Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2012

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

Contents

November 30Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 30

Israeli settlementsEdit

Article: Israeli_settlements#Palestinian_Statehood_bid_of_2011 (talk, history)
Blurb: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approves the building of 3,000 new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Keeeith (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think it's relevant as it's Israeli response to the setback at the UN.

November 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 29

Ricky PontingEdit

Article: Ricky Ponting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Australian Test Match cricket captain Ricky Ponting announces his retirement from cricket after playing in his 168th Test Match.
News source(s): BBC Sport
Nominator: Lugnuts (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This will probably be as popular as picking Mitchell Johnson to play in the next Ashes series (BAM!), but I think the retirement of one of the greatest cricketers off all time (2nd highest amount of Test Match runs behind Tendulker and joint 2nd highest amount of Tests played) may justify the frontpage inclusion. Also, the article is of a very high quality too, so promoting our hard work can only be good too, yes? --Lugnuts (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of those guys (and from what I can tell, neither of them captained their country), but I thought there might be some sort of precedent. Oh well (that's not a withdraw, BTW - consensus could change...) Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever seen a single "retirement announced" nomination succeed. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I've never heard of Ponting either; it's a good thing we don't determine eligibility for posting based on whether or not we've heard of the subject, yes? As for captaining a country, national significance tends to outweigh international significance for sports nominations - remember that the Gaelic Football Championship is ITN:R.--WaltCip (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
And your point is? We still don't do retirements, however strongly you want to disagree with things I haven't said. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Protip: Indentation generally indicates who an editor is responding to in discussions. You can usually also tell based on the content of someone's comment. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, was wondering why he 'hadn't' indented, lol. Wasn't immediately clear how he is responding to the Lugnuts though. My Bad. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
We posted Yao Ming retirement, and we posted Paterno, but that is mainly because of the scandal that forced his retirement, and came after a ITN bloodbath. We might have posted one or two others so there is some consensus to post dealing with the topic. Farve retirement situation became a joke retiring and unretiring and retiring again, thus he's not a good example for a comparison. I don't know much about cricket to decide on this posting however. Secret account 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He has NOT retired from cricket, he has retired from Test cricket--he'll still likely play in the lucrative 20/20 cricket. There is very little precedence for posting retirements--I'd think we'd need something bigger than this. I'd support Alex Ferguson retiring.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd also support Sachin Tendulkar retiring. With cricket however it's a bit tricky since cricketers usually retire gradually from various levels of the game.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Further oppose based on the update--while it probably is long enough it needs to be cleaned up a bit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose retirements of sports figures shouldn't be posted. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if this was a retirement from all forms of cricket, I would still oppose due to fear of setting a precedent we later regret.

    I can't see this being posted, but I'll explain my reasoning for the benefit of those who aren't sure whether or not to nominate other retirements in future. Don Bradman would be setting the bar too high, but the problem with going much lower is that there are too many other sportsmen of a similar age who could make a similarly strong case for posting. Sticking to cricket, Ponting was an extremely successful captain despite his Ashes record, but should we also have posted all of Graeme Smith, Steve Waugh, Michael Vaughan and Andrew Strauss? Batting wise he's in the class of Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid and Kallis, but should we post all of their retirements? Most of the second list were captains, and most of the first list were fantastic batsmen. And that's not even considering people from other sports with a comparable or level of interest from the English-speaking world.

    I would definitely support Alex Ferguson – almost certainly the best manager or head coach in any sport in the last generation and a half, and to my knowledge he has never appeared on the Main Page. The only other person I would probably support would be Roger Federer, due to the general consensus on his status within tennis – but even then I'd have a second thought due to his prior prominence on ITN. I might have considered Michael Schumacher in 2006, Tiger Woods had he called it a day a few years ago, and there may be comparable figures to the above in sports that I'm less interested in. For what it's worth I would vote against Tendulkar, on the basis that we posted the two things that set him apart from Ponting.

    Sorry for the long-winded post, but I hope that helps others understand where I come from on sporting retirements. —WFCFL wishlist 08:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - not a worldwide popular sport..not of world interest.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    BabbaQ, that's a puzzling post. I think you know what you said isn't true.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    Quite true actually. Cricket is only popular on most the teams that made it to the Cricket World Cup Super 8 -- 12 countries in all, if you consider the West Indies as one "country", and I dunno if it's that popular in the likes of Kenya and Ireland. The rest of the world: zip, probably except for UAE. You can also argue the same on other "international" sports such as rugby union and baseball. –HTD 12:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with the point the way you put it HTD but I still think cricket qualifies as 'world-wide interest' with the stipulations you point out. Like you say it's on a level of global popularity similar to baseball or rugby, with the added fact that it's the top sport in a country with a billion people.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    I'm just privy to the word "world-wide" and "global" as that means at least someone anywhere must've seen the sport being played, or even better, played the sport. I'm ok with "international" to describe cricket but "global" and "world-wide" is pushing it. India isn't exactly the world, and outside of South Asia, the West Indies, England and SANZA it has close to zero coverage. –HTD 14:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    (Note that I'm not suggesting ITN should limit its choices on articles that have "global" or "world-wide" interest as those are as few as the number of cricket teams in, say, Ecuador and Indonesia put together. –HTD 14:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC))
  • Support: The retirements of highest level icon players are benchmark setting moments in any sport. Ponting, together with Tendulkar and Lara are described as the holy trinity of batting for this concluding generation. He is one of only three players in history to have scored 13,000 Test runs (we didnt post Dravid though). Statistically, he is the most successful captain of all time. Ponting is also the without much debate, second best Australian batsman since the Don. He holds the records for most test runs by any Australian batsman ever, so with his retirement a benchmark has been set to those two records. He also retired such that he only equaled and not surprised Steve Waugh's record for most Test caps, and he also chose to retire with the 2013 Ashes in sight. All of these add up to what can be reasonably described as an important development in the sport. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support second greatest Test batsman in history in a sport which reaches over a couple of billion people, and a damn sight more interesting than most of the detritus here at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Retirements are not as notable as deaths, and only should be posted for the best athlete of an international sport. Otherwise, people like Nicklas Lidstrom, who was recently rejected, would be posted. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This will reach out to a very large audience, and its pretty notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support One of the most prominent men in cricket and by some measure a notable figure in sports history doktorb wordsdeeds 16:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose 37 year old athlete retires is not newsworthy outside of the niche world of that sport. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
So a 37 year old president being elected would not be newsworthy outside of the niche world of that country? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, while I remain opposed to the posting of Ricky Ponting's , cricket is as big in India as NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL combined in North America, or football, cricket and both codes of rugby combined in the British Isles. It's about as niche as a staple food. —WFCFL wishlist 10:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Life sentence for poemEdit

Article: Mohammed al-Ajami (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Qatari author Mohammed al-Ajami is given a life sentence for a poem insulting the emir.
News source(s): Washington Post, RT, New York Times, BBC News
Nominator: Khazar2 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Per Associated Press, "the latest blow from a widening clampdown on perceived dissent across the Gulf Arab states." An interesting case with detailed international coverage. --Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Qualified oppose. Unfortunately this sort of thing is not uncommon in much of the world. I'm not seeing the significance of this instance of being jailed for what one wrote; is this an award-winning poet, or in some other way significant? I oppose this for now, unless there is something significant about it that I am missing. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have contrary information? Amnesty International doesn't paint this as exception, and I'd expect them to if it were. They do say that "Qatar has strictly controlled ... freedom of expression with regard to criticism of its own government", which suggests to me that jailing a poet is just a variation on a common theme.--Chaser (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My (limited) understanding is that it's an unusual and high-profile case for Qatar, which is the home of Al Jazeera and is moving toward its first democratic elections. Admittedly a longshot, but I figured, what's the last time we had any Qatari news? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
@331dot What award could a Qatari poet possibly win that would justify their significance? The giving of such an award to a Qatari poet would be exceptional (it has virtually no freedom of expression) and he can hardly be opposed on the basis of having no award. Are awards routinely given to Qatari poets? --86.40.196.115 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My point wasn't that he did or did not get any awards; my point was that there doesn't seem to be anything noteworthy about him other than this incident, and (unfortunately) jailing people for what they write is a common occurrence in Qatar, and other places. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The article on Ajami doesn't establish his notability prior to the sentencing. Were Henry VIII to have beheaded William Blake for writing the Jabberwocky, that would be ITNworthy. None of this seems to have any sort of prior notability. That could be changed if the poet's article can be improved. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment You are comparing a past example with the present. Henry VIII and William Blake and Jabberwocky are instantly recognisable to us today. A modern-day poet cannot be expected to be instantly recognisable in the same way during their own lifetime no matter where they are from. --86.40.196.115 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, all three were notable in their day and when published--and nothing in this guys article when my first comment was made shows anything about prior notability. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
How on earth could he be expected to become notable if he's from a country where you get locked up for writing a poem? That anyone has heard of him at all is remarkable in the circumstances. --86.40.196.115 (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why not put some of that energy into the poor guy's article? Or is it that you just like to argue? μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Were Henry VIII to have beheaded William Blake for writing the Jabberwocky, that would be ITNworthy. Presumably because the discovery that William Blake apparently invented time travel – and was then beheaded 200 years before his birth for "writing" a poem that was published decades after his death – would be inherently newsworthy? 87.114.31.223 (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it was Henry VIII who invented time-travel and went forward with the intention of beheading Lewis Carroll but landed in the wrong era. Don't you know anything about history? Formerip (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Part of a Western theme of emphasizing human rights news, which is interesting but not so important in the long run. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent death: Former Indian prime minister I. K. GujralEdit

Article: I. K. Gujral (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: For recent death, he was in sorts a unity govt prime minister at a time of instability with multiple snap elections --Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for ticker. Death of a former head of government is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker since significant for obvious reasons like being a former PM.Egeymi (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Update just read the article, certainly a notable enough no-brainer for the ticker. Just please update the article first. μηδείς (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems fine to me? --hydrox (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The article needs serious work, it has multiple cn tags, and is nowhere near updated according to standards for death notices per ITN. We've had far too many otherwise good death noms (see Bryce Courtenay below) die on the vine for lack of attention by editors and noms. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support Definitely notable. --hydrox (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Not unless the dozen of 'citation needed' tags have been dealt with. The article is not in the condition to be featured on the main page. Support on grounds of notability once the verifiability issues have been solved. --RJFF (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Highly notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose simply being the former head of a government does not ensure notability. Are we really going to RD the dead of every former PM/pres/king/premiere of every country on list of sovereign states? I tried to see what made him especially notable, and the "Gujral Doctrine" was a good candidate. It even says "Main article Gujral Doctrine", except it redirects back to I. K. Gujral. If I'm wrong, please explain. I have no problem being wrong. --IP98 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I might agree with you if we were talking about the leader of San Marino, but we are talking about the former head of government for over 1.2 billion people. It's certainly notable for the deaths ticker when the person was the leader for 1/7 of this planet's population. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the ticker. Former head of government of a major country.--xanchester (t) 07:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral on notability grounds (in office for less than a year, but then again of a massive country). In borderline cases I have always advocated article quality being given quite a bit of weight, and if this discussion is a close-run thing I would hope that the admin looking at this nom does exactly that. —WFCFL wishlist 08:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
comment updated, but just need a few more sources. Ive added a lot. Perhaps the few needed can come with the posting.
Now added more sourced, just 2 left and thats not been a hindrance. Im searching for them (its quite easy and i sometimes add more to it) please add before it goes stale. Unanimous support here..
Also cant mark ready per rules, but calling on someone to check it and mark ready/postLihaas (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is not ready to be posted. I still see two "citation needed" tags. An article that does not comply with our basic principle of WP:verifiability cannot be exposed in our "showcase" (main page). --RJFF (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- Three reasons:
  • Article does have two citation needed tags, but that has rarely stopped an article from being posted, especially for just two.
  • The tags are not even in the updated section, and the criteria says "updated content must be thoroughly referenced."
  • The only article-general requirements are that there are no orange or red-level tags and the article is not a stub. This passes both. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted per the support and Bzweebl's notes on readiness. As noted, perfection is not required, and ITN is not FA. The updated content is well referenced, and the article as a whole doesn't have any (nor does it deserve any) orange or red level tags. --Jayron32 00:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Conversely, the albanian chaps article was posted which is laden with tags and no update (and wasnt even explained). Whats with the inconsistency?Lihaas (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

LevesonEdit

Articles: Press Complaints Commission (talk, history) and Leveson Inquiry (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An inquiry into the ethics of Britain's press concludes that the existing self-governing Press Complaints Commission is not fit for purpose
Alternative blurb: ​The Leveson Inquiry into the British media submits its final report.
News source(s): [1]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 14:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This seems to be just a report of findings and suggestions for changes; it is not any sort of resolution of this scandal. When these suggestions are implemented, that would be noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support with more tempered alt-blurb. This is the culmination of a long, extensive, and high-profile investigation in the UK. Is pretty UK-specific though. LukeSurl t c 18:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose just the release of a report. Politically it's a hot potato but only between Labour/Lib Dems and Conservatives. And it only (potentially) has an impact on the UK press. Interesting, but not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support alt-blurb. Actually reading the report, there is some explosive stuff, like, Bloody Sunday inquiry explosive. Looking through American news sites, WaPo and CNN (both US and Intl) currently have it on their topbars, NYT in the top editorial, and it's the top story on WSJ and MSNBC. I think there's sufficient international interest (which, I should point out again, hardly seems to be a criterion for American stories...) to warrant ITN inclusion. Sceptre (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. The international relevance of this is a bit limited, but it's not as if it has none at all. Plus, how long is it now since a blurb got posted? Not sure that the blurb is as neutral and elliptical as it could be. Formerip (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
oppose no repercussions an dpurely local. BBC wiere blamed for fabricating news and not much changed, expect much less nowLihaas (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of something else Lihass. This inquiry was almost entirely about British Newspapers (centred around the News International phone hacking scandal), not the BBC. LukeSurl t c 23:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, can't see how it passes any of the usual ITN considerations. Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If I didn't feel that we had given the phone hacking scandal sufficient coverage, I would have assertively supported this. But – despite some raised eyebrows and heated rhetoric at this story getting a sticky – we gave the phone hacking scandal the coverage it merited: multiple postings, and a sticky once the thing truly exploded (in retrospective defence of the sticky, in a period of days we had NI drop its bid to buy BSkyB, £2m compensation to Milly Dowler's family, Rebekah Brooks resigning, pie-gate, traditionally pro-Murdoch Conservatives openly condemning the scale of the thing as it emerged, and the paper closing down). The Leveson Inquiry was the inevitable consequence of the scandal, but in the context of what we already knew and have already posted, I don't think there is enough in the report to warrant posting. —WFCFL wishlist 23:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Ramush Haradinaj acquittedEdit

Article: Ramush Haradinaj (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former prime minister of Kosovo and former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army Ramush Haradinaj is acquitted by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia.
News source(s): The Telegraph. BBC, Reuters, The Guardian
Article needs updating

 --Wüstenfuchs 14:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as the resolution of a war crimes case. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support since it is significant being related to the Kosova conflict that has not been completely settled.Egeymi (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only because it is international and it has been 30 h since ITN was last updated. I could be convinced otherwise. Abductive (reasoning) 21:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an acquittal, and apparently not a shocking one. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
PULL Despite the unexplained [osting, this has virtually not update and is laden with tags.Lihaas (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the article has an entire section, well referenced, to his second trial, which is a sufficient update, and I see no orange or yellow tags at all, nor anything which would merit one based on the current text. --Jayron32 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Palestine at the UNGAEdit

 --Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Wait until it actually passes and relevant articles are updated. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - a very big deal indeed. Jusdafax 18:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if, and only if, Palestine's status changes. It's being vociferously opposed by the US and Israel which, while not surprising, would make this an interesting and globally relevant story for ITN, particularly since it paves the way to a possible official recognition from the UN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, job done. A significant moment in the history of Palestine, despite what the US and Israel want. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support once updated. Formerip (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once passed. Per all the reasons mentioned above. NickCT (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support, although it is better to give the verdict in the blurb, the event itself is certainly significant.Egeymi (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
comment Abbas just spoke and Prosor is on now...EXPECTING the vote soon..update Dne, 138-9 with 31 abstentions. Updating UNGA reactions after vote as i hear itLihaas (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The first of those articles can't be used currently. It doesn't mention this issue and shows 67/17 as being about sport. --Dweller (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I know, its a bit wrong. Im just listening live and updating the page. WIll then give a heads up when its done (less than 30)DoneLihaas (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to keep notes about what should be put in an article, you should do so on a sandbox page, not in the article itself. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think List of resolutions at the sixty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly should be linked to. It's a bit of an info-dump page that's only partly about the issue on hand. LukeSurl t c 23:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The two articles seem to be updated. Prose in the first one needs cleanup but it seems to be enough to qualify for posting. As far as the merits of the story, it's unambiguously appropriate for ITN. NULL talk
    edits
    23:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    The Results section in the resolution article is nonsense. It's more notes for helping writing the section than the section itself. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    Dodging edit conflicts, I've commented out the huge block of text that's been written for the state-by-state comments in the Results section. Some of that may be transformable into decent prose (i.e. for the most important state's comments). But for now it's best worked on in a sandbox. LukeSurl t c 00:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with alt-blurb I just proposed (more concise, linking to more relevant articles). Event is the sort of status-change that fits well into an encyclopaedia. LukeSurl t c 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support For obvious reasons. Although not much will change on the ground, Palestine is now officially recognized as a state, even if just an observer state. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the alternative wording, but believe "state" should be added: "non-member observer state status." The word "state" is the key event of this story. Fishal (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
reworded to add state and changed "garant" to "upgrade"
Also mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
support, this is big news for Palestine. However, It has already passed so we need to update the blurb. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 01:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Colombia leaves ICJEdit

 --61.245.25.5 (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support in theory. Someone please update the two articles in question, though. The treaty article is just a list and neither article mentions the new developments.130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support upon updates. A sovereign state leaving a treaty due to a dispute seems noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral with a question, being a complete outsider on this, what is the consequence of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support since it means a new combination in international relations in the region as well as in the world.Egeymi (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, tinpot dictator withdraws from toothless international court over the loss of some water territory which may contain gas and oil. Abductive (reasoning) 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Umm, yes, who is the "tinpot dictator"??? and who had withdrawn? Do you have a clue what youre talking about?Lihaas (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you? —WFCFL wishlist 03:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm engaging in what is called "rhetoric" to show how this news item will read to most people. Also, it is perfectly possible for two Latin American countries to have tinpot dictators at the same time. Anyway, my main argument is the withdrawal will not change the outcome; Columbia lost some water. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
A responsible WP editor like you should be ashamed of your ignorant and discriminative comment regarding supposedly stereotypical "tinpot dictators" in Latin America, a region that suffered bloody dictatorships and that it is struggling hard to preserve democracy against frequent destabilizations. Shame on you. (IANVS) --186.125.41.204 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support An important international relations development. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated, but open-minded on this being posted in some form. Even with the short-sentence footnote acknowledging the news, we can't seriously be talking about bolding American Treaty on Pacific Settlement. One could argue that Colombia–Nicaragua relations is the primary article, and that has not been updated *at all*. Of the two issues, Colombia [effectively] pulling out of the ICJ strikes me as being the part of the story which might warrant a posting. But even then, this should not be posted without an acceptable update to an appropriate page. —WFCFL wishlist 03:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for similar reasons as the Hungary/Armenia falling out. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Braves sign B.J. UptonEdit

Snow close. SpencerT♦C 05:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Article: B. J. Upton (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Atlanta Braves sign five-year, $75 million deal with outfielder B. J. Upton.
News source(s): USA Today, ESPN
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Major sports news. --184.36.2.53 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:SNOW- Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy close This isn't the Baseball Reference Bullpen, which I don't think would front page this. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment for the nominator: While this is a major impact in Upton's life and career, on ITN we tend to focus on World Series Championships and very rare in-game accomplishments that have a broader impact on the sport (for example, I believe we posted Mark Buehrle's perfect game in 2009). SpencerT♦C 05:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

November 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 28

Spanish banksEdit

Article: 2008–2012 Spanish financial crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Commission approves a Spanish government plan to shrink and restructure three major Spanish banks and sell a fourth.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Bzweebl (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Minority topic business news, major impact. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose The front page is not an MSNBC ticker. Wikipedia is certainly not the Financial Times. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Why MSNBC specifically?--WaltCip (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too esoteric for ITN. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Exact same comment, this is not a financial news outlet, this is not of encyclopedic importance. (And MSNBC is what my dad watches for quotes--I prefer the internet.) μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Minority criteria have been abolished for some reason (not that I would support this particular item.) --hydrox (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

November 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 27

[Posted to RD] Joseph Murray (full blurb, recent deaths if consensus not reached)Edit

Article: Joseph Murray (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American plastic surgeon and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Murray, who performed the first kidney transplant dies at 93.
News source(s): [2]
Nominator: Secret (talk • give credit)
Updater: Kennvido (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: 170.223.207.7 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Performed the first successful kidney transplant, or any human organ for that matter, impacted the lives of tens of thousands of people with his research in transplants, leader in his field with Nobel Prize win, was top story in several websites yesterday. Considering the lack of science articles in ITN and the obvious global impact of this figure, I think a full blurb would be nice here instead of "recent deaths". Secret account 01:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support in addition to the first kidney transplant, he also performed the first successful allograft. Both are pretty important. Hot Stop (Talk) 01:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A man actually worthy of a full blurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose inadequate update. For a blurb item the old DC applies. Need 5 sentences, and I would prefer some reactions from other prominent figures in the field of medicine (maybe the dean of Harvard Medical School or similar). Also the career and life sections are lacking sources. --IP98 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support recent deaths Performing the first transplant is notable for a blurb, but not the death of the man who performed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry an actor, a boxer, and a baseball executive didn't impact the world and tens of thousands of people lives unlike Murray, and except for Camacho, neither death was notable as well (I think Hagman and Camacho would have gotten full blurb main page postings in all honestly, Hagman because he was one of the most popular television actors of all-time and still acting at the time of his death, and Camacho because of his death, Miller despite his impact to American sports probably wouldn't have been in the main page). The only reason why I'm not updating Murray article myself is that I'm not a medical specialist, but the person who had made the biggest impact to making organ transplants a common place today is totally worthy of a full blurb. Secret account 07:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not denying the man's impact, but I do see more coverage on Hagman and Miller than I do on Murray. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Policy? Camacho and Hagman are still drawing quite a readership and are only 3 and 4 days old. Miller was added very quickly and probably won't get anywhere near the reader interest, which was one of the reasons for having a ticker; reader interest. I don't think this nom will have as much interest as any of the three currently listed articles, and I don't see it as blurbworthy. But I am otherwise unopposed--if we can have all four up at once. Another solution would be moving the Recent deaths link itself to right after More current events on the same line as current events and the Syria ticker, allowing more room on the line below it to fit four or five names if more than three per line is problematic. That would be my preference in general regardless of the plethora of recent noms. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- May not have reader interest equal to others on RD, but certainly is notable enough compared to the others. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
To say it is as notable but not nearly as interesting as the others is an interesting distinction to make. I still say we fit all four if this has enough support. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
In order to accommodate four or five recent deaths, I suggest we change the ticker order to:
Syrian civil war – Wikinews – More current events - Recent deaths:
Joseph Murray - Marvin Miller – Héctor Camacho – Larry Hagman
μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
You can't be serious.
(a) We don't extend ITN to ten blurbs to fit more items, so we shouldn't be artificially extending it here.
(b) Not everyone has the same resolution. Your proposal, which supposedly shows up as two lines for you, will show up as four for many others (like myself).
-- tariqabjotu 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's you who can't possibly be serious, Tariq. The line "Joseph Murray - Marvin Miller – Héctor Camacho – Larry Hagman" would be of the same length as "Recent Deaths: Marvin Miller – Héctor Camacho – Larry Hagman" which we already had. If that line wasn't already too long the new format wouldn't be either. And as for screen resolution, that's a personal choice you made when you purchased your device. Has nothing to do with rational use of space that is already dedicated and being used right now. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Now you're just being arrogant. A significant number of people, for a number of reasons, don't have ultra-high screen resolutions, and we shouldn't be backing them in a corner in order to unnecessarily (and sloppily) squeeze more content into the template. Maybe it's actually three, as the line with "Syrian civil war...Recent deaths:" is longer, but the point is, there is little informational benefit, and potentially significant aesthetic detriment. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Arrogant? You start out with saying "you can't be serious" and accuse me of arrogance? The fact is the change would have no impact whatsoever' on viewing ease, even for people who are unhappy with their internet devices, and sometimes we have more than three interesting dead people. This is an entirely rational way to accommodate that. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Your suggestion is obviously not being implemented, so there's no reason to argue this further. Feel free to create your own separate Main Page that's tailored specifically to your resolution with disregard for how it'll look for the millions of other people who visit Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
How did this thread end up under my comment? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article as a whole, especially Joseph Murray#Career, needs more references. SpencerT♦C 08:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd also be willing to support a full blurb, but only if the article text is expanded more. If more references are added but no new content, then I'm going to support only for RD. SpencerT♦C 08:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the ticker, ambivalent about a full blurb. Will wait and see how the article is expanded.--xanchester (t) 08:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for recent deaths: Murray's work has had a major impact, his death itself hasn't. He stopped operating 25 years ago. He died of old age, and a death at age 93 cannot be completely unexpected. The article does not hold much information related to the death, except the fact that it occured. The article has been expanded significantly, so this can be posted soon. --RJFF (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for recent deaths or for ITN, with article improvement. @RJFF - we hive criteria for recent deaths, and the death itself having an impact is not required. The first person to perform a vital organ transplant can't possible not qualify. Formerip (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
As you can see, I supported including Murray in the recent deaths "ticker" as well. I just gave my arguments against including him with blurb. --RJFF (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. We have criteria for including recent deaths as blurbs. That the death itself had no impact is not a valid oppose rationale, in itself. Formerip (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Posted. I'd be happy to see some more feedback on the proposed guidelines for RD (see under Miller). --Tone 15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary. There are already a large number of comments in that part of the template, and the events in the main part of the template are ordered by when they occurred, not by when they were posted. When the deaths occurred is easy enough to discover, especially if one has Popups installed. -- tariqabjotu 18:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb I think that Murray really deserves more attention as one of the most prolific surgeons, whose work and contribution earned him the Nobel Prize in Medicine. It shouldn't be undermined by his death at an old age.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unnotable Hagman, taken off the ticker, has had over 30,000 views today. Joseph Murray has had 5,000 & I haven't seen him mentioned in the press anywhere. Hagman should be back on the ticker, but, regardless, Murray simply doesn't qualify as notable enough for a full blurb nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I really dislike the circular logic of using viewing numbers as a measure of notability. I think Murray is highly notable, but should stay on the ticker rather than be given a full blurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Immediate Pull update is still totally inadequate. Once sentence! Does RD exclude an article from quality requirements?? --IP98 (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I believe there was some talk during the many debates on adding a death ticker that articles with less of an update would still qualify for it. I don't believe there's any codified criteria though. Hot Stop (Talk) 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No, there is definitely no consensus that update is unneeded. That all prior standards would still be kept was an explicit part of the discussion leading up to the approval of the death ticker. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Earl Carroll (vocalist) (recent deaths)Edit

