys yes. --Tone 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
We've never posted the MTV Video Music Awards but the MTV Europe Music Awards is undeniably more international. </end trolling> –HTD 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose first of all, who won, also not a seriously major award that is almost within the line of the Brit Awards. How does the EMA compared to the Grammys, IMO nowhere in their league. The VMA is much more bigger award in comparison to the European one that is why I never saw the EMA as a serious award. Donnie Park (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    Dunno about the EMAs, but on the VMAs, it doesn't matter who won. –HTD 19:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I remember the days when the winners of music awards were determined by record sales and the quality of their craft... *nostalgic sigh* Deterence Talk 20:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • MTV awards shows were never about record sales and the quality of their craft. –HTD 04:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose MTV is no longer relevant. Lugnuts (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

El Hierro eruption

I don't have much more than I put on the talk page for El Hierro here Talk:El_Hierro#Eruption_Underway - but it looks interesting at the moment, and quite likely to have a new island/chunk of island breach the sea's surface today. I know the article's not well fleshed out, and that there is no update at the moment on the actual eruption etc, but I thought I'd flag it up now as it's likely to hit the English speaking news shortly. It's only made AFP due to people being evacuated so far. EdwardLane (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing much seems to have happened so far, and given that the eruption has been going on for some days without major impact I doubt it will. Modest Genius talk 13:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's just taking its time - here's some news footage -spanish language of the underwater eruption that's very close to the nearby port.EdwardLane (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a tiny village, and whilst the eruption certainly seems interesting it has had relatively little impact, at least thus far. Modest Genius talk 12:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

November 5

November 4