Article: Earl Carroll (vocalist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [3][4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: He was a member of The Coasters and the lead singer of The Cadillacs. Andise1 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I fixed the article, and I still must Oppose. Article seems a bit short for my liking, I'd like it to be longer with more information before a RD. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose doesn't show he made such a major and influential impact in music to put on the recent deaths ticker, stub. Secret account 01:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral We posted Adam Yauch in the pre RD era, but he had a huge well updated article worth posting to the main page. On the other hand, we post bus crashes with articles not much longer than this. I would support for RD if a few reactions are added to his article. --IP98 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Not even close to one of the most famous singers. Most people posted should be near the top of their industries. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I love doo-wop but the article is a stub and the guy's biggest hit is Speedoo? μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, but just too minor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not important enough for the front page, blurb or not doktorb wordsdeeds 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Marvin MillerEdit

Article: Marvin Miller (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [9][10]
Nominator and updater: Muboshgu (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: This man revolutionized labor issues in professional sports --– Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for ticker Major sports figure. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support without question Extremely important not just to baseball, but to all American sports. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose...and nobody's ever heard of him doktorb wordsdeeds 17:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- I've heard of him, and he was the biggest figure in American sports labor. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I've not heard of him until today because I dont follow American sports, but he is described as "one of the two or three most important men in baseball history". It only seems fair that his death be included in the ticker (once his article gets an updated death section). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. He's a bit of a niche figure, but anyone familiar with NA sports labour negotiations and of his followers (notably Don Fehr and Bob Goodenow) knows who he is. The impact he had on the business of sport is hard to overstate. Resolute 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The update is around one sentence. Expansion is needed, then ready to post. --Tone 17:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The entire "Personal" section is new. I just added a statement from Michael Weiner, the current head of the MLBPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Posted. I'm using the format [[Marvin Miller]] <!-- November 26 --> in order to mark when the update was made. We should make some rough guidelines on the ticker, such as how many max people at the time and how long each article stays. I'd suggest max 3 people and max 4-5 days for featuring. --Tone 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Post support, not just American sports, but some non-American sports as well. The force behind free agency, arguably one of the biggest, most important business labor unionists of all-time, I'll support a full blurb as well as it seems like several very notable figures are dying around the same time (one of those times of the year). Joseph E. Murray still needs to be nominated. Secret account 01:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat exhumationEdit

Article: Yasser Arafat (talk, history)
Blurb: Yasser Arafat's body is exhumed to investigate possible poisoning.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Presidentman (talk • give credit)
Updater: Kennvido (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: KingSenna (talk • give credit) and Brossow (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Exhumation of major Palestinian leader. --Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Wait oppose this until and unless it is declared a poisoning. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose until a determination of poisoning is made. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to what I've read, the declaration of whether he was poisoned or not will occur a year after the exhumation. The testing takes a while.--xanchester (t) 03:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I agree that we should wait for the test results. --RJFF (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. You can't keep a good man down! I think the body of well-known world leader being exhumed to see if he was murdered is big enough news. Formerip (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Curious but not notable doktorb wordsdeeds 18:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait, and post if he really was poisoned. Abductive (reasoning) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

November 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 26

Governor of the Bank of EnglandEdit

Articles: bank of England (talk, history) and governor of the Bank of England (talk, history)
Blurb: Mark Carney is appointed as the first ever non-British Governor of the Bank of England
News source(s): [[11]]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I dont think being non-british is as important as him leaving his post as current bank of canada governer. -- Ashish-g55 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Carney does not take the new job until July 1st, if I am not mistaken. Don't know if that will change anyone's opinion of this item. --PlasmaTwa2 02:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I will still Oppose it as I will every one of Obama's cabinet appointments unless on of them is Morsi or Medved (and not the Movie critic). μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
That isn't even remotely related to this. --85.210.97.62 (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course that is related to this. They are both four-letter English pronouns starting with th. Or were you confused by my opposition to cabinet level appointments anywhere unless they are more notable than Incitatus? I am opposed. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, it isn't on ITNR, but we do have precedent for posting equivalent posts in the past, per [12]. The Mark Carney article has a minimum update, but it should be enough. --Jayron32 04:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
That too was a mistake. It's neither of grand public interest nor related to any article of great encyclopedic worth. I think the proper words for the audience interested in such things are "wonk" and "boffin" and and perhaps "remittance man" and feeding them on ITN amounts to systematic bias of the worse kind. The appointment of a junior league rugby coach would be a better nom. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose' for notability and lack of impact. By my guesstimation, several national banks shuffle their leadership every year, and of them almost no one greatly impacts the running of their respective institutions. While the first non-national to lead a national bank might be interesting, I don't think there's going to be much culture shock with a Canadian running a British bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment I would also like to point out that ITN is usually dominated by this sort of human interest stuff: managerial changes, catastrophes, human conflict, etc., and now there's even been a burst of sport-related ITN items. In contrast, an ITN item for "Makemake has no atmopshere" was roundly opposed for notability (a vote that I agree with), but with this current nomination in mind, I can't say whether a lack of atmosphere on Makemake is more or less interesting or encyclopedic than a change of post at the Bank of England.130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I think the fact that this will be the first foreigner in the post could be noteworthy, though the mere change in governorship isn't on its own. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support if Ben Bernanke's second term was notable enough for inclusion, this is too. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm leaning towards oppose in part because I don't know that Bernacke's reappointment should have been posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The British bank doesn't have an especially important role compared to US and some other countries. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose': for reasons elaborated by others above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Grey CupEdit

Article: 100th Grey Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Canadian football, the Toronto Argonauts defeat the Calgary Stampeders to win the 100th Grey Cup.
News source(s): [13]
Nominator: Scorpion0422 (talk • give credit)

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: It's the 100th Grey Cup, biggest game of the CFL, seems like a no brainer. For the record, however, I doubt it will be posted. It happens every year. Some user comes along and says "Oh, it's only the CFL", then some biased admin comes along and finds some silly reason not to post it despite it being listed at WP:ITN/R. -- Scorpion0422 04:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Posted, but can I please cuss out the nom for being so rude in his nomination? Please please please? --Jayron32 05:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    No, you can't, because this appears to be the first Grey Cup posted in a number of years despite it being the top level contest in its sport just as the Super Bowl, the McCarthy Cup or the Tour de France/Giro d'Italia are, and we've posted all those this year without much fuss (well, the McCarthy Cup took some arguing). GRAPPLE X 05:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    How about you and Scorpion look at the archives before spouting such nonsense? "Biased admin"? Considering I was one of the people who responded to the 99th Grey Cup, I take umbrage to this baseless accusation. Whenever I respond to an ITN/C nomination, I insist on a relevant update. For sporting events, that means some prose about the event itself. A year later, the 99th Grey Cup article still has no prose whatsoever under "Game summary". And, guess what? The 100th Grey Cup article isn't any better; I still have no idea what happened during the game, because the article doesn't say. The standards haven't changed, and they are widely published. Rather than making idiotic conspiracy claims, how about you actually fulfill the criteria for posting. If this game is so damn important, why can't someone write a paragraph about the game within a year of its occurrence? -- tariqabjotu 06:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Goodness no, they can't actually improve Wikipedia, can they? Are they actually allowed to make articles better? --Jayron32 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Not when they're too busy being sniped at by self-assured admins; you could have just posted the nom without any condescension, especially when it's quite clear that the event has been ignored on the past on an inconsistent rationale, one which is conveniently overlooked when the news is "big" enough like the below-mentioned US election, which saw no prose update when it was posted. But I can't swear you out for that, please please please, can I? GRAPPLE X 09:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    You're going with the "two wrongs make a right" argument? Jayron32 posted both items prematurely. In this instance, he merely criticised the nominator's rudeness (subsequently acknowledged to be a deliberate ploy intended to generate an emotional response that would get the item posted immediately). —David Levy 16:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    No, I'm going with the "don't act like a condescending dick about a valid point" argument; regardless of motive the nominator was rightly entitled to point out the discrepancy between when a significant update is expected and when it's waived. GRAPPLE X 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Firstly, the nominator drew no such comparison. He/she attributed past omissions to the sentiment that "Oh, it's only the CFL", combined with "some biased admin [coming] along and [finding] some silly reason not to post it" (an outright lie, self-described as a "cheap tactic" employed for the purpose of "manipulation"). No mention of article updates (let alone a double standard regarding when they're required) was made.
    Secondly, you didn't merely condemn the inconsistency; you opined that this item should have simply been posted. How is that not a "two wrongs make a right" argument?
    Thirdly, on what do you base the assertion that such a "discrepancy" (related to subject matter) exists? Again, the administrator who posted the U.S. election item prematurely also posted the Grey Cup item prematurely. The problem is that certain admins sometimes neglect to uphold the update requirement, not that certain topics are systematically favored in such a manner. —David Levy 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    I did not insist this should have automatically been posted, but that it should not be overlooked; there's a difference. Frankly I feel that sporting events and elections could be considered "updated" with a result rather than needing a meaty text update, but that has no bearing here as I didn't bring it up earlier. I simply responded to the tone of Jayron's response (strange that isn't the "two wrongs" you're picking up on as it actually is something the phrase describes) by explaining that the nominator would be expected to be tetchy given the sporting events that could be seen as being on par with this one that went up with no fuss, not demanding this be posted promptly. The fact that the same editor posted both of the stories with no updates should speak further to the baselessness of their condescending remarks, as they're the editor responsible for introducing the slippery precedent of "X was posted with no update, why wasn't Y?". As for the comparisons being drawn, the nominator lamented past Grey Cups not being posted; they weren't posted because of their lack of updates; there is now a case of recent stories being posted with no updates which seems to create a disparity between what goes up with what content. This is a pretty simple train of thought to follow without needing to spelt out. I guess I'll think twice before taking someone to task for their holier-than-thou tone in future lest I find my mouth full of someone else's words again. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not defending Jayron32's premature postings. (I await his explanation below.) I'm noting that this problem (about which I've complained on multiple occasions) has far more to do with certain administrators than it does with certain subjects. Past years' Grey Cup events weren't discriminated against because they pertained to Canadian football. The items were omitted because the nominations happened to be evaluated by admins who applied our inclusion criteria properly. Other items, whose nominations happened to be evaluated by admins who didn't apply our inclusion criteria properly, have slipped through inappropriately. I don't condone that in the slightest, but it has nothing to do with "biased admins" "find[ing] some silly reason" (as the nominator falsely claimed, without even mentioning the lack of an article update). —David Levy 22:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    It was not an "outright lie", because it DID happen last year. And I've seen plenty of cases of admins picking and choosing what they post, and I've seen several cases of one admin over-ruling the consensus of several people. It was pointing this out in the nomination that was the tactic. Either way, I'm not sure what the point of continuing this discussion is, because I can't see anything good coming of it. -- Scorpion0422 21:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    The article update requirement is plainly and unambiguously stated in the ITN inclusion criteria, and it was plainly and unambiguously cited when the item was omitted. It's appropriate to criticise the rule's inconsistent application (as I've done on multiple occasions), but your disingenuous claim that "some biased admin [came] along and [found] some silly reason" has absolutely no basis in reality. —David Levy 22:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    You insist on an update? Like what was on the US election when yu deemed it postable?Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Lihaas, I really don't know what your problem is. This is the third time you've brought this up in response to me insisting on an update. As I told you the first time, I did not post the U.S. election story, so stop mentioning it every time I say the word "update". -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Jayron32: Why did you post this item before a significant article update (including the addition of a game summary) occurred? —David Levy 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Because I am a bad person. --Jayron32 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    I've suggested nothing of the sort. I merely seek to identify the cause (in the hope of avoiding similar situations in the future). This isn't a personal attack. I've made mistakes with main page content too, and I've tried to learn from them. —David Levy 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    OK. If you're prepared for the full explanation, here it is: My goal was to see the article improved, and I thought that exposure on the main page would spur that on. The article had a bare minimum update (a few sentences in the lead and in the infobox), and the quality of the rest of the article was pretty darn good; better than a lot of the sports articles we get through here. When I posted it, I thought to myself "Well, it isn't perfect, but it is ITNR, so it would go up if there was a few more sentences of an update. What the heck, lets just post it and see if being on the main page attracts enough attention to get it expanded, since this is a really good start as an article". Or, as I explained originally, because I am a bad person. Whichever reason people wish to believe about me, I am comfortable with. I stand by the posting, both when I did it, and especially with the state it is in now. If anyone wishes to demand that my admin bit is removed for this, they are free to make that request from ArbCom. --Jayron32 04:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    [continued at User talk:Jayron32#Grey Cup] —David Levy 15:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull immediately Before anybody complains here, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of the Grey Cup being posted. But it still has to have an update just like every other article that's posted. This has absolutely no update beyond a single sentence in the lede and the changing of future tense to past tense. It doesn't even have a game summary section. Pull it, get someone that knows what the heck went on (I don't) to give it a proper update, and then if and when the article is properly updated, support. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thats no longer a reuirement, tragicallyLihaas (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    On what do you base this claim? —David Levy 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Just as a general notice, I updated the article with a game/scoring summary as well as the winners of the two MVP trophies. No doubt the article will be updated as more information (TV ratings, reaction to the game and halftime show, etc) comes in, but for now I believe I have sufficiently updated the article. --PlasmaTwa2 08:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for doing that. In the future, please cite reliable sources. (Resolute has taken care of this.) —David Levy 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, i know the whole deal about reliable sources, but to my defence the article that I used as an example did not include sources within the summary either, and it was two in the morning. Cut me some slack lol. --PlasmaTwa2 16:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    No offense intended. At least you added the summary. :) —David Levy 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And in reply to Scorpion4022, rejecting the Grey Cup on the grounds that it isn't notable enough is not a valid reason for rejection. The past articles simply have not been updated within the small timefram ITN requires (some not at all). Instead of complaining about biased admins, please feel free to update the article yourself so I don't have to stay up till 2:30 in the morning doing it myself. --PlasmaTwa2
  • For the record I knew if I made a point about past nominations being rejected it would get posted immediately. And it was. Thanks, Scorpion0422 14:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    You expressed insincere "doubt" that the item would be posted, purposely manipulating an administrator to do so prematurely? Why did you engage in such a ploy (about which you appear to be boasting)? Why did you want the blurb to go up "immediately", in the absence of a significant article update? —David Levy 16:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Expressing sincere doubt is justified, I would argue. The Grey Cup has been on ITNR for at least two/three years and has never been posted until this game. However, as I said before, this is due to a lack of update and it would have been more productive to expand the article than to complain about it. it doesn't take a whole lot of time to provide a decent update. --PlasmaTwa2 16:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Right. And this lack of updated was noted every time it wasn't posted. The attack by Scorpion was baseless, and I am rather furious that he's boasting about his baseless attack rather than retracting it. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Scorpion0422 "knew" that the complaint would cause the item to "get posted immediately", so the expression of doubt that it would be posted at all obviously was insincere. I agree with you, of course, regarding the update issue. —David Levy 16:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    I've seen many different forms of manipulation here, both by admins and nominators, so I figured it's the norm. For example, claiming an admin that posts a blurb you opposed is biased, so the blurb can be immediately pulled (such as one on the canonization of new saints a month or so back). I've seen a number of worthy blurbs not posted because some users played the politics game better than others. The difference is, I openly admit that I had to resort to such cheap tactics to get something posted. If I hadn't, the nom probably would have lingered for days before being dismissed as being outdated. -- Scorpion0422 18:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    I've seen many different forms of manipulation here, both by admins and nominators, so I figured it's the norm.
    You observed a recurring problem and decided that contributing to it was the appropriate course of action.
    For example, claiming an admin that posts a blurb you opposed is biased, so the blurb can be immediately pulled (such as one on the canonization of new saints a month or so back).
    In the discussion, the posting administrator actually supported the item two hours earlier (noting that "it's embarrassing that this isn't on the front page already"), so I don't see how one can reasonably assert that he was impartial. And that wasn't the sole factor in the decision to pull the blurb.
    I've seen a number of worthy blurbs not posted because some users played the politics game better than others.
    And rather than seeking to counter the nonsense, you decided to join in. And now you're bragging about it.
    The difference is, I openly admit that I had to resort to such cheap tactics to get something posted.
    Or you could have simply updated the article.
    If I hadn't, the nom probably would have lingered for days before being dismissed as being outdated.
    ...if no one had bothered to update the article, as in years past. —David Levy 18:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Actually Scorpion, Resolute and I were planning on updating the article with the sole purpose of getting it placed on ITN, so that fear is rather unfounded. --PlasmaTwa2 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Damnit, my team looked like fools all night long, and even I'm not this angry! At any rate, I've cleaned up and referenced the game summary section, so I trust we no longer have any great concerns now? Resolute 15:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    Wait, so now that it has been updated, we need to pull it now? I am so confused... --Jayron32 23:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    I don't see where anyone has said that. —David Levy 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    If it's now sufficiently updated, there's no need to pull it. That said, Scorpion should probably be aware that attempting to manipulate the ITN process is disruptive, and I would hope he has no intention of engaging in such behaviour in future. I'd hate for that kind of poor conduct to become the norm, or to rise to a level that required sanctions. NULL talk
    edits
    00:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

November 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 25

Catalonian election following a demonstrationEdit

Article: Catalonian parliamentary election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Catalonia holds a snap election following a demonstration for independence in November
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Xanchester (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Snap elections are being held in Catalonia in response to the independence demonstration earlier this month. The Economist is calling it an "an unofficial referendum on independence" and "since Catalonia represents a big chunk of the euro zone’s fourth-largest economy, and since Spain is in the front-line of efforts to save the euro, the vote and its aftermath will be felt farther afield." Not a typical regional election; deals with the question of Catalonian independence and the European sovereign-debt crisis affecting Spain, so there's been a large amount of international coverage. --xanchester (t) 09:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Bit of political opportunism, to try to get a majority for the nationalist party so that they can get a referendum up while the political iron is hot. If they achieve that, then the referendum will be ITNworthy, but the local election to try to create the circumstances for that to happen is too far removed to be on the front page. Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - An organized major attempt to enable the breakup of Spain, done after masive demonstrations and despite heavy odds of getting this far. Set amid ongoing turmoil in Spain where unemployment is at about 25%, this is a fascinating subject and eminently ITN-worthy. Catalans would face extreme difficulties in setting up a new nation, including EU membership, but have their own language, flag and fiercely independent traditions. Article a bit on the thin side for content but is acceptable. Strongly suggest anyone on the fence regarding their !vote do some deeper looking into the subject; this is a very big deal. Jusdafax 10:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
All of that seems to refer, as I have suggested above, to the next stage of the process: could you expand why the election, as opposed to the referendum that might follow. Kevin McE (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
As I say, it is my view that the election it*self is notable, and I have noted why in reasonable detail. Obviously we are at odds on this nomination, Kevin. I think we have each stated our cases. Jusdafax 11:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - maybe if the results were interesting we'd announce those (such as Pro-independance parties win 75% of seats in the Catalonia election) but not notable before. LukeSurl t c 11:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Until they actually win independence this is unimportant. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Catalonia is an historically independent nation with a separate standardized language and a population significantly greater than Scotland, Denmark, or the Whole of Ireland. To describe its elections as "local" is a farce. Neither is this some stunt like the London or Wisconsin political protests we post on ITN, it's an official state action. Calling upon us to wait until we have results makes sense--that's not actually an oppose vote. Calling on us to wait until they have independence makes about as much sense as no political news out of Scotland, Wales, or Norther Ireland til they throw off the monarchical yoke. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I would also oppose elections in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland "til they throw off the monarchical yoke." Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't as such, if the results were newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This election, as I understand it, is to elect their local Parliament, not to decide Independence. Once the Parliament has been formed, then the majority parties can decide to hold an independence vote (leaving aside legal problems with doing so). The actual Independence vote(or even the formal decision to hold one) would be ITN worthy, but this election is not. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose Elections are supposed to be posted for all states on the List of sovereign states. If we can frown on San Marino because it's "too small" we can definitely frown upon this sub-national non-state which is crying foul now that it might have to pay it's share of the bill for decades of riding along with Spain. When they get independence and make the list, then fine, until then I don't care how many people are there or how different the language is, it's not a state and it's elections do not go to the front page. --IP98 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose "pay their fair share" is a joke on your part? "With more people than Denmark and an economy almost as big as Portugal's, Catalonia has its own language. Like Basques, Catalans see themselves as distinct from the rest of Spain. ... Many Catalans are angry that Rajoy has refused to negotiate a new tax deal with their largely self-governing region. Annually, an estimated 16 billion euros ($21 billion) in taxes paid in Catalonia, about 8 percent of its economic output, is not returned to the region." Separatists winning in Catalonia]. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a sovereign state. We rejected San Marino for dubious reasons, we should reject this for much more sensible ones. They're not independent, they're not suitable for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 08:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds that they are not a sovereign state, nor is this a sovereignty referendum. We did not post the results of the 2012 Quebec election where the sovereigntists returned to power, so it would be a double standard to post the results of a similiar-sized region of Spain. --PlasmaTwa2 08:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Although the independentistas are expected to take sixty percent of the seats between them, the Main independence party lost seats it was expected to hold and the total is less than the two-thirds that was hoped for as a psychological boost to the cause. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Plasma Twa. Not an independent nation or a referendum on independence. Hot Stop (Talk) 14:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Dhaka fire in BangladeshEdit

Article: 2012 Dhaka fire (talk, history)
Blurb: A fire in a Bangladesh clothes factory kills at least 120 people
News source(s): BBC Asia
Nominator: HonorTheKing (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support when an article exists. High death-toll and significant int'l coverage. ComputerJA (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't know that. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
But it still needs some article to be expanded and nominated. Support in principle, but the pre-emptive posting of noms is getting silly. The opening sentence of ITN documentation reads "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated...", not to simply mention news headlines: what is the proposal? Kevin McE (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No article, no place on the front page, as I well know! doktorb wordsdeeds 08:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

--considering the magnitude, there should be an article on this disaster. Re-open when this occurs. LukeSurl t c 14:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've created a tiny stub but it needs expansion before posting. --Tone 14:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Much better now, thanks to User:Khazar2. Ready to post (I'll ask another admin to do it). --Tone 16:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for starting it! And, obviously, support per large death toll and prominent international coverage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting per magnitude of the event. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Large number of causalities. Has been covered internationally.--xanchester (t) 16:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Sufficient size of disaster to be notable. Has been covered internationally. Article seems to now meet minimum standards. LukeSurl t c 18:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Very significant disaster with numerous casualties. Owen (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support This is surely one of the deadliest and most significant fires in recent times. It also has a worldwide coverage standing on the front page on all of the media portals.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "recent" but we had 2 in Pak some 2 months ag..and bbangladesh fatalities of this magnitude or not that rate. (ferry singking or so pretty oftn)Lihaas (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Decent article with refs. Tragic loss of life on a big scale. Let's post it, please. Jusdafax 00:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Token oppose it's not our fault that workplace safety in Bangladesh is appalling. We're talking about a country where ships are hacked to pieces on the beach. Is it really a surprise that 120 people were killed in an industrial accident. I'm not saying it's not a tragedy, but what is really noteworthy about it? We posted a similar incident in Pakistan last year. I really believe the bar needs to be set higher in parts of the world where workplace deaths are routine. And yes, I have "thought of the children". --IP98 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
workplace safety in Bangladesh --IP98 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I am very sympathetic to an oppose here on the grounds that such fires are police blotter material, not encyclopedic material. But surely this has got to be an exceptionally large toll even then? I clicked on your link, IP98, thinking I'd get some statistics. Why am I looking at an image from google maps? Will I see the people have horns and tails? Or are being attacked by dragons? μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Support: Major disaster. Article meets requirements. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - A major disaster which got worldwide attention. Amartyabag TALK2ME 01:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] F1 Drivers'Edit

Articles: Sebastian Vettel (talk, history) and 2012 Formula One season (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Formula One, Sebastian Vettel wins the Drivers' Championship for the third consecutive year.
Nominator: HonorTheKing (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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.

 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved per the "Please do not" section above. Not sure why it is being proposed at this time: it is ITN/R, and the article has been updated very quickly after the end of every previous round. Kevin McE (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as per ITN/R. LukeSurl t c 00:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks ready to me. Formerip (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Main event in auto racing. NickSt (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Aritcles look OK, so marking [Ready]. --hydrox (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Vettel's article needs references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks well-referenced to me. What references does it need? Formerip (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The pertinent sections, i.e. the ones that back up what happened in this race in the 2012 section?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Should be ref'd now. LukeSurl t c 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Article fully updated with the 2012 season.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 06:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

November 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 24

Miss Earth 2012Edit

Article: Miss Earth 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​23-year-old Czech beauty queen Tereza Fajksova wins Miss Earth 2012
News source(s): (RIA Novosti)
Nominator: Nickst (talk • give credit)

 Beauty item. --NickSt (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Her article would be a great DYK nom, especially with a free image of her. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see beauty pageants as newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a title which is far too disparate and far too splintered to be notable doktorb wordsdeeds 22:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Rather see this than some car race. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not noteworthy, as those above have said. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously not important enough. Plus, neither of the linked articles contains any photos of pretty ladies, which sort of makes them pointless, surely? Formerip (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
IF I could find a free picture for Hector Camacho I am sure you can find a picture of Miss Fajksova. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I take your point, but that doesn't sound like a fair swap from my perspective. Formerip (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Huh? They are both my type, lol. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose a recurring event, not on ITN/R, and nothing notable about this occurrence. --IP98 (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sierra Leone electionEdit

Article: Sierra Leonean general election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: Ernest Bai Koroma is elected President of Sierra Leone
Alternative blurb: Ernest Bai Koroma is re-elected President of Sierra Leone.
News source(s): [14] [15]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

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.

 Election in a sovereign state --doktorb wordsdeeds 05:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has an "outdated" tag and is short on prose. These two things should be addressed before posting. --Tone 14:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

November 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 23

[Posted] Larry Hagman for recent deathsEdit

Article: Larry Hagman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Dallas Morning News, NBC Chicago
Nominator: 25or6to4 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Medeis (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Famous American actor in two highly successful television series: Dallas and I Dream of Jeannie 25or6to4 (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Recent Deaths A rather obvious support based on notability of those shows and other work as soon as article is updated. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, that show was a worldwide hit. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Deaths Support as notable and well regarded personality. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy? The article's already got 1200 more bytes, although that's largely an expanded lead, one sentence on the death, and its ref. But I'd like to encourage quick action by an admin on this, assuming we don't have any opposes, in order not to be three days after the news cycle for once. Further expansion should follow quickly once people are awake to comment on his passing. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support recent deaths Notable actor, two major career defining roles and a long career beyond that. "Who shot J.R.?" is the question everyone was asking 30 years ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Deborah Raffin and Șerban Ionescu have also died recently. This is a busy time for actor deaths. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But they're not notable doktorb wordsdeeds 05:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
      • What you mean? If that's true they should be red links. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Not what I meant. They're not necessarily notable just because they've got articles. ITN has its own criteria. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
          • You didn't make it clear. You just said "they're not notable" and I don't know why you've decided that they're all inferior. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There was also Bill Tarmey who might be a better comparison in this case. Better actor too. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, polish up their articles and nominate them if you are serious. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I was using them for comparison purposes. Tarmey was also a veteran male actor known for one long-running role on television. Hagman's role only went on for bout a decade. Tarmey's went on for 31 years! And Corrie's been on air for 52 years and counting. That's a substantial amount of it that Tarmey was involved in. Not convinced about how unique Hagman was in that light. He's also older and had cancer. I'd say Tarmey's death was more unexpected. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If you reeally wanna make a comparison, make a formal nomination. We simply do not compare actual noms with work done to fantasy noms anyone can name. μηδείς (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Deaths The subject is obviously notable enough for a mention IMO. Leaning towards RD rather than a blurb due to a relatively common cause and age of death – "American actor Larry Hagman dies at the age of 81" would add relatively little value. There are some appropriately placed {{citation needed}} tags which need actioning though. —WFCFL wishlist 05:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Do note this is an RD nom (we have a template now!), no need to argue that. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted under Recent deaths. -- tariqabjotu 06:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryce Courtenay for recent deathsEdit

Article: Bryce Courtenay (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Australian, BBC, Washington Post
Nominator: IgnorantArmies (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Published 21 novels selling over 20 million copies worldwide; considered one of Australia's best known and most popular authors. Needs a bit more of an update, however. IgnorantArmies – 04:59, Friday November 23, 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Jan Trefulka and Ivan Kušan have also died recently. This is a busy time for writer deaths. Trefulka signed Charter 77. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Update I suggest the nominator focus on updating the article. I am also curious if any of his works have been adapted as films or won any wards? I am not at all opposed, but have no way of judging the notability. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If possible, there should be more in Bryce_Courtenay#Writing about his works (style, themes, etc.), as opposed to pretty much only emphasizing his commercial success (perhaps that should be in a different section? SpencerT♦C 23:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

November 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 23

[Posted] Larry Hagman for recent deathsEdit

Article: Larry Hagman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Dallas Morning News, NBC Chicago
Nominator: 25or6to4 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Medeis (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Famous American actor in two highly successful television series: Dallas and I Dream of Jeannie 25or6to4 (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Recent Deaths A rather obvious support based on notability of those shows and other work as soon as article is updated. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, that show was a worldwide hit. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Deaths Support as notable and well regarded personality. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy? The article's already got 1200 more bytes, although that's largely an expanded lead, one sentence on the death, and its ref. But I'd like to encourage quick action by an admin on this, assuming we don't have any opposes, in order not to be three days after the news cycle for once. Further expansion should follow quickly once people are awake to comment on his passing. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support recent deaths Notable actor, two major career defining roles and a long career beyond that. "Who shot J.R.?" is the question everyone was asking 30 years ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Deborah Raffin and Șerban Ionescu have also died recently. This is a busy time for actor deaths. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But they're not notable doktorb wordsdeeds 05:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
      • What you mean? If that's true they should be red links. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Not what I meant. They're not necessarily notable just because they've got articles. ITN has its own criteria. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
          • You didn't make it clear. You just said "they're not notable" and I don't know why you've decided that they're all inferior. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
There was also Bill Tarmey who might be a better comparison in this case. Better actor too. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, polish up their articles and nominate them if you are serious. μηδείς (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I was using them for comparison purposes. Tarmey was also a veteran male actor known for one long-running role on television. Hagman's role only went on for bout a decade. Tarmey's went on for 31 years! And Corrie's been on air for 52 years and counting. That's a substantial amount of it that Tarmey was involved in. Not convinced about how unique Hagman was in that light. He's also older and had cancer. I'd say Tarmey's death was more unexpected. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If you reeally wanna make a comparison, make a formal nomination. We simply do not compare actual noms with work done to fantasy noms anyone can name. μηδείς (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Deaths The subject is obviously notable enough for a mention IMO. Leaning towards RD rather than a blurb due to a relatively common cause and age of death – "American actor Larry Hagman dies at the age of 81" would add relatively little value. There are some appropriately placed {{citation needed}} tags which need actioning though. —WFCFL wishlist 05:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Do note this is an RD nom (we have a template now!), no need to argue that. μηδείς (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted under Recent deaths. -- tariqabjotu 06:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Bryce Courtenay for recent deathsEdit

Article: Bryce Courtenay (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Australian, BBC, Washington Post
Nominator: IgnorantArmies (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Published 21 novels selling over 20 million copies worldwide; considered one of Australia's best known and most popular authors. Needs a bit more of an update, however. IgnorantArmies – 04:59, Friday November 23, 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Jan Trefulka and Ivan Kušan have also died recently. This is a busy time for writer deaths. Trefulka signed Charter 77. --86.40.98.2 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Update I suggest the nominator focus on updating the article. I am also curious if any of his works have been adapted as films or won any wards? I am not at all opposed, but have no way of judging the notability. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If possible, there should be more in Bryce_Courtenay#Writing about his works (style, themes, etc.), as opposed to pretty much only emphasizing his commercial success (perhaps that should be in a different section? SpencerT♦C 23:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

November 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 22

[Posted] Héctor Camacho brain deadEdit

Article: Héctor Camacho (talk, history)
Blurb: ​U.S. boxer Héctor Camacho is declared brain dead, two days after a shooting.
Alternative blurb: ​Hector "Macho" Camacho (for recent death ticker)
News source(s): [16]
Nominator: Secret (talk • give credit)
Updater: Medeis (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Thief12 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Arguably one of the top boxers of all-time and a legend in Latin America, very unexpected and sad development, if he is removed from life support I'll support a full blurb of his passing, though it clearly qualifies for recent deaths ticker. If he's not removed from life support, I think the shooting is notable on its own for ITN. Secret account 00:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support but wait until officially declared dead. Seems like a person of high notability, and violent deaths are always more notable. If not a full blurb than at least an addition to the recent deaths ticker. LukeSurl t c 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but wait; I agree he should be officially declared dead before posting. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait for death. His death is notable for us to post, so we should post it then. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support for recent deaths Bal Thackery is getting stale, this person seems notable enough for the ticker, and there is a decent update. The incident itself "drug dealer shot by thugs" is utterly unexceptional, so the notability comes from the death of a reasonably successful professional athlete. --IP98 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. There are large parts of the article that are unsourced. ComputerJA (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for a full blurb as the shooting makes it notable enough. It shouldn't be listed as a recent death until he's declared dead. Hot Stop (Talk) 06:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Question A drug dealer killed by thugs is notable enough? --IP98 (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • No, one of the best (and best-known) boxers in history dying is notable enough. Nobody is arguing he's a good person. -- Mike (Kicking222) 13:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Right, so just as if he had died of natural causes, or in a traffic accident, it's a professional athlete passing away. Death ticker. --IP98 (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
          • A sudden and violent death always means that there is a bigger story than natural causes. The fact that he may have been living a dangerous life in the few years before this doesn't mitigate that fact. Also, there's nothing in the article that says he was a dealer anyhow. LukeSurl t c 16:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Death and only after he actually dies. I have been working on the article, and spoke to the guy a few times myself. But he's not a sitting head of state and we certainly don't need a premature death notice. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
PS, these "drug dealer" comments are shamefully baseless and a clear BLP Violation. Not that BLP protects people we have contempt for, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
PSS - Now that he is actually dead I can refer to him as a drug dealing[citation needed] low life thug without concern. Not to wikilawyer the point, but the B in BLP is Biographies, and the community discussion page of ITN hardly qualifies. --IP98 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: [17] He will be taken off life support tomorrow. SpencerT♦C 02:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Altblurb Not sure how to do it, but suggest we use name with nickname Héctor "Macho" Camacho for recent deaths assuming it goes up only on recent deaths. Hence I've added that as an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • At the time of this post, the portion of his boxing career from which he derives his notability has no inline citations. If this is remedied I would have a weak preference for a full blurb, but am content for it to go up in either form. —WFCFL wishlist 05:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the ticker, not a blurb. And only after it's declared.--xanchester (t) 08:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the RD ticker, if he does eventually die. Canuck89 (what's up?) 08:54, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Dead He seems to have died,[18] can we get this posted now? μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Marked ready n the premise its updates (not to mention Medeis' update..
Note- prior to the actual death the consensus was fo recent death. BBut admin judgement..
Also added his nationalisty to the blurbLihaas (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
He is Puerto Rican, not U.S. Support for the RD ticker. NickSt (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Interstate 10 pileupEdit

Article: Interstate 10 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A large multi-vehicle collision leaves 2 dead and hundreds injured in Texas.
News source(s): LA Times NY Daily News Houston Chronicle Channel 2 Houston
Nominator and updater: IP98 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Another major traffic accident. A low death toll, but a high injury rate. Clearly an unusual event. I made a very small update, and my authoring is awful, I would very much like help fixing it up. --IP98 (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak support. I'd find this more worthy of inclusion in ITN if there was a higher death toll, but I think the number of injuries and large number of vehicles involved makes it OK to include. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- On a global scale, crashes involving large vehicles with dozens of casualties happen often, and this event does not even have an article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply in the United States vehicle safety is more than polite suggestion. Roads and vehicles are highly engineered and safety enforced. That fact that there were few fatalities was a triumph of engineering, given the speeds and number of vehicles. This is far from a "meh" item. Frankly I think large crashes with few fatalities are less common, when some overcrowded bus can get rammed by a bus/train/whatever at some poorly maintained crossing. As for the article, I would love to get some help. Once it gets to two paragraphs, we can fork it, which seems to be the norm. --IP98 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - With respect, this item isn't what I consider ITN-worthy. A lot of bent metal, mostly. This is not to minimize the tragic aspects. Jusdafax 03:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, but I don't think this is ITN-worthy. It doesn't have an article, and even if it did, the low death-toll doesn't convince me. ComputerJA (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Question So when an unfit bus in some developing country, bursting at the seams with children gets hit by a truck or train, we heap support upon it. A major traffic accident (albeit with few fatalities) occurs in a place where they are uncommon, and it's "meh". I added an update to the Interstate 10 article. Help me get a second paragraph and we'll fork it. --IP98 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think traffic accidents in the U.S. are uncommon. Yes, major traffic accidents probably are (not sure yet), but the low-death toll makes this not ITN-worthy. I hate to say this but it makes the wreck look like "all the other ones" in that sense. ComputerJA (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable doktorb wordsdeeds 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Four sentences on a traffic accident that, while large, only killed two people? Nope. -- Mike (Kicking222) 13:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment IP98, these fog related multi-car pile-ups do happen once or twice a year, and luckily they usually have few fatalities. I definitely see where you are coming from with the bursting at the seams bus accidents, but I thing stronger opposes there, rather than support here, is the right course. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi Medeis. Thanks for the moral support. I knew this would be a long shot, I was hoping for a little more consistency in our treatment of traffic accidents. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No international interest. Number of fatalities is relatively small.--xanchester (t) 04:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The American Exceptionalist chips of a few editors went haywire here it seems. --85.210.97.62 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Island does not existEdit

Article: Sandy Island (New Caledonia) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An island that has appeared on maps since at least 1895 is found to not exist.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Kevin McE (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A bit of a long shot, but might raise a smile, and while it is probably more likely to appear on DYK, I think it deserves at least a !vote as to whether it makes it to ITN. --Kevin McE (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose An "...and finally" curiosity but not important enough for ITN. You're right to suggest DYK, I think.... doktorb wordsdeeds 21:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent, leaning support. It's a great tidbit that would work in either section, I think. It is technically news, and the BBC are covering it. It's new enough to work for DYK (one of the extremely rare occasions where cries of "DYK!" are actually constructive or actionable) but the ticklish tone would be a nice change of pace for ITN right now, filled as it is with terrorism, disaster, corruption and revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapple X (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose. An interesting curiosity, but not a "news" event. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per 331dot. LukeSurl t c
  • Oppose - This story is a mere trivial curiosity; ITN does not need an "And finally..." section. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm torn here, this is perfect for DYK I agree, but we need some decent story that isn't disasters, or conflicts posted ITN, and this story sounds interesting, and rare enough for ITN. I'll Support Secret account 00:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- If people actually thought this was an island, why did it only get an article today? It's not in my atlas, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on here. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for DYK this is one of those quirky/WTF?! stories. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • April 1 DYK maybe? --Tone 15:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Save this for DYK. Maybe even as a 1 April DYK, as per Tone.--xanchester (t) 04:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohammed MursiEdit

Article: Mohamed Mursi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Challenges to the decrees, laws or decisions of the Egyptian President is outlawed by President Mohammed Mursi, in a move slammed by opponents as befitting "a new pharaoh"
Alternative blurb: ​Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi outlaws all challenges to presidential authority
News source(s): [19][20]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 20:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Not notable for ITN. Maybe you will add this items to daily highlight first. NickSt (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Needs to be an article regarding this matter, in my view. I could see myself supporting if a good one existed. Jusdafax 21:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Noting actions of a politician doesn't seem noteworthy; perhaps an article should be made first, as the above user suggests. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - This is a huge deal - effectively the assumption of dictatorial powers by the president. But the blurb is POV and lacks clear focus. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - top story on New York Times. Very important political development in Egypt, the intellectual center of the Arab world. Thue (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Thue, something like this is a bad sign for stability in the Arab world, top story or near top story in several top news agencies. Secret account 00:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose. This is against WP:NPOV as it only represents the opposers side in the last half of the blurb. The story is only important if this ends up causing issues with protests, etc. and even then there'd be a doubt in my mind as to whether it's really ITN worthy. If we were able to provide a sourced, neutral, concrete reason why this could affect anyone, then I may rethink it. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment that blurb needs radical alteration. LukeSurl t c 01:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but the "Controversies" section of the Mursi article needs to be updated first. I also added an altblurb to address NPOV.130.188.8.27 (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I edited the Morsi article to include the new information under the section "November 2012 Declaration."
  • Support alternative Blurb.--В и к и T 12:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with alternative blurb. This decision, and reactions to it, are making headlines around the world and have profound implications for the region. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support alternate but in no way the first one. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is amateur hour. The relevant section of the article is hopeless; it needs a complete re-write for reasons that would be obvious to anyone who reads it. The proposed blurb is of course a blatant violation of NPOV. The alternative is better but is it accurate? What are "all challenges". The word all isn't in the sources, which suggest that only certain kinds of decrees are immunised from challenge. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - Well, it's posted. I agree the story itself is big and ITN-worthy but I continue to feel this assumption of powers, for lack of a better term, needed a separate article. Failing that, the sub-section in the Morsi (not Mursi) article needs to be pumped up quickly by those supporting the blurb for our Main page. I'd like to see reactions cited, the wording of the statute clarified, and NPOV analysis of what this means to the political process in Egypt and the regional implications. Failing that getting going in the next hour or two, I'd say pull it off ITN. Jusdafax 23:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Blurb should be updated with news of the ongoing protests in Egypt.--xanchester (t) 08:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Russian beefEdit

Article: BSE (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia lifts a 16-year ban on the import of British beef
News source(s): [21] [22]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 20:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This item doesn't have to do with a recent event, and is not noteworthy on its own. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too small a change to be worth including in ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This doesn't have any large diplomatic meaning. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting, but not particularly newsworthy.--xanchester (t) 04:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

UK Prisoner votesEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The United Kingdom's Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling tells the House of Commons that a European Court ruling on prisoner votes can be defied
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This seems pointless if there's no specific article targeted by this.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I fail to see the significance of this. Maybe when Parliament acts this will notable enough, but nothing's happened except a politician saying something. Hot Stop (Talk) 17:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable unless the EU takes the UK to "court" or the UK is forced to leave the Human Rights agreement. Even then, mildly notable but not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Topical, the linked articles are well-written, and there needs to be something new in ITN soon.80.220.125.41 (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ITN can stand to go for weeks without being updated. Timeliness is not a justification for posting sub-par items.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The articles are well-written though? The House of Commons article is very nice and the Grayling article is good enough.
  • Oppose - Just a statement to the House. No legislation, no action. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

New BBC Director-GeneralEdit

Articles: Director-General of the BBC (talk, history) and Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead (talk, history)
Blurb: Tony Hall is announced as the new Director-General of the BBC.
Alternative blurb: Tony Hall is announced as the new Director-General of the BBC, following George Entwistle's resignation in the continuing scandal about reports of sexual abuse by Jimmy Savile and others.
News source(s): [23] [24]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 13:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak support - This story's notability derives not just from the cultural and political standing of the BBC, but also the recent furore about alleged child abuse by one or more of the Corporation's most prominent celebrities in the 1970s and 80s, and the subsequent fumbled reporting of these claims. This is therefore part of a much larger story - but one that is still relatively localised - hence my only moderate support of the posting. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is part of a larger story, then the ITN item should be about that larger story, and not this part of it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the latest development, so it should be mentioned. I've provided an Altblurb, but I worry that it's a bit too long. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- The last discussion proved the resignation wasn't notable, and this is a smaller story, as there is no scandal involved anymore. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this rate we'll be posting new DGs every two months. It's a significant appointment within the BBC and for Brits but nothing else. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Identity of the DG makes little or no direct difference to viewers/listeners. Resignation was related to an implicit accusation in cases totally unrelated to Savile. Insufficient depth of impact to counter limited geographical relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have disambiguated the link to Tony Hall and provided a shorter blurb. (No blurb was provided but there was altblurb!) Yaris678 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - 1. He will be head of a large corporation that transmits in many countries all over the world. 2. The decision on who would be the next DG has been a major topic of discussion in the UK. I would also like to say I prefer the shorter blurb I have just added. The longer blurb is problematic for reasons highlighted by Kevin McE. Yaris678 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - if this does go forward with the alt blurb, the link should be to the North Wales child abuse scandal - which is what contributed indirectly to the last DG's resignation - and not the (largely distinct) Savile scandal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Opppose. Two wrongs don't make a right. In the previous discussion, our judges gave weight to three votes which appeared insular in nature, one which correctly recited ITN policy without giving any insight into why the nomination failed that test, and an oppose based on a comment which was actioned in the form of a significantly revised blurb. That monumental cock-up does not justify posting a far less notable chapter in the story. —WFCFL wishlist 02:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan deathsEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​Bombings kill 37 and wound many more in Pakistani terrorist attacks
News source(s): [25] [26]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 13:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • This nomination would need to be linked to an article before any assessment could be considered. LukeSurl t c 23:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

MakemakeEdit

Articles: Makemake (dwarf planet) (talk, history) and Dwarf planet (talk, history)
Blurb: Makemake is found to have no atmosphere
News source(s): [27]
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 00:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not entirely clear on the significance of this. 331dot (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In my view, the matter is of small import. Jusdafax 04:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not headline news at all; just scientific findings. As with exoplanets, the discovery of dwarf planets that are not record-breaking, or facts about them, is unlikely to be sufficiently significant for ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. So what? Neither surprisingly nor particularly interesting. Modest Genius talk 13:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Makemake has been discovered to be similar to ITN... (joke) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
    • funny joke though Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interesting to me, unlikey so to most other people. Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor result to non-astronomers. Am I the only one who was even interested enough to follow the link and discover that the nomination [28] was for the disambiguation page Makemake until this edit? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I saw it also but was too lazy to fix it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Even the source I read didn't say it had no atmosphere, but that none had been detected and it was possible there was a transient frozen one. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

November 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 21

[Posted] Kasab's mercy petition rejectedEdit

Articles: 2008 Mumbai attacks (talk, history) and Ajmal Kasab (talk, history)
Blurb: Ajmal Kasab, lone surviving perpetrator of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, is hanged after his mercy petition is rejected by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee.
News source(s): Times of India BBC The Hindu Indian Express CNN Guardian

Nominator's comments: The ITN candidacy was put on hold after the Supreme Court rejected his mercy petition as he could still approach the President of India. Now, his hanging his inevitable.Regards, theTigerKing  02:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Hanged.Regards, theTigerKing  03:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: But wait for a couple of hours for little more details/reactions to emerge so that we can have a meaningful update. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: An important news which not only interests India, but the whole world. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Can the blurb be checked for grammatical accuracy? I will wait for more support before posting to the main page. -- Tinu Cherian - 06:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Enactment of a sentence. Conviction and sentencing are the relevant newsworthy stages: this is procedural, just as release at end of a period of conviction is. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Procedural? a sentence that cannot be overturned? That's the most laughable reasn on hereLihaas (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Factually, this is the second instance since 1995 when a person has been hanged in India, even though hundreds of death sentence has been awarded in India during this period. The hanging has gathered attention of media all over the World as evidenced from sources above. Moreover, the whole background of the conviction need to be taken into account for ascertaining the importance. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Highly notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I am not aware of any significant coverage in the Latin American media, I think this posting is ITN-worthy. ComputerJA (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    reworded blurb for NPOV and link to Capitan punishment in India, and as the sentence is carried out its preety notable. supportLihaas (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • support: Topic of international interest. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
[Posting ...] -- Tinu Cherian - 10:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
[Posted] -- Tinu Cherian - 10:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


[Posted] Cease-fire in Israel conflictEdit

Article: Operation Pillar of Defense (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Israel and Hamas agree to a cease-fire in the recent conflict between the two.
News source(s): CNN, FOX
Nominator: gwickwire (talk • give credit)

Further comments: Recent news, set to go into effect in ~7 minutes. gwickwire | Leave a message 18:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - Let's see if it holds. If it does, then we could consider switching our current blurb on Operation Pillar of Defense to one that mentions the ceasefire. LukeSurl t c 19:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • See if it holds? How could we do that? It's not like we can wait a month, and if the violence hasn't resumed by then, post that a ceasefire was passed one month ago. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking more "see if it holds until the end of the day". Sorry, I'm quite pessimistic in regards to this. LukeSurl t c 19:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we wait for it fall to bits and then post A cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in the recent conflict there ends after precisely....
I tweaked the blurb a little because "Israel and Hamas" isn't a place. Formerip (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As skeptical as I am, Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement, however short-lived it was, still would be on ITN regardless.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The news was confrimed by the Israelis as well. It should be posted. --Wüstenfuchs 21:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think my comments have been interpreted as more negative than they were intended. I support this posting, as it looks like it hasn't fallen apart instantly (i.e. been ignored by one side). However if it does fail, we should be prepared to update the blurb immediately, as having a news item about a cease-fire on the front page suggests that the current state is one of (tentative) peace. LukeSurl t c 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this would be a case... However, you can count of me if that happends. ;) --Wüstenfuchs 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I also support a backup, just in case. If it fails, what about an immediate change to The previous cease-fire between Israel and Hamas is broken by (insert party here) with (rocket/invasion/statement/etc.)? If anyone wants to change my proposal or just propose another change just in case, feel free to. Also, this is from an ipad, so i apologize in advance for any format or spelling issues. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Backup idea, "Hostilities continue in Gaza, despite an earlier ceasefire between Hamas and Israel". Past experience suggests both sides blame each other when these things fall apart, this backup blurb doesn't ascribe blame. LukeSurl t c 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I like that idea much better, if it gets broken. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I would go with the latter one as well... It would be expected from both sides to blame each other for braking the ceasefire. --Wüstenfuchs 00:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Ceasefire appears to be holding. Highly notable and worthy of ITN. Jusdafax 04:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Post post haste Cease fire very much ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If this gets posted, please remove the other Israel/Hamas/Gaza item from ITN130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if this is posted can the poster please remove the old one, which reads "Israel launches a major military operation in the Gaza Strip, as hostilities with Hamas escalate." That would be confusing to have both of them, and it leaves space for something else if the poster so wishes to post another item. gwickwire | Leave a message 14:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

November 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 20

[Posted] Fall of GomaEdit

Articles: March 23 Movement (talk, history) and 2012 East DR Congo conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the 2012 East DR Congo conflict, the March 23 Movement seizes control of the provincial capital of Goma.
News source(s): The Guardian, LAT
Nominator: Khazar2 (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: A provincial capital with a population of a million people seized by rebels. Per The New York Times: "Rebel fighters seized one of the biggest, most vital cities in the Democratic Republic of Congo on Tuesday, setting off riots in several places across the country and raising serious questions about the stability of Congo as a whole." [29] --Khazar2 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • You have my support. The M23 has become a massive news item, as well as threat to Kabila's government. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The seizure of a city of one million is a big deal, and worthy of an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 07:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Jusdafax. ComputerJA (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Rogue traderEdit

Articles: Kweku Adoboli (talk, history) and UBS (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the United Kingdom's biggest rogue trader incident, Kweku Adoboli, is jailed for his part in a £1.5bn ($?bn) trading loss
News source(s): http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/20/ubs-rogue-trader-guilty-fraud
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 19:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Suggest blue-linking rogue trader in the blurb; the term is jargon and probably not known by readers without knowledge in the financial or criminological sector.--WaltCip (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We should link to Kweku Adoboli and 2011 UBS rogue trader scandal as well. I have problems calling him the UK's biggest rogue trader in the blurb and suggest something more neutral. (no comment on the nom itself) Hot Stop (Talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Glencore/Xstrata mergeEdit

Articles: Glencore (talk, history) and Xstrata (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A £56billion ($?billion) merger between Glencore and Xstrata is agreed
News source(s): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/glencorexstrata-merger-approved-8335821.html
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 18:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

this was nommed afore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2012#Glencore-Xstrata_merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.197.154 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

But now it's agreed doktorb wordsdeeds 06:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for notability. Is this a larger than normal merger, or does the merger affect the legal status of one of the parties, or does it suggest corruption, or...? These are not household names so their merger is not in and of itself notable. If there is something more going on here other than, "company A buys company B" then it should be noted in the blurb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The large value? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
About half of the mergers listed here are as large or larger, in inflation-adjusted currency.130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument doktorb wordsdeeds 10:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Then I suggest that the blurb be changed to: "A moderately large merger (£56 billion, $89 billion) between Glencore and Xstrata is agreed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Ivo Sanader jailedEdit

Article: Ivo Sanader (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Croatian prime minister Ivo Sanader is sentenced to 10 years in prison for corruption.
News source(s): [30]
Nominator: Lugnuts (talk • give credit)
Updater: Wüstenfuchs (talk • give credit)

Article updated

  • Support. A former head of government being jailed for corruption is noteworthy. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. --Wüstenfuchs 13:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. We always post such stories involving important political figures of a country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. "First-degree verdict"? This terminology is unfamiliar to me. The BBC article doesn't use that term, while the Wikipedia article uses that term without any explanation of what it means. Is this region specific terminology, or perhaps a translation issue? Either way, it might avoid confusion simply to omit the final phrase from the blurb; after all, "10 year in prison for corruption" would seem to be the essence of the event. Dragons flight (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to "non-final verdict". --Wüstenfuchs 16:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Does that mean he may be appealing or is it just the length of the sentencing that may change? Clarifing this seems somewhat important. LukeSurl t c 17:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If it's non-final, shouldn't we wait for the final verdict before we post? Just a thought.--WaltCip (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It means that Sanader has a right on complaint... if the court denies his complaint the sentence remains as it is. It is the same case with Ante Gotovina. Wikipedia published his non-final verdict and the final one (it's on the Main Page as we speak). --Wüstenfuchs 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
For clarity, are we talking about a regular right of appeal or something different? Formerip (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It's regular right... --Wüstenfuchs 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm willing to support this, but think the phrase "non-final verdict" comes across kinda clumsily. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed it... --Wüstenfuchs 22:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and the article has a suitable photo. --RA (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose until article is better sourced This seems clearly ITN-worthy, but the first half of the article is thinly sourced, including discussion of Sanader's achievements and corruption scandals while in office. Not sure this is Main Page ready. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
All important corruption affairs are included and are described as much as possible... I don't think we should write a novel about them. --Wüstenfuchs 01:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem isn't the length; it's that nobody's bothered to provide sources for much of this. In the first 25 paragraphs of this article, there appear to be only 12-15 sentences with citations. I've removed or pared down a few of the more egregious, but this still seems to me on the border of needing an orange-level BLP sources tag. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable story making headlines world over. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The article is in reasonable shape and the parts relating to the investigation and legal proceedings appears well-sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 08:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

November 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 19

Death of Savita HalappanavarEdit

Article: Death of Savita Halappanavar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The death of Savita Halappanavar prompts demonstrations internationally.
News source(s): [31] [32] [33]
Article updated

  • Oppose until more facts are available and the article is updated. As it is, the only first-hand source is Savita Halappanavar's husband, and beyond that the article has very little information about her death and focuses entirely on political reactions. A reader could not read that article and come to any conclusion other than; these politicians say this and those politicians say that. The timing of the onset of sepsis, the dual role of Irish and Common law and a complete account of the diagnoses are missing from the article, and I think these are necessary before the article can be considered encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the above user states, the article just seems to be a summary of political reactions, which isn't a news story in and of itself. Abortion protests (pro or anti) are not something I see too often in ITN. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Not unless something significant comes from her death (e.g. inquiry resulting in a change in abortion laws). Nomination is probably a bit late, though I'm sure coverage is ongoing. IgnorantArmies – 01:49, Wednesday November 21, 2012 (UTC)
    Quite ironically, a report recommending options for change to the abortion laws (as a result of A, B and C v Ireland) was concluding when this woman died. The report has since been delivered to Government. Sadly, this woman's death may serve to give expedience and a sense of realism to the interoperation and implementation of that report. --RA (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Operation Pillar of DefenseEdit

Article: Operation Pillar of Defense (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In retaliation to rocket attacks, Israel launches a major military operation in the Gaza Strip with multiple casualties reported.
Alternative blurb: ​Hostilities between Israel and Palestinian forces escalate resulting in dozens of civilian deaths (Proposed by Kevin McE|)
News source(s): BBC CNN Al Jazeera
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: As the situation has developed, we should have a more comprehensive item for Operation Pillar of Defense to replace the Ahmed Jabari-focussed one we have currently, and be bought to the top of the ITN box. The current item makes it sound like the operation was a small action targeted on an individual, which is misleading. --LukeSurl t c 14:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support but omit the "in retaliation to rocket attacks". It's always in retaliation for something, and the causes are ususally too complex to sum up in a sentance fragment. --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd keep the mention of the rocket attacks. While the Isreali attack is larger, this is a conflict with two armed sides. Mentioning the rockets using some form of working gives a more complete picture. LukeSurl t c 19:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support principle, but absolutely not the purpose of an encyclopaedia to assert reason or justification. I've made an altblurb proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support' Kevin's alt; it's a near-infinite recursion to say "this was in response to this, which was in response to this...", better to state bare fact. Yet another strike happened, civilians died (the latter part being what's notable about this). GRAPPLE X 19:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Uh, no. We should not be trying to equalize two sides that aren't equal. Kevin's blurb is worse than the original. Yes, there are dozens of civilian casualties, but the vast majority of them are Palestinian. -- tariqabjotu 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Funny, I'm pretty sure I didn't mention anything about equalising anything. I'm not going to get into who's "right" in this but I've always sided with Palestine. That said, it's easier to cut out the notion of tit-for-tat and blame and just report on the fact that there have been a lot of civilian casualties in the past few days in the area. If the story was one side firing on the other, this story would never leave ITN; the reason it's up now is the volume of casualties. Let that be the focus. GRAPPLE X 21:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    You said you liked the blurb, so it is just as easy to respond to you as to Kevin, and by putting it below both your comment and his, I was hoping you'd both respond. I don't really care "who you side with", or if you side with anyone at all. The point is, vaguely saying "resulting in dozens of civilian deaths", when one side's civilian deaths -- even by Israeli estimates -- are outnumbered 10:1, is highly misleading and just as much, if not more, a faux pas as stating Israel's reported reasons for beginning this incursion. Considering the linked article is to the Israeli operation, rather than something like Second Gaza War (which would probably focus on both sides actions equally), it seems very much appropriate to focus on the Israeli action. Not to mention that Hamas firing rockets on southern Israel isn't exactly news; Israel's operation is. So, something like the following, borrowing elements from the two blurbs proposed already, seems better:

    Israel launches a major military operation in the Gaza Strip, as hostilities with Hamas escalate.

    I guarantee you Kevin's blurb will be met with resistance at WP:ERRORS or elsewhere, for the precise reason I mentioned. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It is precisely because Palestinian civilian casualties are greater that I counter-proposed against the "They asked for it" tone of the original: I didn't "equalise", I chose not to specify. Any blurb is going to be something of a tightrope (there is already an objection to removing the reference to retaliation below), there is no point in narrowing it further. Let the blurb be neutral, or safe and broad, to the point of being anodyne to direct people to the article (which is after all the stated purpose of ITN), and let the reader see what might eventually resemble a balanced article that might help them come to their own conclusions about where justice lies. I would rather, however, see an article based on the conflict as a whole, not the Israeli action. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The aim is fine, but the result is not. It should not be incumbent upon readers to discover for themselves that only one side has caused dozens of civilian deaths and the other has caused just a quarter dozen. -- tariqabjotu 22:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Then a blurb which presents the raw numbers would be best; my main objection to the proposed blurb was the recursive "this was a response to this" opening which seemed to justify the deaths caused. A modification of Kevin's proposal with raw numbers (BBC seem to be reporting 105 deaths caused by Israel, or at least not refuting the figure) would be a good idea. GRAPPLE X 22:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Side discussion

(edit conflict)In the same way it shouldn't be incumbent upon readers to discover that the Hamas No.2 had been assassinated? Leaky Caldron 22:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to take this plainly unproductive approach to getting something you want. I'm starting to think you prefer whining about it than actually getting it changed. -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I have suggested the necessary minor wording adjustment several times. You're the Admin., not me. Leaky Caldron 22:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
You've less suggested it than complained about it. There are 1451 other administrators you could have bothered, and yet you insist on harassing the one who told you outright that he wasn't changing it. Since repetition seems to be what you understand, let me say it again: I'm not fulfilling your request, I'm not fulfilling your request, I'm not fulfilling your request. -- tariqabjotu 23:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Bit of a childish reaction, don't you think? Leaky Caldron 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. My current favorite is Tariq's blurb, though I also consider Kevin's alt blurb acceptable. Dragons flight (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • In keeping with my personal policy of not engaging in Israel debate on Wikipedia, I will not chose a blurb. However, I will express support for posting a blurb referencing the war. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Orange tag. I don't think we can assume its going away any time soon. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    We'd never be able to post stories about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if orange tags stopped us. I think we should make an exception, unless there is something grossly wrong with the article, which is unlikely. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article about Israeli/Palestine? Did you mean to say "inevitable"? Formerip (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I did not mean to say inevitable. There are probably dozens of editors contributing to the article in some fashion and if, as we'd like to all believe, it's true that Wikipedia articles end up being accurate and neutral because so many people contribute to it, it's unlikely it's grossly biased in any one direction. But it takes just one person to claim his or her side isn't represented enough, even if on just one point in a vast article, to mess things up. I won't say I know from experience, but, well... I know from experience. -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- Making an exception on orange-tags for Israeli-Palestinian content seems awfully strange. In fact, I would think all the moreso we have to be absolutely sure the article is neutral because it is such a sensitive topic. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    That is an impossible goal for an active military conflict in this area. That being said, I'm not even sure why the tag is there, because it seems like all of the issues brought up on the talk page when it was posted were fulfilled. It seems now more to just be a catch-all tag, because the article's neutrality is probably disputed by somebody. -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Will post Tariq's blurb soon if no convincing objection. There's obvious support for adding a hook. Tariq's comments about orange tags on I/P articles makes quite a bit of sense. And while I don't see a problem with Kevin's hook, (a) it's got no links, and I can't see a way to link the main article as cleanly, and (b) I do think Tariq's reads better. Giving people one last chance to provide a convincing objection, otherwise will post after dinner (unless someone else gets to it first). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    And, since I'm not a regular ITN admin, I'd like some advice on placement; would it go on top, or would it replace the current Jabari blurb? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • Its probably best left as a judgement call for the admin, but I would say to put this at top, or wherever it fits chronologically, and take away Jabari blurb because they're both part of the same running story.
    • Not posting Kevin's hook because it doesn't have links is unnecessary. Blurbs do not need to be posted verbatim from nominations anyway, so adding links while posting is more than fine.
    • The problem I have with Tariq's blurb is that it implies that Hamas fired their rockets, finished up, then Israel retaliated with Amud Anan. During the operation, Hamas is still firing rockets and Israel is firing back. It's not like they're taking turns, and Israel is currently taking a turn at launching.
I support this posting, but I think it should be done with caution, and I do not endorse either blurb over the other, but I think both blurbs have problems that need to be addressed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I meant the blurb: "Israel launches a major military operation in the Gaza Strip, as hostilities with Hamas escalate." It's not up top with Luke's and Kevin's, but about mid-height of this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I'd concur with Bzweebl about placement. I also concur with the part about links; one could conceivably add a link to Operation Pillar of Defense through the word "Hostilities" (I'm sure that was the intention). I don't concur, however, that Bzweebl's interpretation is one the reader is bound to make. That being said, I agree that it is true that Hamas has not stopped firing rockets, so if you believe that the blurb suggests they're no longer doing anything, then you ought to choose a different blurb or reword it. I just don't see how one could come to that conclusion. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. Your blurb is totally fine Tariq; as Floquenbeam realized, I was looking at the one up top. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
StickyEdit

Started a subsection to consider a sticky for the latest Gaza conflict. An assasination and now an incursion, expect some PLO retaliation. --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

An assassination that we refused to even describe as such, or even the less specific "targeted killing", despite 8000+ reliable sources at the time. I hope ITN is not seen by non-WP readers of the Homepage as honest & accurate purveyors of news headlines. Leaky Caldron 17:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
And now we are suggesting to omit the fact that this is a retaliatory strike. Lying by omission is still lying.--WaltCip (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The whole point of stickies (a la the Olympics, for which the stickies were first made) was for continually updated articles for ongoing individual events that could be posted separately. I think this conflict would fulfill this, but at the same time, we should then remove the Syria sticky. While their civil war is still ongoing, the article isn't being constantly updated with ITN-minimum updates, and there aren't as many individual events related to that civil war that would be potential ITN candidates. SpencerT♦C 23:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This region has been in some form of conflict for pretty much all human history, and, sadly, seems likely to remain so indefinitely. As regards this current operation, a sticky would only be necessary if it lasted for weeks or months. Wait and see if this happens. LukeSurl t c 11:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Base 46Edit

Article: Siege of Base 46 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Rebel forces in Syria capture a major special forces base in Aleppo Province following a two-month siege
News source(s): [34] [35]
Nominator: Lothar von Richthofen (talk • give credit)

 ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment this would be off the bottom of ITN even if it were approved. LukeSurl t c 12:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought something like that would be the case. Do you think this'd be better at the non time-sensitive DYK? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the length is good enough. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

November 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 18

November 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 17

[Posted] Manfalut train accidentEdit

Article: Manfalut train accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 50 pre-school children are killed in a level-crossing accident near Manfalut, Egypt.
News source(s): (BBC)
Nominator: Nickst (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Actual disaster --NickSt (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Support, but needs expansion. 50 children deaths is horrible. Brandmeistertalk 15:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, the update will be made soon. Egeymi (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support: Subject to update. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Horrible is right. And it led to the resignation of a member of the Cabinet. Needs more prose, then post. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with mention of the resignation of Minister of Transportation. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but the article requires work. I've tweaked the blurb a bit. I'm neutral on adding the resignation, but it would make for quite a long blurb, so I haven't. Formerip (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support more attention being paid to this. This is both a significant tragedy as well being an important event regarding the Arab Spring and Operation Pillar of Cloud as noted here http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/132876?type=ap This event should have its own article and more prominent exposure on the Main page. The 2012 Guatemala Earthquake is relatively less newsworthy. 66.87.70.72 (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- Update complete, consensus unanimous. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Article is a stub: cannot be ready. Kevin McE (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
We actually have a guideline minimum for article length: "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs". Formerip (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Not anymore. I have removed that classification because the article is three short paragraphs, which is generally considered the border for stubs, but is about a recent news event, so one wouldn't expect much more out of an encyclopedia article. Not to say that there isn't plenty more that could be added, but it isn't really stub level anymore. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It still says this, and the article is rather shorter than the example of the minimum that should be posted according to ITN's policy page. Kevin McE (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
AFAICT, it's not shorter. It's exactly the same shortness. Formerip (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
223 words is definitely less than 336: 1/3 less. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This might be a bit of a stale discussion now, but where are you getting the number 336 from? Formerip (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Copy and paste the text (without ToC) of the minimum acceptable example into MSWord, which gives a word count. Kevin McE (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Potential support if there is any prospect of an article that is any more than a stub, but the sources don't give confidence that that can happen within the timespan relevant to ITN. It has no importance in relation to Operation Pillar of Cloud, and is remotely linked to some of the underlying causes of the Arab Spring, but above ISP support is rather hyperbolic. Plenty of poorer countries that have had democratic elections for many years have infrastructures that are underinvested in, and with poor safety standards or dependence on unstimulated workers doing long hours. Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted in Recent death ticker] Bal Thackeray: Nominated for blurb levelEdit

Article: Bal Thackeray (talk, history)
Blurb: Bal Thackeray,founder of Shiv Sena, dies at the age of 86.
News source(s): Non Indian media sources [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]
Nominator: TheTigerKing (talk • give credit)
Updater: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Towering figure in Indian political scene. Founder of Shiv Sena. Article is updated. Regards, theTigerKing  13:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: No brainer. Most of Mumbai is virtually shut down right now following news of his death. Police has issued advisory requiring all residents to stay inside unless absolutely necessary. Several columns of paramilitary forces deployed across Mumbai. Top news across all Indian news services, top story in BBC Asia page. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support That is equal to 1000 lions getting died. Half of the Mumbai used to run at his orders. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for Recent Deaths. That's what we have this section for. (I'm not sure if the nominator proposed this for RD or with a proper blurb, the section header reads "Recent death ticker", but there is a blurb proposed) He achieved a great age, so the death came not completely unexpectable, and he did not hold an office at the time of his death (correct me if I'm wrong). So this is not news in the narrow sense of the word. But he is obviously notable enough for the Recent Deaths section, and the update is decent. Btw, I don't understand the thing with the lions. --RJFF (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he didn't held office at the time of his death. I had been out of Wikipedia for sometime now. Didn't know of recent death ticker thing. I copied the template from somewhere down the bottom. I personally would nominate it for ticker. He is referred to as lion for his audacity.Regards, theTigerKing  18:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Shouldn't it be posted in main news? BBC, Hindustan Times, Times of India has it on home page and almost all national and regional News channels had full day coverage. Mumbai Police says that about 20 lakh i.e. 2 million attend the funeral. [52] [53] --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - per Redtigerxyz. TheSpecialUser TSU 14:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Respected journals have covered his death and life (NYT appended in the sources column).Regards, theTigerKing  15:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
full blurb I was just coming here to say that it should be a full blurb as nothing ever in deaths so far (since WP ITN) has been bigger (though i did consider Kichner's recent edeath as an example but wasnt sure how big the funeral was): This is perhaps the largest funeral in the world since Nasser (or even Milosevic) but its more as the top 5/10 biggest cities in the world was brought to \a complete standstill (and voluntarily). Pharmacies were closed and every single outlet except 5-star hotels (not even hole-in-the-wall cigarette stands, no water sales from even street stalls), although ive now found out the club/s ppened after 6pm (and had liquor) (should be closing in 20 mins, as normal ;)). Nevertheless, the magnitude of 2 million+ people at a funeral is unprecedented, and, unlike the above examples, India was a democracy, which is notable for the mass following he did get and transparently built a statue as such (without the state apparatus). Even opposition figures and minorities for a "hindu nationalist" were present. as i write Times Now is showing him saying "there are only 2 castes in the world rich and poor. make poor rich but dont make rich poor". As theyre saying, mass following unprecedented (in a democracy of this size) and even women (and minorities). A funeral with so much support...anyone would want it, but i doubt yull have this in over a generation.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose for full blurb. A sub-national level politician, not holding office, who died of old age, and about whom maybe the best can be said from his article is that he told his militant supporters never to use their violence...against women. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment As for reader interest, Phyllis Diller got more hits on check views than Thackeray did on their deaths, and she was never listed on ITN or RD. μηδείς (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep on death ticker per above. Do we really need to have this debate every time someone is already posted on the death ticker? Hot Stop (Talk) 04:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The nom and updater are certainly entitled to argue for a full blurb, that's part of the process and their arguments are in good faith, but I simply oppose. μηδείς (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
See the death section. Its the repercussions of his death that are much higher. Also see [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Bal_Thackeray hitsLihaas (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

November 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 16

[Pulled] Hostess BrandsEdit

Article: Hostess Brands (talk, history)
Blurb: Hostess Brands, once the largest wholesale baker in the United States, announces it is liquidating its assets and laying off its 18,500 employees.
Alternative blurb: Hostess Brands, the US baker of Twinkies and Wonderbread, is to lay off 18,500 and liquidate due to bankruptcy.
News source(s): CNBC BBC Global News Canada
Nominator: 331dot (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major layoffs and the liquidation of a once-major company seems a notable event to me, though this is the first time I have done this. Article has been updated by others with recent information. --331dot (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support, more because this is "in the news" that everyone's reporting it with a slightly humorous bent ("what will we do without Twinkies?!" type reactions) but I know we normally don't include business matters unless they are more significant. I would say that if this was used, mention of the union/strike problems as the cause in the blurb. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to include something about the strike but I feared it would make the blurb too long; I'm open to suggestions. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; this seems similar, but much smaller, to the South African labour stories we posted before. It's a large story affecting thousands of workers. GRAPPLE X 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't want to live in a world without Twinkies. Also a labor dispute taking down a major 82-year old company seems fairly unusual. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Brand and products means very little, if anything, outside of the U.S. Not exactly Lockhead Martin. Leaky Caldron 15:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not just the brand and products, but the end of a long-lasted and well known company along with a very large number of layoffs. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • support iconic American brand, referenced in a lot of movies.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • strong support "Twinkies" are an iconic American product, as much as Coca-Cola or McDonald's. Their demise leaves a hole in American culture.    → Michael J    16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, Twinkies aren't really going anywhere. Hostess will sell off their assets, which includes selling their iconic brands to other corporations that will surely continue them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Wonderbread and Twinkies are culturally iconic objects, no less than Cambell's Soup, if not moreso. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Altblurb I have added "Hostess Brands, the US baker of Twinkies and Wonderbread, is to lay off 18,500 and liquidate due to bankruptcy" as an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted with a simplified version of the original blurb. Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull - It's not often I say that. But this is such an utterly parochial story, I'm surprised it's been so strongly supported. Here in the UK, I think most people would have no idea what Hostess or Twinkies were. I don't really care much for all this sentimental 'iconic American product' stuff. And as I understand it, the main reason that Twinkies aren't going anywhere is that the product is as nuke-proof as a cockroach. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull - It appears that shameless U.S. centrism is once again rearing its ugly head on WP:ITN. This has absolutely none, zero, zip, zilch cultural significance outside of the United States. Further research of the story will reveal that the Twinkies themselves are not gone as the recipes will be sold to the highest bidder. This is contrived.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want to contribute here, please familiarize yourself with this section. Personal attacks are wholly unhelpful. Swarm X 17:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull - So the scandal that has enveloped the BBC is regarded as parochial and unimportant, but an American snack manufacturer is not? Why was this posted with such haste? This makes ITN look laughable. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull. I've never posted here before, but I was amazed to see this on the Main Page. Hard as it may be to believe, no-one outside the US has ever heard of Hostess Brands or any of their products. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull - Brand longevity itself not good enough. Doesn't even make the U.S. news page of Google News. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
False. It is the first item under business at Google News. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not on the US news page. What he said is true. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Item has been pulled per the above consensus. --Jayron32 20:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I will say, that has got to be one of the quickest turnarounds of consensus I have ever seen. Almost impressive in a way. No opposition to the pull, obviously. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Repost with the twinkie/wonderbread altblurb. First, the usual racist anti-american comments are against policy and should be discounted. Second, the "Twinkie" and "Wonderbread" brands are much more widely known than the parent company, a blurb without them will of course be met by "huh". μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Americans aren't a race, so it's not possible to be racist towards them. Your complaints about anti-Americanism come across as an attempt to stifle dissent and perpetuate a status quo in which Americans, as the largest and loudest participants on Wikipedia, trample over others' concerns. This is an international encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia about things of exclusive interest to Americans. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, does bigot suit you? It's against ITN policy to complain a story affects one country. Read it. And please, show me one edit here ever where someone has opposed something as not American. Admin's should discount your opinion entirely. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Let us not be blind to our differences – but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is being covered internationally, with Canadian sources morning the passing "RIP: Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Wonder Bread" and the BBC covering it. CNBC BBC Global News Canada μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not on the BBC front page, nor even on the BBC World News front page. You have to go truffling pretty deep to find this supposedly "internationally significant" story on the BBC website. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Once again you show bad faith. Who here are you quoting as having said "internationally significant"? Are they the same Americans who've trampled you in the past? μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Show me where to find the story on the BBC News main page. And read the WP article on scare quotes. In the meantime, I'll just leave these good-faith edits here [54] [55] 87.114.31.223 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and Repost This was not a good pull since post oppositions were mostly about locality and its clearly stated above "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive". At time of posting there was a strong consensus and items should not be pulled unless there are some exceptional circumstances (it just looks awful). Also article has been updated quite well. I see no reason to not post -- Ashish-g55 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, note that 4 of the 5 pull votes above are complaints from Brits they've never heard of it or that the US gets covereage at the English Wikipedia and the fifth is based on the inaccurate claim that Google News hasn't covered this. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Marcus Qwertyus accurately pointed out that this story does not even make the US news page on Google News. You replied that it is under [the US] Business section, but that doesn't make him wrong. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Being the "largest baker" is just too obscure to be a notable company. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I think Twinkies are more notable than Star Wars, upon which you heaped praise and support. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: very limited scope is a relevant factor when it is not countered by great importance, and this is not a matter of great importance. Assets, including no doubt the right to make and market the apparently greatly valued Twinkie, will be sold, so we are left with one more business going under. It is disingenuous to say that it is featured on the BBC without being willing to acknowledge that it is the 7th story on the business page, behind the release of the names of companies being investigated for nuisance marketing calls and a CBI press release suggesting that the government should promote growth. That is a measure of the priority the BBC gives the story: it is repeating an agency feed, not making an editorial priority of the story. Kevin McE (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Reposting That was pulled too soon. Hostess is an iconic and well-known american brand-name, equal to, if not more reputable than Kodak, which we posted when they went bankrupt earlier this year. Definitely merits reposting. EDIT: In terms of significance, CNN has a whole section devoted to Hostess news on their homepage, with links to 10 different stories about the closings. In addition, BBC.co.uk's article on the closing is on their "most shared" list.- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 22:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose had to look hard to find this article on the World page of the BBC website, and given the "iconic" Twinkie brand will doubtless continue in another form (since Hostess will sell its assets "to the highest bidder), the only significance is the number of jobs being laid off. Seems like this has been a long time coming in any case, filing for bankruptcy three years ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Comparison with Kodak doesn't stand up. Every country I visited sold Kodak products, it was an international corporation. Can't say the same for Twinkie cream cakes. Leaky Caldron 22:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep, agree with that. I've visited over 50 countries and I found Kodak in every one of them. Twinkie? Just one. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
So they aren't notable because they aren't sold outside of the US? I have yet to see a convincing reason as to why this shouldn't be posted, other than those who are not from the US saying they aren't notable. It's perfectly acceptable to not be knowledgeable of every product outside of one's home country, but you need to look at it from the other country's point of view, hence the reason for "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." in the very large and un-noticed blue box at the top of this page. Just because it doesn't matter in the UK, doesn't mean it's not important (same goes for non-US stories!). It's silly that others (US, UK, wherever) have this same idea that things outside of their home don't matter. I support the postings of things like Cricket and non-US elections, which mean absolutely zilch to me in the US, because I understand the significance to other countries. Hostess IS a highly notable brand in the US, and a pioneer in the mass-production of baked goods, and not just for Twinkies, either. Wonder Bread was one of the first mass-produced sliced breads to be made available. Seems simple, but that was highly innovative back in the day, and was a huge success. Even if you look past this, 18,500 people losing their jobs is HUGE no matter what country it's in. (Sorry for the long rant) -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For reasons already given. Plus, as well as being an internationally enormous brand, Kodak is a significant business and technological innovator on a historic scale. So the comparison...well, there really isn't one. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    So because Hostess made simple creme-filled cakes and not cameras/film, they aren't innovative? They were the first of their kind to be mass-produced and widely distributed, and have been around since before WWII. You can't walk into a convenience store in the US that doesn't sell a Hostess product of some sort (well now you can!). Hostess was a pioneer in the industry for Sliced bread (Wonder Bread) and other mass-produced baked goods, just like Kodak was for film products. They are the same. Plus, how is 18,500+ people losing their jobs not notable? -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 00:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    27,000 people were made redundant in the UK when Woolworths, a mainstay of the British high street, closed, and that was not even nominated for ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    It should have been. I'd have supported the item. That was an iconic retailer. (So was the related U.S. chain, whose closure predates Wikipedia.) —David Levy 17:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, that did turn around quick. I don't really understand the "it's a US thing" objections; I see plenty of UK news in the ITN that I've never heard of. Someone said above that "in the UK, I think most people would have no idea what Hostess or Twinkies were." Well, you have an idea now- just as I would about UK news- which seems to me to be part of the point of ITN. I think that 18,000 plus job losses are notable regardless of the company or location. 331dot (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Repost. I ask that it be reposted, as it is stated above that "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." 331dot (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Repost - A major, shocking story. That one does not know of Hostess does not mean it is not significant; I had to look up the significance of Archbishop of Canterbury, for example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Being the effective leader of the third largest Christian communion in the world with a membership of 80 million is inherently more notable than a cake manufacturer. Leaky Caldron 11:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
But 18,000 plus job losses is notable, regardless of the company. Objections based purely on the fact that Hostess is a US company are invalid, according to the criteria on this page. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Repost. While an event's international significance is a valid consideration, the absence thereof isn't a disqualifying factor, so opposition based thereupon is invalid.
    The company in question is nothing short of iconic in the United States. Literally everywhere I went yesterday, I heard people talking about its demise. I would support an ITN item about the closure of any company with comparable historical and cultural significance in its home country. —David Levy 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Well now the article has two orange tags, so it can't go up just yet. -- tariqabjotu 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose reposting: Trivial news, as elaborated by others above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    18,000 layoffs is not trivial under any circumstances. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    This is not 18,000 people in one town: it is across the country. 3.8 million Americans lost their jobs in 2009: this is 42 hours worth. Caterpillar and Pfizer each announced 20000 redundancies in a day: no headlines here [56] Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    No one has asserted that the loss of 18,000 jobs is sufficiently noteworthy on its own. It contributes to the significance of an iconic company's closure. —David Levy 23:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    Several people have suggested that it is the scale of redundancies that makes this more than trivial. How can a company that has had its identity for only three years be iconic? Some of its brands might be, but as has already been stated, if those brands are seen to be of any value, they will be sold, so will not be disappearing. Kevin McE (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    Several people have suggested that it is the scale of redundancies that makes this more than trivial.
    It certainly is a factor. But if the company itself weren't folding, I doubt that we'd be having this discussion (and if we were, I would oppose the item).
    How can a company that has had its identity for only three years be iconic?
    The "Hostess" and "Wonder" brands were introduced in the early 1920s. Interstate Bakeries promoted itself primarily under those names (including a chain of stores and familiar fleet of delivery trucks), leading the public to identify the company accordingly (with the name change to "Hostess Brands" reflecting this popular perception). —David Levy 01:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    And if those brands are so valuable, then they are sellable assets, and will not disappear. Kevin McE (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    We're talking about the 82 year old company(regardless of what it was called), whose products were purchased by millions and influenced culture, not just the brands. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    Exactly. This isn't about the end of products labeled "Hostess". It's about the closure of the company that made it a household name. —David Levy 12:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    So it boils down to: Popular snacks will have a different manufacturer's name in small print. That is not significant. Kevin McE (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    If the brands are bought, that might be a valid point, but until they are, they are going away. The closure of a company that influenced American culture and whose products were bought by tens of millions over 82 years is significant. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    Again, this isn't mainly about the products. (They've vanished from store shelves for the time being, but that's a relatively minor element of the story.) It's about the closure of the company that popularized mass-produced snack cakes and sliced bread in the United States. —David Levy 18:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    There may be some crossed wires here, but the company only seems to have acquired the Twinkie and Wonder Bread brands in 1995 (according to WP). Formerip (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    Aha, so all the nostalgia above and below really should be directed to the defunct Continental Baking Company? Hostess just owned the "Twinkie" name, just like some other company will own it in due course? Besides the large (potential) lay off brought on by unions, this is a non-story then....? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    No. Hostess Brands is/was a direct continuation of the products' original manufacturer, which merged with various other companies over the years. The brands' owner has never ceased operation or transferred the U.S. rights to a separate entity. —David Levy 23:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose reposting. The products were limited to the US and aren't known worldwide, unlike Turbo chewing gum for example (but yes, job loss often hurts). Brandmeistertalk 15:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    Again, that something relates to a particular country and isn't "known worldwide" doesn't disqualify it from inclusion in ITN.
    I assume that you meant to write "not unlike Turbo chewing gum", but I see no evidence that it's an exceptionally noteworthy brand (let alone an iconic company). —David Levy 17:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    I think such postings would give a yellow page-like corporate feel to Wikipedia. If the main page grieves about something, let it be fairly recognizable. Brandmeistertalk 17:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
    Firstly, dispassionately reporting a company's closure doesn't constitute grieving. Secondly, Hostess is one of its country's most recognizable brands. —David Levy 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Notability Cambell's Soup and Mexican food Grupo Bimbo are in the bidding for the Twinkie brand. Twinkies have featured in Wall-E, Lost (TV series), Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Stephenie Meyer's The Host, The Simpsons,[57] Die Hard, Superbowl Commercials, Zombieland, Family Guy, Weird Al Yankovic, and Ghostbusters.[58] Morgan Freeman's voice's effect has even been related to a Twinkie:

    Announcer: This Friday on TNT, the world premiere of Morgan Freeman in 'The Narrator.'
    Morgan Freeman: Ever since I was a little boy, people have enjoyed the sound of my voice. And I figured you either get busy talkin' or you get busy dyin'. The work is really quite easy. Why even right now I'm just sitting in a chair, sipping some tea and reading from a script. The wall is covered in something that resembles egg crates except they're soft and spongy, like a twinkie...like a twinkie. —Family Guy[59]

    So why has this not been reposted with Twinkies in the blurb? We've got international press coverage, including three days of coverage in the US, International interest in buying the brand, proven iconic status, and opposes consisting almost entirely of invalid anti-US sentiment. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    A Family Guy reference counts as notability? This is just getting laughable now. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    Hilarious. I can't wait for the South Park episode. Come on, it's a dead brand. I know you didn't buy it as a dead brand, but 'ere's your money back and a couple of holiday vouchers! Or alt blurb, "one company who owns Twinkies goes bust because of union strikes sells Twinkies brand to another company."? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    Do you have dislexia, IP87, or just trollism? The notability is not based on Family Guy. The notability is based on coverage by the US, Canadian, and British press, interest in the brand from the World's Largest Baking Company based in Mexico, Grupo Bimbo, and iconic cultural status as portrayed in Wall-E, Lost (TV series), Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Stephenie Meyer's The Host, The Simpsons,[60] Die Hard, Superbowl Commercials, Zombieland, Family Guy, Weird Al Yankovic, and Ghostbusters. I suggest the two above mocking comments demonstrate exactly the invalid and unreasoned level of the opposes here. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    You claim UK coverage, given lower priority than release of names of companies under investigation for unsolicited marketing calls, as grounds for posting, and other people's posts are unreasonable? Kevin McE (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    Putting aside the fact that the international press coverage is far from noteworthy, there is very little chance that this item is going anywhere, since there is clearly no consensus. Gotta love that deliberate misspelling of dyslexia. Worthy of the scriptwriters of Family Guy 87.114.31.223 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    I would disagree, as once the invalid geographic-based objections are taken out of the picture, there is more support than opposition(irrespective of any quality issues of the article, which is a different issue). 331dot (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    There is nothing "invalid" about such opposes. There is a request not to complain about an event only relating to a single country, but it is perfectly valid to point out the conjunction of triviality and parochialism, as well as the very likely lack of any long term loss of "iconic" brands, as adding up to a severe shortfall in importance. No-one supporting the posting has made any rebuttal of the assertions that brands will be sold and will reappear before long. Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    And what exactly is saying (to paraphrase) "it's a US thing" if it is not a complaint about it being a US thing? The brands are not relevant in and of themselves; the company going away is. The brands have not yet been sold and it will take time for that to occur; they will be going away, if only briefly.331dot (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    The degree of international significance is a valid consideration, but arguments (not yours) based solely on the lack thereof rely upon the incorrect premise that it's required.
    Indeed, no one has rebutted statements that the company's most popular brands will survive. That's because no one asserts otherwise. —David Levy 21:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Point is Twinkies will continue to be sold. Point is, Hostess Brands is a defunct conglomerate of other companies. Point is, Twinkies and any other brand people can make money from will still viable and will continue to exist. Twinkies is not dead, it's waiting for the honeymoon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    As noted above, the article now has two orange-level tags. Irrespective of consensus, no item can be posted unless and until the issues are resolved. —David Levy 23:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

RepostI was surprised to see this pulled, and even moreso when I found that all of the objections to the article revolve around notability. Twinkey and Wonder Bread are iconic symbols for two-thirds of the world's native English speakers. How this event isn't notable for the English Wikipedia is boggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  • HOLD THE PRESSES This is breaking front page news right now. Reposting now while the news changes might be premature, but that it is considered top of the page breaking news puts the lie to the not-notable crowd. μηδείς (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Bradley Wiggins being knocked off his bike was also top of the page breaking news. Proves nothing. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    ITN is not supposed to be about breaking news. It's supposed to deal with about topical events in an encyclopedic manner. The event is clearly topical, obviously notable (otherwise this discussion would be something other than people trolling midies), and the linked article is "good enough" for an ITN link. It's certainly better than many ITN links, which are usually one-man-hour jobs of copy-pasting from various news sources. I see no reason that this shouldn't be reposted other than embarrassment on the part of the editors and a lot of braying.
    Aha, there's a negotiation brewing between the union that caused this company to sell its assets and the workforce? So the nomination is premature? Suggest withdrawing the whole thing until there is a news story then. (And ooh, that was Fox News with a secondary story on a business page... hardly "breaking front page news"!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    NO, the nomination was not premature, because we are not psychic. What would be really nice would be oppose editors either findin a policy fault with the nom or giving references, rather than pulling stuff out of their asses like "it's just America" or "I never heard of it." For example, what other brand name product is more referenced in media than Twinkies? Coca Cola certainly isn't, although it has a worldwide market. It's really quite shameful that we have so much mindless bigotry here parading as if it were rational argument. In the end I will happily settle for Twinkies staying on the market over outlanders and contrarians venting their spleen, or not. Nothing is better for dessert than a frozen Twinkie. Arrgghh.μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Outlanders? Outlanders? Now the parochial jingoism of the ugly American shows itself in its true colo(u)rs. The oppose !voters, who are many, have indicated that the supposed "international coverage" you have pointed to is far from significant, that a bunch of half-arsed pop-culture references dredged up from TV Tropes does not constitute notability, and that this story is trivial because the brands will doubtless continue anyway – all of which you choose to ignore and overlook. There are major news stories afoot, including every other nomination on this page, and you're still nursing a wound over some cream-cake brand? Get a sense of perspective, please. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    These insults (from both sides) are uncalled for. Support and opposition need not be disrespectful. —David Levy 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    Maybe you could suggest what to call outlanders and contrarians whose every complaint about every American related nomination is that it's American? Calling Outlanders outlanders and contrarians contrarians hardly seems insulting. I'd also like documentation of one regular American poster here who complains that a Ruritanian posting (for example) is only being posted because of Ruritanocentrism. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    I see no need for name-calling of any sort. —David Levy 04:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    Both contrarian and outlander have objective meanings which certainly apply to users like IP 87 and don't count as insulting epithets. Maybe calling him a limey git would be insulting, but I haven't said anything of the sort and it is he and others who treat American as if it were a dirty word. But I'll bow to your moral superiority if we can drop that and stick to sources and valid arguments. Notice that I have even said we should hold off on reposting while the current settlement rumors exist. Where do we see that good faith in the editors who say something being at the top of the business news doesn't count as being at the top of the US news? You won't hear from me on this again til I have a new source. It's curious whether you'll hear from other who don't. μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not defending others' incivility (which isn't confined to name-calling, incidentally). I'm saying that none of it is necessary. —David Levy 19:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • 1,000,000 hits and more for Hostess Brands and its brands at check view since the liquidation has been announced. Not that our readers care. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Past 'Mistakes' For those thrown into a tizzy by the fact that the facts on the ground have changed since this valid nom was pulled, be aware that 17 or so Pinta Island Totoises have been identified since we posted the death of the "last" one, Lonesome George, in June, 2012. Note that that story got 80,000 hits the first day, dropping off quickly to nothing, compared to the Twinkie story, which is still at the top of the news. μηδείς (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oh dear, how sad, never mind. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    You appear to have forgotten to include a rationale. —David Levy 19:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Croatian general acquittedEdit

Articles: Ante Gotovina (talk, history) and Mladen Markač ‎ (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Croatian generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač are acquitted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
News source(s): BBC The Guardian, The Economic Times
Nominator: Wüstenfuchs (talk • give credit)
Updater: Lihaas (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Wüstenfuchs (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

 --Wüstenfuchs 12:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nominator's comment: The ICTY's decision was widly celebrated in Croatia. Around 100,000 people cheered when they arrived in Zagreb and they were greeted by the top officials. On the other side, Serbia halted its relations with the International Court and called the court's decision "scandalous". --Wüstenfuchs 18:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Both articles updated. Just need consensus...Totally politicla as it is cnsidering this entity is gonna join the eu in 6 weeks.Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It's probably best that you just stop marking items as [Ready] since you don't know what the tag means. -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus has indicated that it means the update.
Its also then if youre to lecture me, then th eupdate requires sentences of prose not your posting of the election of the US or the posting of the copt pop.e (BOTH of which had nota single word of prose update when psted...which was quit hypocritical in saying below it needs a prose update when 2 weeks ago you say none to post)Lihaas (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
What Hot Stop said. -- tariqabjotu 04:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thirded. Lihaas, please stop trying to 'win' ITN, and concentrate on your spelling instead. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to pile on, but I would like to support the notion that ready requires consensus as well. It is supposed to be a marking for an admin to post. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Markač's article has an extensive update while Gotovina's does not. Fix this first. Otherwise, we've posted the first verdict so it is in place to post the final one as well. --Tone 10:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If Ante Gotovina was in the Template: In the news from 17 April 2011 (04:24 (UTC)) to 20 April 2011 (16:14 (UTC)) then his acquittal should be In the news for the same duration (time/period of duration). This is only fair.-- Vrjednik (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Time duration spent on ITN is based on Main Page balance and how many items are being posted at the time, not based on notability or how long previous items have been posted. SpencerT♦C 23:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Is tis going to be added on the Main page? I updated both articles. --Wüstenfuchs 00:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready- I'm disappointed this wasn't posted earlier. Very thorough updates in both articles. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting. SpencerT♦C 19:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Jordan protestsEdit

Article: 2011-2012 Jordanian protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following Friday prayers, Jordanians call for the ouster of King Abdullah II, primarily over fuel price increases.
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major turn in the potest that previously mentioned a constit. monarchy. MOre notable by its neighbours Syria, in civil war, and israel , in a new war --Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The protests have been going on all week, and I don't see detail (on BBC reports) that this is appreciably bigger than anything earlier in the week, which were not massive by any means. Watch out for escalation, certainly, but looks to be below the threshhold from what I see at the moment. ENGVAR note: in UK English, an ouster would be a person who ousts, which would lead the reader to b) remark that the news of the king's overthrow had passed them by, and b) wonder what they are calling for the revolutionaries to do. Kevin McE (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I agree with Kevin McE; it doesn't seem that significant an event yet; it it becomes such, then it can be included. These current protests seem to be driven simply by fuel prices and not just a call to remove the King. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gaza reduxEdit

'Article: Gaza war (2012) (talk, history)
Blurb: 
Escalating conflict in the Gaza Strip leads to the first missiles fired on Jerusalem since the 1967 war.
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major turn of events now, and also some 75k reservists called up by israel --Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Jabari is certainly no longer the main story in this conflict, but I could not support a blurb that refers to Jerusalem attacks without balance of mention of attacks on Gaza. Kevin McE (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment At the moment, we have Operation Pillar of Cloud linked in ITN. If a better article appears, we can post it. --Tone 10:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

November 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 15

San Marino electionEdit

Article: Sammarinese general election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The San Marino Common Good alliance wins a majority of the Grand and General Council of San Marino in the Sammarinese general election.
News source(s): La Tribuna Sammarinese Voice of Russia, Politics Abroad
Nominator: Bzweebl (talk • give credit)
Updater: RJFF (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Bzweebl (talk • give credit)

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: I understand that this is a microstate, but it has been deemed notable enough to have a blurb. Unless the status of elections on ITN/R is changed, this is already considered to have consensus. The purpose of ITN/R is to eliminate unnecessary discussions on news already deemed to be notable by the ITN community. If anyone can figure out who won for me to update the article that would be great. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So why don't we wait to find out who won before we bring it here? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm guessing the results are probably known since the election was four days ago, but I just can't find them. I was assuming someone would know or would be able to find the results. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A state this size is barely a country, this has all the significance of a city-council election. Consider this an WP:IAR or a vote against this being on ITN/R if you must, but whichever way do we really think this is noteworthy, or are we following the rules for the sake of it? LukeSurl t c 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. San Marino is a sovereign nation, the same as any other. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- The results are in.[61] Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I will be unable to update the article for about another 19 hours. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support iff there is enough election information to have a complete, solid election article. If there is not enough information to provide such an update, oppose. SpencerT♦C 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Luke and contra Bzweebl's assertion of ITNR privilege. This is not a nation, it's a tax haven with a zip code. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    That would have to be one of the most arrogant, ignorant and bigoted comments I've ever read on Wikipedia. San Marino could easily be regarded as the oldest nation-state in Europe, with a national identity just as strong as any other. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    You obviously haven't read much here--either that or you're trying to win the Nobel Prize in Hyperbole. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Exaggeration aside, it's still a pretty narrow view of a nation with a rich history and a pivotal role in the creation of modern Europe. Size isn't everything. that's what she said GRAPPLE X 19:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    There's no "aside" about it. I said nothing about the place not having a storied history (although that's obviously a point of pride strong enough to drive a random stranger to call me a bigot) but we don't post the mayoral elections for Athens or Mysore either. Please don't anyone waste mine, yours, or this board's time further by lecturing me on history, I stand opposed. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I'd be among the first to oppose mayoral elections for cities. But this is a country. You are comparing apples and oranges. GRAPPLE X 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I am fairly certain this dead horse has been beaten enough, but you can't offer the past historical import of a city-state (which is what this is), or any entity as justification for a current event being posted, or everything that ever happened in Jericho or Venice would have to go up on that basis. "It's an old city!" does not outweigh "It's of far less importance than any other current ITN item." μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    See now you're putting words in my mouth. I haven't justified this nom on the basis of history or age. I supported it on the basis of it being a sovereign country, which you repeatedly seem to either ignore or overlook. This is as important on the world stage as countries like Lesotho or the Bahamas, which, size aside, have the same drop-in-the-ocean importance on the world stage, yet had their elections posted. Because they're countries and countries, like San Marino, are already pre-approved to run via ITNR. This is not just a city. It's a country. This is not just a city. It's a country. GRAPPLE X 23:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    I was just dropping by and I have nothing to do with any of this, that is I couldn't care less about what you do with the Sanmarinese general election, but this one did catch my eye: "Pivotal role in the creation of modern Europe"? Hunh? Especially in a post that starts with the word "exaggeration". Basemetal (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    Italy as a unified state (what with it being one of the larger and more powerful countries on the continent and playing a large part in WWII and EU politics) owes its existence to San Marino being the safe haven of choice for many of the unification movement's leaders, Garibaldi included. Obviously that's not the same as, say, Germany's role or France's role in creating the modern landscape but it's hardly the reach that "tax haven with a zip code" is. But I digress. ITNR, sovereign nation state, post. GRAPPLE X 20:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because it is a sovereign country. ComputerJA (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not notable which party is running such a small country which is smaller than most US cities. 331dot (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lack of update the page is NOT fit to be linked to by the main page. Mtking (edits) 03:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Population of 30k? That's smaller than cities that nobody's ever heard of, including the one I was just in a couple weeks ago. Who leads this microstate is certainly not in the news. Also, the article is in terrible shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Sovereign nation, long history, ITNR, all these are valid reasons thanks. GRAPPLE X 05:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh... isn't this the type of debate ITNR was built to prevent? –HTD 06:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a sovereign nation, this is its principal election. Case closed, nothwithstanding the chauvinistic bigotry of the citizens of larger nations. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not bigoted to think that some nations are more prominent in world affairs than others. Who is running this small country of 30,000 (smaller than all major US cities and most minor ones) doesn't have that great an impact on the world. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment As the election was on 11 November, this should have been proposed under the 11 November section, not under today's. --RJFF (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If anything, it would be for November 13, because that was the day the results were published. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, a coalition has won which includes both major parties of the country (Christian democrats and PSD). Shouldn't the blurb name the San Marino Common Good alliance as the winner? --RJFF (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, someone has to add some lines of prose to the article. Even if it is ITN/R, there is still the requirement of a considerable update (which should not only be a result table, but also at least five lines of prose.) --RJFF (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is fuckin ridiculous. I should've nominated my hometown's elections. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I see the maturity of the opposition to this posting has declined even further. If you can't tell the difference between one of the world's oldest nations and your own hometown, I have no clue why we should trust your opinion. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I can. My hometown has 15 times as many people. That fact that you have no clue about the insignificance of this makes me question your judgment. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Though I opposed above, I am aware that this is a sovereign nation, not just any town with 30,000 people. I maintain however that it is of low significance due to the extremely small size. As stated above as well the article is (currently) terrible. LukeSurl t c 15:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with that reasoning completely. This just isn't newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the article is an abortion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Wow, you've hit an all-time low in your offensive edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The main thing is that I'm right. Now off you go to expand it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Why the need to be so offensive, comparing an article to an abortion? Do you realise how upsetting you are? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and ITN/R advocacy be damned. It's not a catch-all for posting every single election, and we know this.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment the size of the country is irrelevant. Belize, Iceland, Maldives and the Bahamas all have less people than Hamilton, Ontario. ITN/R is clear, every country on list of sovereign states gets a pass on notability. The article needs work, but lets not hate on san marino just because it's small. --IP98 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The size is not irrelevant; it's impact on world affairs is, and that's minimal given its size. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose is of very limited relevance and notability. Not so long ago referendums in states with 10+ millions of inhabitants have been deemed not significant enough for ITN, now an election in a country of 30,000 inhabitants supposed to be more notable only because is called a "country". That's governance form bias. --ELEKHHT 01:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Eh I think the problem (the reason why it was rejected) is that it was just an announcement of a referendum, not an actual result of one, whereas this is a result. (At least AFAIK with the Scottish independence referendum). hbdragon88 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it was a result. It was opposed on grounds of being only "state". --ELEKHHT 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Heads we post it, tails we don't [62]. It isn't that big a deal either way, folks. No sense getting mad. (FWIW, I just got heads for the "official" flip, so I say post after decent update.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be leaning oppose, IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus already exists. If you want to change that, go to WT:ITN/R. And if this doesn't get posted for notability reasons, this automatically has to be removed from ITN/R because it needs to be posted every time unless it has update problems. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No, consensus does not exist: the presumption of consensus exists at ITN/R, but that presumption is being shown here to be erroneous. Despite my support below, discussions such as this demonstrate that unless the consensus on ITN/R inclusion is so strong as to make it clear that opposition is eccentric, that consensus is not secure. To claim that consensus exists on the grounds of a generalised discussion, when specific debate indicates otherwise, is to put the bureaucratic cart before the horse. Kevin McE (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In that case, prpartake in the long-winded discussion we had on talk. If people dont want to partake in discussion of this nature then they cant claim to oppose because there is no consensus. Those who discussed it deemed this as such.Lihaas (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I see no evident conclusion from my comment that prparticipation in another discussion is called for, nor do you offer the assistance of letting me know which discussion you refer to (the now closed one I contributed to on 18 April perhaps?), nor do you assert by what authority you presume to order me as to what discussions I should or should not prpartake in. I have not opposed because there is no consensus, I have pointed out that in the case of this specific proposal, there does not appear to be a consensus. Consensus is identified by analysis of merits and quantity of the support for and opposition to a proposal, not a grounds to support or oppose: please don't insult my intelligence by accusing me of such a fundamental failing of logic. Kevin McE (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support: No question in my mind regarding notability, only regarding article quality (hardly any text update). Reg. notability: (1)ITN/R: If it is on ITN/R, it means notability has already been deemed as satisfied and requires only update quality to be verified. ITN/R clearly states that results of general elections of all countries listed in the List of Sovereign states are considered notable for posting on ITN. (2)No exceptions: ITN/R provides for case-to-case discussion on merits for certain topics like changes to heads of government. However, there are no exceptions or exclusions to the above rule on general elections provided under ITN/R. If the consensus is that certain countries need to be excluded, then the ITN/R rule needs to be changed. This has been suggested and debated several times (motions that I recall from memory included that micronations be excluded, only G20 be included, large sub-national entities /city elections be included, have an elections ticker, etc) but no change has been brought about. The basis of categorization has always been sovereignty. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- I have completed the update, so posting is up to admin judgement now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, because an encyclopaedia exists to educate, and so is not driven purely by numbers. Objections that this is smaller than my home town are no more relevant than saying that we should not report Libyan national election because we don't report municipal elections in Shangqiu, which has a larger population. Kevin McE (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
marking ready as the requisite update is there (though after the US election posting, clearly no prose is required as a preequisite). oppose votes dont matter to ITNR, if people (as usual) choose to oppose ITNR then they should to take it to talk for debate, which has been tried endlessly to no avail.Lihaas (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
If oppose votes don't matter, then why are we here? 331dot (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
To judge the update, rather than the story. GRAPPLE X 11:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That is not updated. There is essentially no prose. -- tariqabjotu 11:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There was, but it got deleted. Check the article history. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the many opposes here should just be dismissed as irrelevant; what users think matters. Additionally, if the prose is limited to nonexistent, it shouldn't be posted on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Huh, what a discussion! While I support inclusion of election results or changes of heads of states to ITN (even for two smallest countries in the world, Monaco and Vatican!), this particular article is simply not sufficiently well updated to be posted. Instead of arguing, add a couple of lines of prose and make it a good one. Time better spent. --Tone 12:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is staggering the amount of discussion about a relatively trivial topic. We have a glaring example of treading on broken glass with the inadequate headline of the Hamas assassination and the resident Admin refusing to include the word "targeted" in the blurb because he has taken personal offence. Leaky Caldron 12:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The article needs more prose. Oppose until then.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, when fully updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose votes dont matter and they should NOT be hear if one paid attention 331dot and not just listened to what wants to be heard. Its ITNR and all thats needed is the update!!! for disputiing ITNR take t to the talk page..
Of all people Tariqabjotu says there is not updated? Where was he US election update that you posted? and another one just befpre (egypt pope)?Lihaas (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not updated. It's still not updated. But, please, continue naming examples of other news items I didn't post. -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
ITN is not just what you say it is. Lihaas, grow up.--WaltCip (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If oppose votes don't matter then there should be a separate page or section to discuss "updates", as it is very confusing when a suggestion posted on the ITN Candidates page is not actually a candidate and is going to make it on the page no matter what objections are raised. 331dot (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Lihaas, your comments are concerning. You and anyone else who thinks the opposes are invalid clearly needs to be reminded to be reminded that we are not a bureaucracy. We operate by consensus, not pre-written rules (see also: fifth pillar). While this is technically covered by a blanket pre-approval for national elections, this simply does not and can not trump a newer consensus. And failure to get a consensus to post this one thing does not have any implications elsewhere. We wouldn't need to rewrite, discuss, or discredit anything that ITNR currently says, and we wouldn't need to operate any differently according to this one incident. We'd simply not post it and continue on as normal. Basically, if we (as a community) don't want to post something that's on ITNR, we don't have to. Swarm X 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not "in the news" in a significant way, not of significant impact outside of a very small group of people, and not likely to be of wide interest to readers. Let ITN/R be revised if necessary. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If this doesn't have consensus for posting, and it looks like it does, ITN/R does need to be fixed. I don't know why efforts to alter the elections category on ITN/R (either by excluding the X smallest countries or by removing the category altogether) are opposed when we get happenings like this. ITN/R is supposed to mirror what happens at ITN/C, and when it doesn't, the former needs to be fixed. -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ITNR is a guideline, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies - the local consensus on this item cannot override the broader established community consensus of the guideline. Until the guideline is changed through a new consensus-building process, it establishes a wider consensus than the discussion that happened here on this individual item. The discussion here should be focused solely on the update, not on the merits of the topic's inclusion, which has already been established by broader consensus elsewhere. NULL talk
      edits
      00:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"WP:LOCALCONSENSUS" does not invalidate WP:CCC, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY or WP:IAR. While a local consensus can't change policies or guidelines in any way, that doesn't mean we're obliged to follow them as law when doing so would be contentious. In any case, the purported "community consensus" backing this guideline is certainly questionable, at least. Swarm X 07:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Although inclusion of election results from all sovereign countries was widely discussed, the majority of ITN/R items had little or no discussion: the proposal that ITN/R represents a wider consensus is not, in many cases, a safe one. Kevin McE (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Replying to Swarm, yes, consensus can change, but it must be demonstrated, not asserted. If consensus on ITNR has changed, it must be demonstrated there by building consensus - just like I said in my reply above - and not by a local consensus on this individual item. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is part of WP:Consensus, which is policy, which means it should be followed unless there's a very good reason not to. WP:IAR only applies when the rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, and I fail to see how not reporting a national election result could be considered an improvement. Local consensus cannot override the wider consensus of a guideline - that rule is set in policy, it shouldn't be casually ignored. NULL talk
edits
00:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, we can expect a "better" discussion on ITN's favorite sporting event every February. The discussion has to be more thrilling than the actual game. At least finally, the massive opposition on that sporting event's inclusion in ITN would finally net a favorable result for them. –HTD 04:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a parliamentary election in a sovereign state is notable, with or without ITN/R doktorb wordsdeeds 07:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

BP receives biggest fine in US historyEdit

Article: Deepwater Horizon explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: BP reaches an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to pay $1.26B criminal fine for Deepwater Horizon disaster
Alternative blurb: BP reaches an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to pay $4.5B in fines and damages for the Deepwater Horizon disaster
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Ashishg55 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Biggest Criminal fine in US History for a major disaster... Either BP or Deepwater to update ---- Ashish-g55 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

  • OpposeWait, the blurb is factuality misleading, a very quick read of the linked BBC news source shows that the fine was only $1.26bn. Mtking (edits) 01:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you opposing the blurb only... Reword it if you think it should be different. Total fine is still about 4.5 billion -- Ashish-g55 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have changed the blurb, but wait until the courts accept the agreement (in the same way we wait to post on takeovers of baseball teams until the deal is completed). Mtking (edits) 01:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll let more comments come but i still think we should put the 4.5B figure not 1.26 since thats what BP has been told to pay. The other portion is basically punitive damages that they have to pay to National fish and wildlife association over period of 5 years. We cant just ignore that. -- Ashish-g55 02:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the total figure should be mentioned, perhaps by saying they were "ordered to pay 4.5 billion in fines and compensation". 331dot (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once confirmedby courts, with 4.5billion (per 331dot) - added attempt at alt blurb. EdwardLane (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, though the blurb should be reworded to clarify that the 4.5 billion is not all criminal fines. It is notable to point out the criminal resolution to the largest oil spill in the US. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to waiting until the Court officially approves it, though I think it's OK to put now. 331dot (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not a contested criminal or civil conviction, it's a mutually-agreed upon bribe paid to the US Treasury. μηδείς (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support News is reporting this based as historic based on the size of penalties being paid. Since In The News is supposed to be based on actual sources, the actual sources consider this important. --Jayron32 05:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a record, but that's quite different from historic. Were this a conviction with awards going to victims it would be worth considering. Instead it's the cost of doing business and will happily be paid to the treasury to put the matter to rest. μηδείς (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, again, that is based on your feelings, and not on what is being reported in the Press. Firstly, portions of the fine are being used to recompense losses to people who were harmed by the oil spill: [63] and [64] and [65] all explain what portions of the fine go to what purposes, and significant portions are going to the "victims". Secondly, "historic" is not my word. It's the sources word: LA Times: "Largest in U.S. History". Albany Tribune: "BP To Pay Historic $4.5 Billion Fine To U.S. For Horizon Oil Spill". WWL News: "Legal analyst Chick Foret said that while historic, BP can afford the $4 billion in fines..." Mississippi Press: ""A historic disaster demands historic settlements," said U.S. Rep. Steven Palazzo, R-Biloxi." I understand that you wish that reliable sources didn't call this historic. They are. What your own personal opinion of how people should view the fine isn't really relevent to Wikipedia's standards of reliance on what source material has to say. --Jayron32 05:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Your sources simply state that the states will get a part of the cut from the criminal fine, not that that money will actually go to harmed businesses and property owners. This is no different from the record settlement against the tobacco companies in which the money went to the states and federal government, and none of the putative victims of smoking personally saw a red cent. A record civil judgement in court recompensing actual victims would be worth posting, as would, say, if it were warranted, conviction of Tony Hayward or some other bigwig for criminal negligence. But this announcement is not about any such justice--it's the Justice Department getting a big enough prize to show its bureaucratic efficacy, with BP willingly taking a hit so that it can continue running ads saying how it has taken responsibility for its actions and is such a good corporate citizen. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of your politics, you cannot deny that this is "in the news". It isn't like no major sources have picked up the story, or aren't giving it any import... --Jayron32 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with my politics one way or the other. I happen to think they should have seized and liquidated BP (at least its assets in the US) and sold it at auction. What party does that mean I belong to? μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a $4.5 billion fine is a "big fucking deal" to quote Joe Biden. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as nominated, although out of the kindness of my heart I will nonetheless give supporters some help in my final sentence. A "big fucking deal" this fine may be, but the same could be said of a lot of things that don't make the ITN cut. We've posted Deepwater Horizon at least five "fucking" times now (it's linked five times in the ITN appearances section of Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if that list is incomplete). Furthermore, the most recent posting that I'm aware of specifically related to BP paying a larger amount of money than this in compensation. Having posted the (estimated) $7.8B litigation agreement, the only possible justification for also posting this would be if this is indeed a record criminal fine, and we can succinctly and accurately communicate such in a blurb. —WFCFL wishlist 22:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

November 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 14

[Posted] 18th Party CongressEdit

Articles: Politburo Standing Committee (talk, history) and 18th Party Congress (talk, history)
Blurb: Xi Jinping becomes General Secretary and a new Politburo Standing Committee is inaugurated
Alternative blurb: Xi Jinping becomes General Secretary as part of the new leadership of the Chinese Communist Party
Nominator: [[User:Colipon|Colipon]] ([[User talk:Colipon|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:Colipon|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BPolitburo+Standing+Committee%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Politburo+Standing+Committee&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])

Article 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 decision's out on Thursday morning on who will be part of the Politburo Standing Committee, the de facto top body that runs the world's second largest economy. World will be watching. I think this should be a 'no-brainer' ITN post. I just don't know how to exactly word it. Also worthy of discussion is whether the focus should be on Xi Jinping, the new general secretary, or the entire committee. Colipon+(Talk) 19:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Duplicate of the nomination below, which already has consensus. --RA (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I am proposing with a somewhat more solid blurb, with direct references to Xi Jinping and the PSC and perhaps not so much emphasis on the Congress itself; as such perhaps this should be treated as a nomination in its own right. Colipon+(Talk) 00:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Close A "somewhat more solid blurb" is proposed as an altblurb. Please modify the original nom and withdraw this one. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, ready to post, just agree on the blurb first. Ideally, I would include the Party Congress article, but I don't see much of an update. --Tone 08:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a no-brainer, surely? A new President-elect (in effect) for 1/6 of humanity?! I moved the 'altblurb' into 'blurb', and suggest my own altblurb (adds context, since there are other General Secretaries and Politburos). I don't know if this is the correct procedure, but I was bold. We should also have the iconic photo from the press conference if we can obtain a copyright-cleared source. 10:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll just omit the congress article and link the updated ones. Someone update the picture, please. Nice, now we have Obama and Xi Jinping in the template at the same time! --Tone 10:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Hamas assassinationEdit

Article: Ahmed Jabari (talk, history)
Blurb: Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari is assassinated by Shin Bet.
Alternative blurb: Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari is killed by an Israeli airstrike.
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Breaking news on al jazeera (tv). its also the top israeli target and the highest hamas killing since, probably, Sheikh Yassin. It also comes hardly 24 hours after an Egypt brokered peace/ceasefire deal. Also, and this maye synthesis, but in the light of syria and hamas' breaking it could be more notable Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible oppose with the current blurb. He was killed in an Israeli airstrike. Using the term assassination is complete POV. Ryan Vesey 14:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The deliberately targeted the car he was in to kill him. How is that not an assassination? - it fits the description in the wikipedia article perfectly. Using the correct words is not POV. Thue (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If the BBC is to believed (?) he was targeted by Israeli military intelligence. [66]. Leaky Caldron 15:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Right, but nothing has called it an assassination yet. We have to say he was killed in an Israeli airstrike. Ryan Vesey 15:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This update suggests it was a planned attack by Shin Bet. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We could mention that it was targeted or planned, but we should not be calling it an assassination unless international media does. Ryan Vesey 15:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, it's POV to mention this without mentioning that it was in response to rocket-fire from the Gaza Strip. Ryan Vesey 15:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, then it's impossible to have a complete blurb, because that rocket-fire from the Gaza Strip was in response to something Israel did, which was in response to something the Palestinians did, and so on and so forth until the dawn of time. It isn't POV to state "So and so was killed in an airstrike". There's no need to assign reason or rationale behind every action. --Jayron32 15:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It may be the case that the rocket strikes were related to earlier Israeli actions, but that's irrelevant. We need to use what the news says. The New York Times [67] mentions that the Israeli Military said the attack was "in response to days of rocket fire launched from Gaza into Israeli territory". It is clear that this was a response and we should mention that. Ryan Vesey
Ditto per Jayron, its really nitpicking. Assassination is not a pov term, there is a definition. If X was killed by a palestinian (or bhutto with the suicide bomber) itd still be as assassination. Dont see the pov, seems people think one side is being defended vs. the other which is NOT the case. killed by X is the same
For the record the first sentence on the section was not made by me and someone welse things that too. But either way , suggest an alt blurb instead of opposing per local council normsLihaas (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It would be POV. We would be deliberately choosing a term with a negative connotation when the sources we are using (including somewhat liberal ones like NYT) don't use that term. I propose the alternate blurb "Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari is killed in a targeted airstrike by Shin Bet in response to rocket strikes from Gaza into Israel." Ryan Vesey 16:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of brevity (and for the sake of Jayron's point, which is entirely valid), how about just ""Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari is killed in by an Israeli airstrike"? BBC isn't naming Shin Bet as being responsible so something less specific such as just "Israeli" might be warranted. GRAPPLE X 16:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that. Ryan Vesey 16:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The negative connotation of assassination comes from the concept itself, not from the choice of words. Dressing it up in a "nicer" word to paper over the truth would be POV. Thue (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support though I'd prefer if we say he was killed by an Israeli airstrike. Assassination conjures up images of a gunman hiding in a grassy knoll. Hot Stop (Edits) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Death First, I am not certain he's all that notable. Second, just listing him as recent death avoids the "assassination" debate. Third, if there is better consensus his listing can always be promoted up to a full ITN blurb. Given this is updated and there are no total opposes I think it should go on recent deaths immediately and then be promoted if agreement is reached. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Recent death. But if it must get a blub then it should say killed by an Israeli airstrike. I feel it is normal in the course of armed conflict to strike at officers and leaders. Assassination should be reserved for killings in non-combat situations, at least in Wikipedia blurbs. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This blurp or similar: Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari is assassinated by an Israeli airstrike. Calling it an assassination is not POV, as assassination is the correct description. Striking officers and leader in armed conflict is still assassination. I'm opposed to including the claim that it was in retaliation for rocket fire from Gaza as the rocket fire was in retaliation for something as well and just mentioning the Israeli justification is POV. Zaalbar (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support important development, in a conflict we've not covered for a while. I've suggested an alt blurb that simply says 'killed'. LukeSurl t c 17:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support from what I have heard from media sources this could well be the beginning of a serious (ground) offensive by Israel into Gaza, the death of the top military figure of Hamas is really quite significant, and if all we have to oppose is the wording of the blurb, let's work on the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support For the exact same reasons as TRM above. I was suprised not to see it on the main page already, to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
(from the Main page talk) There's also the article covering the operation, Operation Pillar of Cloud. Probably worth including in the blurb. Tariqabjotu, since you posted the item, you decide. --Tone 20:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I was aware of the article before I posted the item and decided not to use it, at least not as the main article. The Jabari article seems better put together and pertinent. That being said, I imagine the blurb can be changed to use the operation article in the not-too-distant future, and I wouldn't be against someone doing so. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Why not link Israeli airstrike to Operation Pillar of Cloud. Changing the bolding could occur later if people want to. Ryan Vesey 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
BBC Newsnight just called it assassination. Reliable? Leaky Caldron 22:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Depends. Was it Paxman? GRAPPLE X 22:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
From a quick net scan, some media sources using the term assassination: Sydney Morning Herald, National Post, Jakarta Globe, Al Arabiya, Mercury Register, Reuters, Jerusalem Post, ABC, AGI and quite a few others. In terms of reliability, I think Reuters, SMH and ABC stand out in particular. NULL talk
edits
00:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't particularly care whether we say "assassinated" or "killed" but, for pity's sake, what is going on between editors' ears when they object to the former? Formerip (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh and by the way "The Former" is not meant to be a reference to my new nickname in tribute to Henry Winkler. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
My old user name is mired in the IPC, I deliberately stay away from it now. You might find a mountain of WP:RS calling it an assassination, but it's going to set off an NPOV feces deluge, and it's just not worth the trouble. Leave it at killed. --IP98 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Link word airstrike to Operation Pillar of Cloud --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Triggerhippie4. Jusdafax 08:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Our current headline is dishonest. There is not an internationally recognised WP:RS that is not referring to this as an assassination or targeted killing. "killed in an Israeli military operation" is doing our readers a disservice. Leaky Caldron 10:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
While I may regard this as an assassination, I note that the BBC's front-page reporting uses 'killed' to refer to victims of recent attacks on both sides. It only switches to 'assassinated' for its sidebar in the main report, linking Jabari's killing to those of other Palestinian leaders in the past. There is absolutely nothing untrue about killed, and it's an unjust accusation to call it dishonest or a disservice. He evidently has been killed, and it was a consequence of a targeted military campaign. I don't think any reasonable person reading our headline would conclude that Jabari's death was an unintended side-effect - collateral damage, if you will - rather than a deliberate part of this operation. Please keep your POV-pushing out of this, even when it's my POV too. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
You're wrong on every level. 3 separate BBC news programmes, News Channel, Newsnight and Radio 5 Live have repeatedly called this assassination. 8000+ news sources are calling it assassination. If you disagree say so, but don't dare accuse me of POV pushing. If ITN is to be consistent and trsuted in its news delivery it should reflect what reliable sources are reporting, not dumbing it down. It could easily be read as being killed in a military operation, because that's what it says. The fact is our headline is missing a key word, "targeted". Leaky Caldron 11:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you get down off your high horse and tell me what, exactly, is inaccurate about the existing headline? "Killed in a military operation" is true. That is how he has been assassinated. What's your problem? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's true but it is not the whole truth is it? A military figurehead killed in a military operation would not be a headline, unless they were a 4 or 5 star U.S. General. The whole point of this being notable is that the 2nd in command in Hamas was intentionally targeted (assassinated). He didn't just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up getting killed. We could dumb down any newsworthy story to a vapid, wishy-washy headline that causes no offence, but since every reputable news outlet is describing this accurately why should WP ITN stand out as lacking in precision? Leaky Caldron 11:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Leaky caldron in full. Jusdafax 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I actually agree that "killed in a military operation" can easily sound passive to someone not familiar with the story, but I could not think of another way of phrasing it that didn't use the over-the-top "assassinated". The latter word is barely mentioned in the articles linked from the Main Page, so I don't think it's appropriate to be used there. If it's apparent (as it does appear to be) that the killing was intentionally, that could be conveyed somehow, but could you suggest an alternative phrase that doesn't resort to the use of the word "assassination"? -- tariqabjotu 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to be squeamish here. This would not be a story if he had not been targeted and there are 8000 hits for Hamas assassanation during the last 24 hours plus mentions on news channels. However "Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari is killed in an Israeli military operation." can easily be improved by adding targeted, thus: "Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari is killed in a targeted Israeli military operation." Leaky Caldron 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering you just called me "squeamish" after I asked for your input, you're going to have to find someone else to make the change you suggested. Bye. -- tariqabjotu 21:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
It is the community that is being let down by the timid and inaccurate strap line. Shame to see Wikipedia not being completely honest with our readers. Leaky Caldron 21:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

November 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 13

[Posted] Total solar eclipseEdit

Article: Solar eclipse of November 13, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A total solar eclipse occurs in parts of Australia and the South Pacific
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Nominator: Modest Genius (talk • give credit)

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: Total solar eclipses are on ITNR. Event is ongoing at the time of this nomination, with about 90 mins to go. The article needs a prose update, but I'm currently struggling to find reliable sources to do this - it might take until tomorrow for the major news sources to publish anything. EDIT: a couple of sources added above Modest Genius talk 23:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as per ITN/R. Unless the eclipse resulted in anything unexpected, we can just change the article to past tense and be done with it. Would make a good front page picture I'm sure. LukeSurl t c 01:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Looking at the path, totality seems to have avoided human settlements pretty much completely. We might not get any pictures of the total eclipse on commons. Also the whole "Related eclipses" section in this article seems rather unnecessary. LukeSurl t c 01:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
With less than one five-millionth of the world's population? Seem's to support Luke's argument. Is this getting coverage anywhere but locally? μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Well it was in the BBC TV news headlines 12,000 miles away, that's not local. But totally predictable, and without any ongoing effect beyond memories for 50,000 people on hand. Oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Cairns is even bigger, and Queensland's population has apparently swelled by ~50k with tourists coming to see the eclipse. There are already several images on Commons, though all of the partial phase so far. Modest Genius talk 11:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R, and it is an interesting story that is in the news. Path of totality also passed over city of Cairns, Australia. Jusdafax 04:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I could support this on the basis of reader interest if that were shown, but it really does point out the utter folly of ITNR as a concept. With super bowls, soccer matches and solar eclipses, who needs judgement or discretion? μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree re futility of ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nuts to ITN/R. This is a wholly predictable event that happens fairly frequently. (Unlike the transit of Venus, for example.) I can't see why we would post this. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Less than once a year? Next total eclipse is in 2015. That doesn't seem overly frequent to me. Of course it's predictable - that's why it's on ITNR. That is after all the whole point in the page. Modest Genius talk 11:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Ready to post when I see some more feedback. We usually post total eclipses. --Tone 11:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No international significance, very limited national significance where it is being seen... Really, what more can be said.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I really do wish people would pay more attention to documenting worldwide press interest. Given NASA has posted some cool images we should have a good free image for use if this does get posted. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
There has been no update for 3 days and there is no picture because of the recently implemented policy. We won't get the Chinese item before tomorrow and there is not yet a consensus whether the Hamas item should get a full blurb. Posting this one to get the ITN some fresh material. And the image. --Tone 20:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
There is an image of the Solar eclipse of November 13, 2012 at File:Nasaeclipse13nov2012.png. I just put it on Commons. You don't need to use a picture of the 1999 eclipse anymore.    → Michael J    07:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Kenya attacksEdit

Article: 2012 Terror attacks in Kenya (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 38 police officers are killed in northern Kenya amid clashes with cattle rustlers.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Watterwalk (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Watterwalk (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: The blurb gives as much information as the article. I don't think there's any reasonable improvement to the current article that would allow this blurb would work. Ryan Vesey 21:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • comment What does cattle rustling have to do with terrorism? Was this in a single attack? I could support this if there were an article on it, not a mention in a grab bag. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this had an article, I'd support it. ComputerJA (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

AMF BowlingEdit

Article: AMF Bowling (talk, history)
Blurb: ​AMF Bowling , the world's largest operator of bowling alleys, files for bankruptcy.
News source(s): [68]

November 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 12

ATP Tour FinalEdit

Articles: 2012 ATP World Tour Finals (talk, history) and Novak Djokovic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Novak Djokovic wins the singles competition of the 2012 ATP World Tour Finals
News source(s): (BBC) (The Guardian) (The Telegraph)
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Fairly important tennis tournament, ranks somewhere below the slams, above a typical tour title. --LukeSurl t c 17:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Tennis is already treated exceedingly generously by ITN/R, this would be very disproportionate. Kevin McE (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Neutral I nominated the same item last year and it was strongly rejected because of its different nature in the tennis world and the much lower importance it receives than any Grand Slam tournament. But still not for oppose, even if it occurs in the same calendar year with the Olympics and another top-class tennis tournament.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- A major tournament in a truly global sport. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Tennis has 4 majors: this isn't one of them. It is one of several events at a level below that: how many tennis events per year would you support as routine results? Would you allow the same number for other global (however that is determined) sports?
  • Oppose - Not a slam. I'm quite happy for us to post the 4 majors, and I don't see why we need this as well. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The tennis world championship. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The Tour Finals is not a Grand Slam tournament, therefore it's not significant enough. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Very important tournament in tennis. NickSt (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Recognition of the Syrian National CoalitionEdit

Article: National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf recognizes the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
Alternative blurb: ​France and six other states recognize the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
News source(s): Al-Arabiya, VoA
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)
Updater: Kwamikagami (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Diplomatic recognition by six states, which is one of the particularly notable events of the war. --Brandmeistertalk 22:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support This is a significant development that deserves more than just the sticky. Ryan Vesey 22:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • France's recognition should go into the blurb as well. Ryan Vesey 20:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
support from a pre-partisan body is not significant in the leaset. nothign new has been gained. opposeLihaas (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Six monarchies, some of whom are already actively supporting the rebels, recognizing them as a "legitimate representative of the Syrian people" isnt really big news. Equivalent to Iran insisting that the Assad government is the legit government. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't call those equivalent. The status quo generally isn't news. Right now the status quo is that the Assad government is the government of Syria so Iran recognizing the Assad government as legitimate is not similar to France and the Cooperation Council recognizing the opposition. Ryan Vesey 20:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support because it's the first diplomatic recognition of this entity, and thus a major development. If there already were a dozen nations recognizing the Syrian opposition then it wouldn't be notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support How often do conservative Arab monarchies support rebel factions in otherwise long-stable neighbors? μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
uMMM, At the moment its very frequent. Ymene, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt (except Vahrain)Lihaas (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb says France and six local monarchies, non?

November 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 11

[Posted] Recent death ticker Rex HuntEdit

Article: Rex Hunt (governor) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former governor of the Governor of the Falkland Islands Rex Hunt dies at the age of 86.
News source(s): [69]
Nominator: Secret (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Arguably one of the most notorious figures during the Falklands War plus recent death ticker been very quiet lately and he seems like the only one who qualifies for it the past week or so. Needs an update of course. Secret account 06:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support for ticker - Interesting historical figure. IMO we don't need an extensive death update for the ticker persons, these are individuals for whom their deaths (often from old-age/natural causes) are not hugely earth-shattering news, but their lives was notable. LukeSurl t c 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ticker--but only if it's updated or we have consensus that such updates are necessary. Strong oppose for a full blurb--not at all the equivalanet of a sitting head of state. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — Significant figure in his own right. His death is noteworthy. Kurtis (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Governor of the Falkland Islands is a pretty interesting and important position, and his role in a number of historical events surrounding the Islands is enough for him to be posted. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the ticker. Historical figure during the Falklands War.--xanchester (t) 03:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to have about 1.5 times the interest of Letitia Baldrige. If it is going to be posted it should be done before it has none at all. Oh--but still no update, never mind. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I added a comment from the British Prime Minister, should be enough in this case. Secret account 06:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Prominent historical figure, contemporary reaction included in update. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war - IsraelEdit

Article: Syrian civil war (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Israel fires mortar rounds into Syria for the first time since 1973
Alternative blurb: ​In connection with the Syrian civil war, Israel fires mortar rounds into Syria for the first time since 1973
News source(s): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/11/israel-fires-missile-into-syria, http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=291326
Nominator: Doktorbuk (talk • give credit)

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 12:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't know. This is a warning shot in response to what looks like a mis-fire. This is a lot different than the war that was happening in the 1970s.--Chaser (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Not really being reported on much in major news outlets right now. I can't see much significance in this, as of yet. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There's been another day of shelling, with an intentional direct hit on a target in Syria this time. With the sticky there, I don't think it's yet enough for a blurb, but it's closer.--Chaser (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

18th National Congress of the Communist Party of ChinaEdit

Article: 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China takes place where the next generation of leaders are to be appointed.
Both articles need updating

  • Comment, I think it should be posted after leaders are appointed. So the blurb should be changed accordingly. Btw, who is the nom?>Egeymi (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
89.241.231.101 was nominator. (took a few seconds looking at history page) Kevin McE (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Kevin McE.Egeymi (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in some form or another - it's probably best to wait a few days until it concludes, or when the new leaders are announced as Egeymi suggests (not sure if that happens on the last day, or sooner). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until this ends, then post with names. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support After the appointments are made. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when the new leaders have been announced. --RA (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but only after the names of the new leaders are revealed.--xanchester (t) 03:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support once the new leadership is announced. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when the new leaders are announced. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 01:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez break upEdit

Snow close in order to spare everyone some time and nerves. --Tone 08:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Article: Selena Gomez (talk, history)
Blurb: American actress Selena Gomez breaks up with Canadian singer Justin Bieber, citing busy schedules and "trust issues."
News source(s): [70]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.229.50 (talkcontribs)

  • Oppose with mighty strength. Please, just no. Ks0stm (TCGE) 07:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose with the fire of a thousand suns - :P LukeSurl t c 08:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Post-Close Oppose for added emphasis.--WaltCip (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • To offer a fairer assessment to the nominator, maybe this is of some importance in Canada and the United States. It is difficult to tell and I've never heard of them so cannot offer anything further. But would a similar break-up of a celebrity couple from England or Australia be supported? I think not, so I will offer a weak oppose out of the kindness of my heart. --86.40.97.160 (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

November 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 10

George Entwistle resignationEdit

Articles: George Entwistle (talk, history) and Newsnight#Coverage_of_sexual_abuse_scandals (talk, history)
Blurb: George Entwistle resigns as Director-General of the BBC following controversies surrounding its Newsnight programme.
News source(s): [71]
Nominator: FormerIP (talk • give credit)

Both articles need updating

 Formerip (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Kind of equivocal about this. On its own the resignation isn't enough (see Petraeus and the CIA below), but I don't think we've really covered this whole story much if at all. Is there a way to maybe bundle some of it together to include this and any formal charges made against those arrested or questioned (been a bit since I checked but I believe Starr and Glitter were both arrested or questioned over this). GRAPPLE X 23:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Important, vital and relevant. But ultimately it doesn't have the amount of notability needed for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 23:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support American news outlets have been carrying this as a major story (I've been following it on NPR) and one can find prominent stories about this scandal all over mainstream media around the world. --Jayron32 02:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Of far greater importance than the Petraeus resignation.--WaltCip (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, WC. The resignation of the head of PBS is of far greater importance than that of the head of MI5 or the KGB? Is that what you just said? (Oppose) μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that the BBC is to PBS what Barack Obama is to George McGovern, the comparison is irrelevant, as neither departure would be posted in ordinary circumstances.

Jerry Sandusky was based at Penn State until 2011 via The Second Mile; while well respected for what he achieved as a coach, he was not by any stretch of the imagination pivotal to Penn State's existence or prosperity, in the way that Sir Alex Ferguson might be considered at Manchester United. Yet we posted Sandusky because of how big the story was, and probably wouldn't post Ferguson because his departure will ultimately be that of an elderly man deciding to retire. This is a pretty similar situation. —WFCFL wishlist 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Medeis. You're comparing the world's largest broadcaster, a corporation with 23,000 employees, which is also the largest newsgathering organisation in the world, to PBS? Some perspective is needed here. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I implied BBC:CIA::PBS:MI5 (KGB, is of course, RIP). I hope that's not too confusing. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This won't have any major impact. Another guy will just step in and everything will continue as normal. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    Explain, in your own words, why this man has resigned. —WFCFL wishlist 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is less notable than the head of the CIA's resignation, which I also opposed. Hot Stop (Edits) 05:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
    See my response to μηδείς (Medeis). —WFCFL wishlist 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This isn't about "my organisation beats your organisation", nor about "my country beats your country" (and if there is a racial element to voting, that should be removed not only from here, but from Wikipedia completely). Which organisations they come from is irrelevant – if we were to choose 50 universities which are allowed one story per year (that itself would be overkill), I'm not convinced that Penn State would make the list. Petraeus stepped down due to an extramarital affair: sadly that's quite common nowadays. Entwistle stepped down because the actions of his flagship news show led to the British equivalent of a Senator being wrongly accused of being a paedophile – thankfully that is not common. The trail that BBC Newsnight started led to the British equivalent of the US President being given (on another station) a list of people he knew, whilst doing an interview live on air, and asked whether he was going to personally check whether they had abused children. —WFCFL wishlist 07:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. From what I remember (though I may be wrong) ITN hasn't featured anything about the abuse scandals that are currently the top story in the UK, and in fact have been for many weeks - which I think is a problem. This would be an easy way to include it, just add something like Amid the ongoing child abuse scandal in the United Kingdom, .... And I would also think that some of the comparisons drawn here don't work; Petraeus' resignation wasn't notable (from what I know) because it had nothing to do with his job; if he had resigned after being accused of leaking information or something similar then that would be more important. I would think exactly the same if it were the head of MI5 or any security service. Where as in this case the resignation is directly because of actions taken as head of the organisation. Secondly I think comparing (the head of) PBS to (the head of) the BBC is a little off, though admittedly as a non-American, I still believe no one can think that the two organisations are that comparable both within their own country and certainly internationally.--23230 talk 07:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: If this is to be included, a better link would be to the North Wales child abuse scandal, which is what led to the resignation. I recognise that that story has only developed since the Savile affair broke, but it is essentially a different story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we need to be careful about conflating the resignation (essentially due to a lack of confidence in his managerial competence in handling the reporting of the abuse claims) and the wider issues of the child abuse claims themselves. They are not the same and there are at least 3 or 4 related articles in mainspace. Leaky Caldron 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, User:Leaky caldron makes a very valid point that the required brevity of the ITN sentences means that the implication to a non-UK reader is that Entwistle is somehow implicated in the abuse itself, rather than being manager of the organisation whose coverage of the matter has been brought into question. Bob talk
  • Oppose the story is big news (rightly) in the UK, but doesn't have a significance or value to the encyclopaedia as an ITN item. --RA (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per 23230's proposal. This resignation is a direct result of the fallout of the ongoing scandal. The resignation itself probably isn't ITN but the cumulative effect of the scandal and the effect on a broadcaster of international standing is clearly of global interest.yorkshiresky (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

November 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 9

David Petraeus resignationEdit

Articles: David Petraeus (talk, history) and Central Intelligence Agency (talk, history)
Blurb: ​David Petraeus resigns as head of the CIA
News source(s): BBC - [72] CNN - [73]
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High profile resignation with international interest/repercussions. --yorkshiresky (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's fully expected that at the end of a president's first term, some members of his administration will leave for whatever the reason. While I'm surprised that Petraeus is resigning because of an extramarital affair, and is publicly admitting so, I don't see it as that shocking or groundbreaking in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment it had generally been expected for Petraeus to stay with Obama for this term to provide continuity in defence and intelligence policy, especially in the post-Iraq and Arab Spring world. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when, Obviously a high-profile step-down. He's not the head of the CIA, he's a very naughty boy! - but only when a new one is appointed, personally. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We might as well start a USA Politics sticky, because this sort of thing, firings, hirings, shufflings, agenda, won't be out of the news well into the next year. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per no big deal and not even when his replacement is appointed, because that wouldn't be a resignation and won't happen for several months. Leaky Caldron 20:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • International repercussions? Can you elaborate? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I would assume international repercussions would be that the CIA operates internationally. A new CIA director will likely have a different policy than Petraeus. Ryan Vesey 20:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ultimately, Obama's CIA director will have the policy of Obama. That's why Colin Powell made that regrettable display in front of the United Nations. He wasn't speaking on behalf of himself, but on behalf of the Bush Administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support The resignation of the head of the CIA is clearly a highly notable, very important event. Ryan Vesey 20:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • So it's not notable even when his successor is appointed? I agree his step-down isn't front page material but...?--Τασουλα (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that its not directly politically driven, but simply due to impropriety. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although his post is evidently notable, the reason for his resignation is not.Egeymi (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Despite a somewhat tabloid nature of this story Petreaus is certainly a very famous figure from his involvement to two armed conflicts. The CIA is probably one of the most famous organizations in the world for better or worse (mostly worse but thats POV).--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is a big departure, but not significant enough for ITN. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For a second I thought this might have been one of those long-tenured positions which would carry a bit of gravitas (think Robert Mueller's eleven-plus-year reign as FBI director) but Petraeus has held the job for a year, which really doesn't strike me as showing that the position changing hands is that notable, as it seems to have occurred half a dozen times in the past few years. GRAPPLE X 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Petraeus is better known for his role in the surge(s) than anything else. I'm not aware of anything he did at the CIA that would make him sufficiently noteworthy for ITN. Resigning because of an affair is not enough; infidelity is regrettably common.--Chaser (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He hasn't had the job that long, and didn't leave due to political motives. His notability came from his military career and not his CIA work. 331dot (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Scandal sheet gossip doktorb wordsdeeds 09:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment was going to oppose, but guess there's little point. Maybe the nom will want to close this. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. The CIA is perhaps the most powerful "civilian" agency in the world. Needless to say this has an international impact. The seamy circumstances pale compared to the facts of Petraeus' high profile as a high-profile U.S. general who was put in charge of the world's biggest spook outfit. The post-election timing and FBI involvement also are points of major interest. Opposes are utterly unconvincing. Jusdafax 02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- A number of more significant cabinet members will be stepping down as well, Clinton included.[74] Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - This story has remained "in the news" for days, with two headlines currently in the New York Times. I am tempted to renominate it. Jusdafax 21:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I still oppose posting this. The media loves a tawdry sex scandal. Until there's more than that going on, this isn't newsworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think what's notable is the fact that Gen. Petraeus is stepping down for any reason other than retirement. Furthermore, a lot of people are hearing about Petraeus right now, and we have a fairly high-quality article about him, so, in keeping with the purpose of ITN, I think that, regardless of why he's getting so much attention, we should provide Wikipedia readers with information pertinent to a story that's been on the front page of the New York Times website for the past four days. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Francophonie is right on here. Well the media is stating that consensus among historians Petraeus was the best general since Eisenhower and the CIA is probably one of the most powerful "civilian" organizations in the world. This story being opposed for a sex scandal is just absurd to say at least. This has significant global implications within many countries including Iran, Pakistan and so forth. Clinton stepping down should be mentioned also. Focus on the importance of the resignation not the bullshit private life scandal surrounding it. Oh yeah and Strongly Support this being posted. Secret account 06:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for agreeing, but I differ on the matter or Clinton. Petraeus's resignation is notable because it was unexpected; we've known that Clinton would resign for more than a year now, I believe. Several people commented earlier that we should not include Petraeus's resignation because such things are commonplace when a president is elected to a second term; I agree with this in the abstract, but simply feel that it does not apply here.Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - May I suggest we use a blurb acknowledging that this now happened days ago, i.e. "growing controversy" over it? Additionally, as Francophonie notes in his proposed blurb, suggest working the Petraeus sex scandal into the blurb. Let's get this done here, then renominate up top and try again, as in my opinion ITN looks pretty silly ignoring the biggest political scandal of the year, with implications extending in multiple directions. Another general is now involved, domestic spying is being questioned, journalistic ethics are suddenly an issue... we need a clever, inclusive blurb that isn't too long. Jusdafax 07:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't renomination be a waste of time? This can still be in the news a decade from now but the people here would still be opposed. It's interesting to note though that the BBC resignation is pretty split (5 support-5 oppose-2 other) vs. the CIA one (5-10-2), with a supporter in the BBC nom hailing the resignation of a BBC journalist, who is "of international standing," is of "global interest" while an opposer (that's not even a word) asking for "International repercussions" on the resignation, no matter the circumstances, of the CIA chief; that's pretty telling. –HTD 08:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey votes until November 9Edit

Article: United States presidential election in New Jersey, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​For the first time, New Jersey voters could vote electronically, but votes were still accepted until November 9 for the November 6 election.
News source(s): [75]
Nominator: Apteva (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Historic, and epic. --Apteva (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - What difference does this even make to someone across the state line in New York, much less in the wider world? This is not news in any useful sense. 'Epic'? Don't make me laugh. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • News stories like this are the stuff of Monty Python parodies.--WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I really wish people would be more judicious about which of these U.S. election-related stories to nominate. -- tariqabjotu 14:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose fairly technical procedure, of minimal relevance beyond single state. LukeSurl t c 15:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obama won the state by around 17% and didn't need it so this is of low relevance, both in election coverage and Hurricane Sandy coverage (it was due to an electronic voting system for voters displaced by the hurricane). This isn't Florida 2000. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of no interest or importance at all, to anyone doktorb wordsdeeds 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Historic and epic? I don't think so. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; People in New Jersey obviously don't vote. They're too busy getting tans and fighting all the time to do so. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This sort of comment is not constructive. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Elementary, my dear Watson. I think it was my attempt to convey the fact I didn't really take this nomination seriously. Which all boils down to it being not important enough. Notability wise. Thus, not for the ITN! Got there in the end.--Τασουλα (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comment really is rather offensive, Tasoula. Should we make rather stupid anti-semitic comments based on the portrayal of Jews by Italians in plays written and produced by Englishmen? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hath not a guido eyes? GRAPPLE X 22:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While of some interest, it's not important enough to land on the main page. Obama was going to win NJ with or without Sandy, with or without electronic voting. Maybe if electronic voting becomes the standard, it'll be worhty. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose About as important as islanders in Ireland voting on Thursday due to concerns about bad weather while the rest of the country will vote on Saturday. --RA (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Next Archbishop of CanterburyEdit

Article: Justin Welby (talk, history)
Blurb: Justin Welby is announced as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury.
News source(s): [76], [77]
Nominator: Bob Castle (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: He has not been officially appointed yet, as his appointment will most likely be announced tomorrow by Lambeth Palace, but this has been widely reported in the UK press and, as the next head of the Anglican Communion, this will be an announcement of global interest which probably ought to be posted as soon as it is officially announced. --Bob talk 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: Now official. LukeSurl t c 11:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Premature - should of nominated tomorrow. I mean this has been happening a lot recently...see the fiasco on the US elections. Support when it's announced, though. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when announced Clearly a very significant announcement and highly notable. This nomination deserves to be on the front page. I agree that we may need to have a monetarium on nominating future events doktorb wordsdeeds 23:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This has been in the British news today and there's no actual doubt about who will be appointed. We shouldn't actually post until its announced though, so we've got a little time to get the article prepared. I for one am perfectly happy with the nomination of near-future events such as this whereby the significance of the event can be assessed ahead of time, as it gives time for discussion and article improvement such that when the event does occur it can be posted speedily. LukeSurl t c 01:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I've moved this to November 9th. Also the announcement is now official. [78] LukeSurl t c 11:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone 11:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - very significant event, and likely to cause more news in future due to his view on female bishops, gay marriage, etc. (My previous support seems to have been lost in the move from the 8th) Optimist on the run (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    What are those views? The article doesn't mention them.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there was a God, this would already be on the frontpage... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I see the article has been expanded further, posting. Curiously, the Archbishop of Canterbury is also mentioned in TFA, rather unusual ;-) --Tone 16:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think that we should post every news about death or election of some religious leader in the world.--В и к и T 16:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This one is obviously important enough to post, probably more notable than the one we recently had in Egypt.--Τασουλα (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait until formal announcement or inauguration (is that the right term). The Archbishop of Canterbury is the spirtual leader of Anglicanism worldwide (which is the third-largest Christian community). --RA (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

November 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 8

[Pulled] New dinosaur speciesEdit

Xenoceratops, a new dinosaur species identified from some old fossils. New dino stories are always great.

(moved from Main page talk) http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-82980-4-.htm#82980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talkcontribs) 18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for "in the news" items belong at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, not here. Graham87 00:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
As dinosaur-related topics are one of Wikipedias strong points, you may have some success with this one. (Oh, and as above, post it there not here :p)--Τασουλα (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, this is a good suggestion and it has an excellent chance of being posted, as long as the article is expanded. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I've formally nominated it. But the article needs significant work. --Tone 10:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I have expanded it some, and dropped a note at WP:DINO to see if anyone there is interested in expanding more. Chris857 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Now this is an excellent article. Great work. Ready to post if I see some more support, otherwise, it should go to DYK. --Tone 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks good. I'm a little leery about the dependence on one source, albeit a very solid one, and I will see if I can get more references in the meantime. The article is in postable shape though. Marking as "ready". SpencerT♦C 21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming my earlier support. I agree that the article looks ready. This is a welcome divergence from the usual ITN fare - when's the last time we posted a Canadian dinosaur story? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, especially since it is in my neck of the woods. Resolute 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb? Perhaps? -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion: A new species of dinosaur, Xenoceratops, is identified from remains discovered in Alberta, Canada. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article contains something accessible to the casual reader, and reason why this is more noteworthy than 114 other articles in Fossil taxa described in 2012. The type of person interested in dinosaurs (how many 7 year olds frequently visit out Main Page?) will look at the description hoping to find its size, basic body shape, likely diet and maybe some (sourced) speculation as to its lifestyle. But what is found if " that had two epiparietals (P2–P3) on the posterior parietal ramus. The wide-based, short, pachystotic (thick), and procurved processes (P2) adjacent medially to a U-shaped posterior margin. In overall, the P2 processes morphology resembles the P4 processes of Albertaceratops...". Pure jargon. Edit conflict with posting, but having my say anyway Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - much of the recent expansion is verbatim copying, which I have outlined on the talk page. It should be pulled and rewritten. Chris857 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull Even if this were well written it would not be notable enough, new fossil general are a dime a dozen. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, pull it (and I'm a huge dino fan). I'd want to see an image and some blurb that doesn't disappear into scientific jargon inside the first sentence. What help is posting this to Wikipedia's front page? Some of my students would eagerly click on this and be presented with ... well, nothing at all, really. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pulled This article included a significant number of complete sentence copy/pastes from one of the references, and evidently (per article talk page) there are numerous too-close paraphrases as well. I haven't stubbed it yet, but I will soon if it doesn't look like people are working on fixing the problem. Shouldn't be reposted until we're confident there aren't any copyright problems left. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner sentenceEdit

Article: Jared Lee Loughner (talk, history)
Blurb: Jared Lee Loughner, the perpetrator of the 2011 Tucson shooting, is sentenced to life in prison.
News source(s): [79], [80]
Nominator: Bongwarrior (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: We posted the shooting, and I think the crime was significant enough that we really should post the conclusion. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak support, the trial in itself isn't the one of the decade, but I agree with your reasoning. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but hook needs changing. It currently isn't completely accurate. Life in prison leaves the possibility of parole open. One source states he received 7 life sentences + 140 years. The other reads he received life without parole. It is simpler to say the second, so I propose the blurb be changed to "Jared Lee Loughner, the perpetrator of the 2011 Tucson shooting, is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole." Ryan Vesey 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Question If this gets posted, would people be fine with his photo going up on ITN? It's kinda creepy. -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the picture is fine. ComputerJA (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And, actually, I was thinking more of this one (which isn't free); that one's the really bizarre one. -- tariqabjotu 02:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow. Not that one. xD it's a bit freaky haha. ComputerJA (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't get this kind of ITN update. I'm in favor of something new. ComputerJA (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support- I'm not a big fan of this, but the nominator's reasoning seemed logical enough. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Purely routine next step after incident/arrest/prosecution. If the perpetrator were notable other than for his crime, then it would be a different matter, but that is not the case here. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pure trivia, and simply glorifies crime. I am surprised they even have an article. Normally we do not do this. Apteva (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's not news if it surprises no one. Hekerui (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    Now if he had been released and invited to speak at a fundraiser we could mention that and link to 2011 Tucson shooting, but the article needs to be redirected to there. Apteva (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The shooting was notable because of its political motives and the injury of a representative. The sentencing isn't. --RA (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not suitable for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 09:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

HD 40307 gEdit

Article: HD 40307 g (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The discovery of HD 40307 g is announce; a Super-Earth exoplanet that orbits in the habitable zone of its star.
News source(s): http://star-www.herts.ac.uk/~hraj/hd40307/hd40307_final.pdf
Nominator: Anxietycello (talk • give credit)

 --Anxietycello (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - As this planet is several times the mass of the earth, and is likely to have a highly eccentric orbit around a star that is not a lot like the Sun, I'm not sure this is as notable as it at first appears. As mentioned just before Alpha Centauri Bb made the headlines, exoplanet discoveries are coming very rapidly at present, so we have to set the bar pretty high. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hundreds of planets have now been detected and this rate of discovery will continue for some time and probably even increase, so we need the circumstances to be particularly notable before featuring them on ITN. If it was the first Earth-sized planet in the HZ of a sun-like star then that would be notable, but anything aiming for that record but falling short just doesn't cut it. 78.144.201.213 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The new planet immediately placed in the top five most habitable known planets. I'd say that makes it notable. Anxietycello (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The planet has a minimum mass of 7 times the Earth, so is likely more like Neptune than the Earth. If it has been listed in the habitable-exoplanets-catalog then that just shows how silly and premature that catalog is. With a planet that massive, the pressure of the thick atmosphere will be such that by the time you reach liquids the temperature will be hundreds of degrees and the distance from its star will be irrelevant for habitability - you might as well say Neptune is habitable. 78.144.204.177 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- As per AlexTiefling, our bar has to be pretty high else we'll be posting an exoplanet every other week. This one, at minimum 7 earth-masses is almost certainly not habitable. The bar also needs to be slowly raised over time, I reckon within a few years we'll ve seeing actually life-viable be seeing Earth-sized planets in Goldilocks zones and eventually even those won't be hugely notable. LukeSurl t c 18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see why the size of the planet matters. In a new planet, I'm looking for (a) signs of life, or (b) a planet that's hospitable to humans so we can relocate after global warming renders Earth inhabitable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • DYK μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. At one time, exoplanets were really big news. Their discovery has now become commonplace, and as such, isn't really worth reporting everyone that comes along. --Jayron32 20:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another suitcase, another hall, another exoplanet doktorb wordsdeeds 09:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

LGBT-related politics from US electionsEdit

Articles: Same-sex marriage (talk, history) and Same-sex marriage in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​All 4 US state votes on same-sex marriage (in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington) result in victories for LGBT rights advocates; first openly gay female US Senator elected in Wisconsin; Iowa Justice David Wiggins retained [Striked for being too local]
News source(s): [81], [82],[83], [84], [85], [86], [87]
Nominator: Grotekennis (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Okay, clearly the last nomination did not go well because there was a lot of people who opposed who did not either know key facts or did not realize the magnitude of LGBT rights wins in the US on election day. Additionally, some other pieces related to LGBT rights weren't nominated - which I am doing so now.

Firstly, these are HISTORIC wins - this is the FIRST time in both US and WORLD history that SSM has been enacted by VOTERS. Secondly, these wins were sweeping - 4 of 4 up for a vote. Also the first openly gay female US Senator was elected (historic!), and additionally an Iowa Justice (David Wiggins) who was part of the unanimous opinion in the Iowa Supreme Court which made gay marriage legal in Iowa was retained by voters (a COMPLETE and HUGE reversal of Iowans' previous vote to oust justices in 2012 - there was a TEN PERCENTAGE POINT or so shift!). All these put together are huge, are being widely reported in the MEDIA (remember this is IN THE NEWS - so as long as it is widely reported and notable, it should be posted).

Also, some replies to opposing points explaining the facts:

  • "3/50 US states just legalised SSM" - other states have SSM legal, so it is NOT 3/50, and these were the ONLY ones in which there were votes, so what do you expect?
  • "Meh ... them and Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden. Along with 30 or 40 odd states that allow same-sex unions" & "Not the first states to do this and likely not the last." - FIRST TIME BY *VOTERS*, and no 30 or 40 odd states DON'T have same-sex unions!
  • "I cannot realize a notability in the legalization of same-sex marriages in federal units of a country. Maybe it's worth supporting if the legalization was done in the United States, but in three of 50 states it's far from being something important." - the United States DOES NOT work that way, STATES are in control of marriage laws, the US Congress CANNOT legalize SSM across the United States. And again, only these were up for a vote, and ALL of them were swept up by LGBT rights advocates.
  • Rest were similar arguments, so see above --Grotekennis (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, since you did such an eloquent job of preempting some of the potential opposes, I'll simply oppose because it's not notable. That's always a safe one to fall back on.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You fail to have shown evidence for your assertion - if these are being hugely reported in the media worldwide, then how are they in any way not notable? --Grotekennis (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Far too much in the blurb. Hekerui (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Gee, it can be shortened by the admin? --Grotekennis (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The blurb does not make it clear that Minnesota's was a victory because the amendment didn't pass. Ryan Vesey 14:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, in Minnesota it was a little different from the other 3 states (In MN, an *anti*-SSM amendment was rejected), but the blurb still encompasses that with the generic 'result in victories for LGBT rights advocates'. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since the gay marrage votes are being discussed separately I'll concentrate on the other two additions you suggest - both of which I very strongly oppose. Mainly for far too much hyperbole and CAPITAL LETTERS in the description you wrote. Believe me, if you write a description about how IMPORTANT and HISTORIC something is, that is NOT going to win over people to your side.
Anyway; on the topic of notability - this means nothing outside the United States and whilst the gay marriage votes do have at least a little external interest your additions go straight from just US interest to US-centralism. Why is the first gay US senator more important than the first gay British MP or first black Member of the German Bundestag or the first atheist member of the US Congress any other similar random 'milestone'? From what I know there are 100 senators and in this day and age I would expect none of them being gay would be more unusual, and I'm sure there were plenty that specific things could be picked out about. I recall hearing that the first Buddhist senator and Hindu congresswoman were elected too, do they deserve a place in the news? It's also worth pointing out that your claim of 'being hugely reported in the media worldwide' is far, far overstating it. The facts were most likely mentioned as trivial results to come out of the US election but really are not what the world deems as the important result. I mean I can go to BBC News's US&Canada page, there is a sub-sub-heading about "States approve same-sex marriage" and nothing on the specific people you talk about. In one article the election of the first openly gay senator is mentioned just as a side point, alongside similar trivia like the highest number of women ever.
The thing that annoys me most is your claims on an Iowa Justice a COMPLETE and HUGE reversal of Iowans' previous vote to oust justices in 2012 - there was a TEN PERCENTAGE POINT or so shift! - that is the height of local politics and totally irrelevant to anyone else. If I said that one of the constituencies in the United Kingdom has a HUGE, HISTORIC change from the Conservative Party to Labour by 15% in the next election, perhaps one that had never had a Labour MP before etc... you might see just how irrelevant it is to anyone outside the affected area. I mean come on, David Wiggins doesn't even have an article, he hasn't even been elected but re-elected, there is no way that specific elections results like his fulfils the criteria to be in ITN.--23230 talk 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, at least you've reasoned out your argument well. So, in reply: 1.) Emphasis was needed, because some people seem to oppose proposed items here almost for the sake of it (or because they don't like it!) 2.) The additions are because they were often reported together as a watershed day for LGBT rights in the US in regards to the ballot box 3.) Let's be honest, I'm not an American myself, but surely we can all agree that US Senators tend to be more notable than members of other legislatures 4.) The wins all placed together is what makes them notable - it was a sweep (i.e. like the fact that it was widely reported that President Obama sweeped the battleground states - sweeps like this make items like these more notable) 5.) Point taken, maybe actually the last one is too local and can be cut by the admin. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (after ec) - The 3/50 objection certainly still applies. If these were the first three states to legalise equal marriage, that would be more notable; but they aren't. As an LGBT person myself, I feel that this nomination is far too pointy, consisting far too much of a rant against people who opposed the previous (still-open) nomination. And frankly, the piecemeal way that the US handles this sort of legislation is not in itself a good argument to give more prominence to legislation from sub-national bodies. Did we cover the Scotland-only ban on smoking in public enclosed places? Did we cover the Baden-Württemberg headscarf ban? Do we ever cover local politics from Yakutia, the largest sub-national entity in the world? No amount of angry, shouty capital letters will ever make local legislation into international news. When genuine firsts are achieved by states, that's potentially notable. That's why I suggested including the recreational marijuana initiatives in a round-up of state votes. Simply talking about the election of specific politicians who happen to be LGBT in order to bolster a fairly small, local story seems a bit arbitrary to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, Minnesota was actually the first state to reject a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Ryan Vesey 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm running out of time here, but to reply quickly: see point regarding this being first(s) in re: to voting. Oh and by the way, I do believe we posted items on Indian state elections in a very populous state or two there. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've struck out the last one for being too local, as commented on by editors above. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If it was a case where after an election, a super-majority of the states had some type of law allowing gay marriages (like, 45 of 50 or more), that might be something, but just a few state victories towards this in addition to various edicts from past elections doesn't make this a significant turning point in the issue. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That never happens - with *any* issue in one go - and it's reporting in the media which is key here isn't it? (I mean this Wikipedia isn't a news network, we just post what is in the news, and this is). I mean, I remember seeing WP having posted news of NY state having legalized gay marriage with a legislative vote - and that was just one state, and by a legislature! This is 4 states, by voters! --Grotekennis (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Probably not talking about "in one go", probably talking about post these things when a vast majority of states allow it. In my opinion at least it would make sense to post such things when just a simple majority of states approve of it. As of now, a vast majority of states still do not approve of it so I see no reason to post it.75.73.114.111 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose See reasons in previous nomination. Also, spamming nominations probably will not get it through. 75.73.114.111 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I already saw it, and it seems very arbitrary - why a majority of states? Why not when it's a majority of the US population? Or when it's a super-majority of states? Or when it's 30 of 50 or 40 of 50 or 50 of 50? The line can be drawn anywhere depending on the personal preference of someone. Also, WP:AGF. --Grotekennis (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Okay, clearly this is getting nowhere (although some of these appear too !vote-ish to me), admins can consider this withdrawn unless others wish to keep it open. BUT: one question open to all editors to comment on: What do you consider to be something which should be posted in regard to this subject? At which point will the US be mentioned? Should we mention it when France, UK, etc does so (as their governments have announced?), should we mention it when [insert amount of US states here] have passed it? Should we mention it when any country does so? Or when a country has [insert level of population]? Up to how many countries should be posted? etc.. The reason why I'm asking this question is because postings related to this subject have seemed arbitrary at times - I mean, the NY state one was posted, and that was a legislature's action, but not four states in one go by voters? I think a clear guideline should be formulated for this subject at ITN. --Grotekennis (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Consider the issue like a high-profile court case, which in ITN we only report on the most significant point - the acquittal or the sentencing. For gay marriage rights in the US, either a national law would be passed, or some significant majority (certainly not all of them because there are states that are so against it that it will unlikely ever come to pass in our lifetimes). We'll know that point when it is noticed by the media, as it certainly isn't this current election cycle. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
      • A national/federal law directly enacting SSM across the US is unlikely (although the US federal government may pass a law to recognize SSM for *themselves). Although, I imagine the US Supreme Court may do something within the next ten years (related: Perry v. Brown). --Grotekennis (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- Just end this mess. The refutation of my previous reasoning was ridiculous. Saying that only 3 states voted on it makes it even less notable, because it emphasizes how little of an impact this really has. Percentages don't mean anything to SSM legalisation; its still only 3 states that voted to allow it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That argument is ridiculous. I'm positive we would have put women receiving the right to vote in Wyoming had Wikipedia existed at that time even though it was only one state out of (37?). Ryan Vesey 18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Correct me if I'm wrong as I know little on the subject, but SSM isn't such a rare or unheard of thing to legalize. 11 countries have legal same sex-marriage, which I don't think was the case for women voting. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there a reason why there are two nominations for what seems to be practically the same item? SpencerT♦C 01:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose mentioning the first openly gay female Senator. This election had the first Asian-American woman in the Senate [88], the first Hindu in the House of Representatives, and the first Buddhist in the Senate [89], so it's hard to mention one and not another, notwithstanding notability issues. SpencerT♦C 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a pretty big deal and would make the front page on a slow news day, but it is sort of a trivia issue. It is clear that over the last decade there has been a huge change in the rights and perception of the LYGB community, and it is very significant that voters approved the issue - it is more an acknowledgment that you have fully arrived, than anything else. Normally minorities never get their rights through a popular vote, as the majority trivially outvotes them, but as majority acceptance increases, votes follow. It is sort of like climbing a mountain, and realizing you are going to be able to reach the top even though you are just at the first base camp. So this is the point where LG etc. are at base camp. Voters tend to be too dumb to make smart decisions. And that is not a reflection on them - by definition the average IQ is 100, and the average IQ of successful politicians is barely higher, mostly because they are more relatable, but who in their right mind would select someone with an IQ of 100 to run a university or a corporation - yet we do that for a country? Fortunately the President contrary to popular expression, does not run the country. They do run the executive branch of the Federal government, but a country is much more than its government, and corporations have long been far more important in the U.S. than the Federal government. And nobody tells anyone what to do. Nobody. They can try, but it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Ask yourself, how many people actually stop at a stop sign or follow every speed limit? And how is that drug war working out? Billions spent and not one percentage change in drug use. And has the death penalty in Nigeria or Iran stopped even one person from being gay? Not likely. Apteva (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per meh (below) and because it appears like a op-ed style nomination. --RA (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

November 7Edit

Portal:Current events/2012 November 7

[Posted] 2012 Guatemala earthquakeEdit

Article: 2012 Guatemala earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An earthquake off the Pacific coast of Guatemala kills at least 48 people.
News source(s): [90]
Nominator: Bongwarrior (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Magnitude and casualties seem to be in line with what we would normally post. Article is progressing, but it's still a bit short. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Once the article has enough prose. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This appears to be of a wide importance and already reaches media coverage worldwide. I find the article good as well, although it's always better if additionally expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Wide impact on region, death toll will be larger than currently reported. Article still thin but acceptable. Jusdafax 11:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Posting. It's a bit short but still all the important things are there. --Tone 12:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Legalization of marijuanaEdit

Nominator's comments: Marcus Qwertyus below suggested this is bigger news than the gay marriage votes, and he might be right. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support notable in its own right (to legalize it and not just not prosecute it) and also because it puts them in conflict with federal law. --RA (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm obviously biased, but support. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment So is that the pot talking or you? Wikipedia ITN governance a bunch of stoners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.108.136.77 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - Can we combine the marijuana, equal marriage, and statehood votes into one item? I'd support that, and I'm not sure I can whole-heartedly support any of them separately. (And if we do carry the marriage amendments, in whatever form, please can we call it equal marriage? Many thanks.) AlexTiefling (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Call it homosexual marriage and you'll be accurately describing the only thing about it that's different from marriage.
    • Would probably best to merge them into one bullet (if both are to be posted) rather than give them each their own, on top of the Obama reelection blurb. We already get enough cries of "AMERICAN BIAS!!!!" on this page, so condensing can be a good thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I would leave out the Puerto Rico as its own item though. It's its own whole can of worms. Ks0stm (TCGE) 20:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per the same reason as for the same-sex marriages. The adoption of such laws in federal units of a country bears no notability at all. It would have been ITN worthy if a country like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, or France has legalized marijuana. Furthermore, two of 50 states is completely a niche percentage. What about the other 48 or at least 24 more to surpass a half?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Huge Support For the exact reason Simeonovski mistakenly oppfoses. The US is a federation of sovereign states, and this is a first in what will be a growing trend. Immediately raises the constitutionality of federal laws on the issue. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The expression "this is a first in what will be a going trend" seems to be wrongly placed here. I wonder if it's possible to have your power to predict what will happen in the future. Please come again when the trend will end with the adoption on a country's level or the laws will attain legalization in more than a half of the states and then you have my support guaranteed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

PS, a sticky for US Elections: Gay Marriage, Puerto Rican statehood, Marijuana legalization would make a lot of sense. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not while the 10th Amendment still stands. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
10th Amendment stops where the commerce clause starts.--WaltCip (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because they are just two of 50 states - a very small proportion of the US. Zaalbar (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN-worthy news of interest to a wide readership. Jusdafax 22:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support can't agree with the above argument that states do not count while countries do, that's nation-state biased. In federal systems states have high levels of legislative autonomy and here we talk about two states with a combined population of 12 million. That's more than the population of most countries, so don't see why state-level democracy would need to be ignored. Is particularly inconsistent with the other ITN phenomena of often considering accidents resulting in 10+ deaths newsworthy. --ELEKHHT 22:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Very well. Calculating 2 out of 50 gives 4%, but 12 million out of 314 million doesn't change it either. Even if the level of autonomy of the states in the US is on a higher level (agree on it), it doesn't show that the news really does implications and many groups are aware of it. The comparison with some other countries with less population is completely off, because they usually earn much more international attention when legalizing such things. We cannot base our conclusions on population figures that don't coincide with the factual acceptance of the news worldwide. Should we, then, post each law approved by a single state in India, only because its population is much greater than the population of some sovereign countries? Claiming that the federal subjects in the United States are of large importance than those in other countries is not indented as an argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the number of people affected by a news event is relevant though. Scanning the news, I see it is being reported world-wide. --ELEKHHT 22:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
        • It's been reported by some of the largest media, but not specifically as a news that stands in front with the others breaking news of the day. But still no echo in the media in my country and the countries similar to mine, as it would have been the case if it happened in Belgium (10 million), Denmark (5.5 million) or anywhere else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
          • If it was only breaking news which qualifies than definitely art and culture would never make it. I would have hoped our inclusion criteria is more sophisticated than that. --ELEKHHT 23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
            • You're somehow right. But the art and culture news that are usually posted are breaking on the their specific portals ("Learning", "Science", "Art", "Travel" or whatsoever they're called). The news about the legalization of marijuana and the same-sex marriages are breaking news nowhere. If you really think that we need a more sophisticated model in the ITN, then you're encouraged to discuss it anywhere on the talk pages. It's pretty strange that ITN/R includes general elections in sovereign countries, rather than in states with much more population than some territories that claimed sovereignty.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I feel that some of the opposers don't have a grasp of the significance of laws like these taking place in only a few states. It would still have been support-worthy if only one state did this. This involves a clash between federal and state laws. Police in those states won't arrest you for it, but the DEA will. These laws are going to have significant legal implications that set huge precedents. Ryan Vesey 22:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Huge precedents like federal laws trumping states' rights? As the below IP points out, it happens constantly in the United States. The Framers expected it, for Heaven's sakes. It's not like there's going to be a civil war or anything.--WaltCip (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Zaalbar, Kiril ect. And claiming it is notable because it creates clashing laws between the Fed and State is nothing new, there are many many many laws that are created every year that clash with federal/state law.75.73.114.111 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- Even less notable of an issue worldwide than same-sex marriage in my opinion. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A significant development doktorb wordsdeeds 09:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still illegal in these states per federal law, so nothing has changed. Hekerui (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This should go up, there's good consensus in favor of what is a novel event that affects the freedoms of far more people than does state recognition of gay marriage. Opposes seem to be based on the odd notion that federal laws somehow re-write state laws or that there is a federal police for that will go around arresting individual pot users. Arguments about how small states are is bizarrely beyond the point. And this is already having international repercussions. "Mexico to reconsider joint policies with U.S. amid new state marijuana laws." μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The reforms in Colorado and Washington are unprecedented, even by international standards.   — C M B J   23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Only when (if?) the federal level law banning marijuana is changed. SpencerT♦C 01:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I have to humbly say that anyone opposing this inclusion has no clue just how big a deal this is. There is absolutely no state in the U.S. that has previously legalized marijuana, although it was rumored that the Republicans were going to legalize it nationally before the election to improve Romney's chances. No doubt it would have worked. It is a foregone conclusion that marijuana will be legalized in the U.S., and this is our one and only chance to report on it happening. Apteva (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I really don't think this is our "one and only chance to report it happening". There are presumably dozens of states in the future perhaps establishing the same law: which do we post? And for which drugs legalized? The clearest solution is to wait for changes in national-level law, and we can post then. SpencerT♦C 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The first major jurisdictions to pass such laws are the most newsworthy. There's also no indication that a subsequent story will ever be suitable for ITN — it is possible that federal prosecutors simply decide to cease intervening in a non-event.   — C M B J   08:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dope becoming lawful in any US state would be an obvious post. We should post this only if and when in turns out to be anything other than purely symbolic. Formerip (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ...except that's essentially what happened. I'm actually the one who created our template that emphasizes to readers the discrepancy between federal and state laws, but I'm still shocked that this nomination wasn't unanimously supported and the story expeditiously posted. The reforms in Colorado and Washington are not by any means purely symbolic: they have real, demonstrable implications at local, state, national, and international levels, and Gonzales v. Raich is not a sufficient refutation of that fact.   — C M B J   08:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Gay marriage votesEdit

Articles: Maine Question 1, 2012 (talk, history) and Washington Referendum 74 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Voters in the US states of Maine, Maryland, and Washington elect to legalize same-sex marriage
News source(s): [91], [92], Reuters, SMH
Nominator: Grotekennis (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is HUGE news - it is the first time in both US and World history that same-sex marriage has been enacted at the ballot box instead of through legislatures and judicial rulings. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. I haven't read the stories on this, but if it is accurate that this is the first time in world history that the public has voted in favour of SSM directly, rather than having it legalized through acts of parliament or the courts, then I would agree that is big news. And the big news is the vote, therefore I would modify the blurb to note that. Resolute 14:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Resolute. TortoiseWrath (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support major news and historical moment. ComputerJA (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support We had been 0-for-32 in the US on gay marriage votes, until we broke the shutout last night. Also, we could expand the gay rights focus of this post by noting that Tammy Baldwin, when sworn in, will become the first openly gay member of the US Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Significant in the grand scope of Same-Sex Marriage laws in the US. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN will simply become the US election ticker--which might be a better solution. But three state referenda are just not importnat enough compared to the other news. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per Resolute.--В и к и T 17:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Update? Where's the update? -- tariqabjotu 18:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; if there were 5 US states instead of 50, then it would be support. Think about it, 3/50 US states just legalised SSM. That's not notable enough to be front page material. Zaalbar (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not the first states to do this and likely not the last. This pales in comparison to yesterday's vote to legalize recreational marijuana in Washington and Colorado. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, this is the first time it's happened by voter initiative. At least in the US, if it has happened by voter initiative in other countries, someone please tell me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meh ... them and Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden. Along with 30 or 40 odd states that allow same-sex unions. --RA (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I cannot realize a notability in the legalization of same-sex marriages in federal units of a country. Maybe it's worth supporting if the legalization was done in the United States, but in three of 50 states it's far from being something important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support In federal systems states have high levels of legislative autonomy and this item concerns three states with a combined population of 14 million. That's more than the population of most countries (including Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden of those mentioned above) so don't see why the rights of 14 million would have to be ignored, while a country with a smaller population would qualify only because is called a "country". --ELEKHHT 22:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Nobody imposes the statement that a "country" qualifies better than a "state", since it's been proven many times and stands as something which is self-evident. Please check the archives of the largest media portals to compare how many news similar to this one about "countries" with less population have circulated in contrast to those about a "state". Basically, the ITN should document news stories from the articles, and not to deal with demographics or any other statistical conclusions. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, it wasn't me saying that "Oppose; if there were 5 US states instead of 50, then it would be support". --ELEKHHT 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't see anybody here opposing for that reason.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
My point was that 3/5 states would form a majority in that country and it would be more notable, as opposed to a very small proportion (3/50 states) of the US. Zaalbar (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for being out of the track.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable enough. Maybe when a majority of the states legalize it, then it might be notable enough.75.73.114.111 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, local interest because of only three US states. Brandmeistertalk 00:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- 3/50 of a country? Not even close to notable. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose while the popular vote success is new, the states are only the last in a series of states that legalized SSM. If the whole country legalized it, that would be another matter, but this is too local. Hekerui (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Puerto Rican status referendumEdit

Article: Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a nonbinding status referendum, Puerto Rico votes in favor of changing its territorial status and becoming the 51st state of the United States.

I'm thinking this is being overshadowed in the U.S. by the presidential election and in Puerto Rico by the gubernatorial election today and tomorrow, but it's going to be a big developing story. Obviously a success for pro-statehood on a status question after, what, three referendums previously that they failed to win? Is a big deal. Especially considering the implications of the vote. This would be the first major territorial change in the United States since the 1950s. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support I didn't know this vote was happening and the result is a big change in position. On reading about it now, Obama (and Romney) said they would support ascension. However, it requires the approval of Congress. Very interesting, and very significant, but I'm not sure if this is the time to post or if/when Congress approves. On the other hand, that could be years away. --RA (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as the United States is arguably one the most powerful nations in the wo