Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2012

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

September 30Edit

[Posted] 2012 Ryder CupEdit

Article: 2012 Ryder Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, the Ryder Cup concludes with Europe defeating the United States 14½-13½.
News source(s): [1],[2],[3],[4]

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I decided to nominate this now so people can voice their opinions on the current article and make any changes that may be needed to the article. Andise1 (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Obvious support but you may as well change it to a US-win right now, to you know - save some time ^___^ --Τασουλα (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Omgawd, what a result. I'll eat my pretty hat for that! --Τασουλα (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as a major competition in the sport (is already in INT/R). However, wait as I think it is always better for the event to finish before proposing. Consider if the final blurb was: "In golf, the Ryder Cup is abandoned due to aliens invading Earth." Would we still post it? --RA (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    If aliens invaded the Earth, I'm pretty sure we would post it... --Jethro B 20:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    What? That the Ryder cup had to be abandoned? I'm sure if aliens invaded Earth the Ryder cup, ITN/R or otherwise, would quickly be forgotten about. Or do you think world headlines would read: "US President Evacuated! Parliament at Westminster Evaporated! Ryder Cup Abandoned!" :-) --RA (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    No I don't think headlines would be about Ryder Cup, nor the ITN, but I certainly think we'd post at ITN if aliens did invade the Earth. --Jethro B 21:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    That was my point, the candidate is nominated before the event happened. It's OK tho. There's a low risk of alien invasion tonight. --RA (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    Low risk? Don't be so sure. I'm calling the motherboard now! --Jethro B 22:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending event is over and proper update. --Jethro B 20:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per ITN/R. I've also used this nomination to demonstrate a potential change to the template, with the altblurb field for an alternative blurb. Currently I'm using Template:ITN candidate/sandbox. If this is well received I'll make the change to the actual template. LukeSurl t c 21:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Result - Europe won 14½-13½. LukeSurl t c 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Mention the record comeback too. Lugnuts And the horse 06:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and mention the comeback since it was the biggest in history. I also tweaked the blurb a bit, because it was a joke and ITN is super srs, guise. --PlasmaTwa2 07:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    Apparently not [5]. Or was it this guy? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking as [Ready], though it's been ready to post for about 10 hours now. LukeSurl t c 09:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Obviously all the admins are American. Lugnuts And the horse 12:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
All the Brit Admins are still too busy celebrating... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It's been about 16 hours now since this has been ready with full consensus to post, and the box is red. Are any admins there? LukeSurl t c 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted, without the score, per usual practice. And, well, I was quite unhappy with my television last night ;) Courcelles 17:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] All-Ireland hurling championshipEdit

Article: 2012 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In hurling, Kilkenny defeat Galway in the 2012 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final, with Henry Shefflin becoming the first Gaelic athlete to win nine All-Ireland medals on the field of play. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Irish Times
Article updated

Nominator's comments: A former INT/R, this year's event was listed by CNN as the second "must see" sporting event of 2012 after the Olympic games. Attendance placed this year's game as the 5th most attended domestic outdoor sporting event of all time. --RA (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per nom, but only once there is more of an update for the final's replay. I was a bit confused at first about the "senior" part of this, but it appears to have nothing to do with senior citizens.--Chaser (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    In the same way as other sports have an under-21 or under-18s competition, Gaelic games have "minor" for under 18s. "Senior" the major competition. --RA (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support as the biggest competition in its sport. I wonder would it be possible to work in Henry Shefflin's record-breaking 9th All-Ireland medal on the field of play? There is a detailed article on this fascinating individual—who is more admired than Rory McIlroy according to a recent survey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Highest level of play for the sport. GRAPPLE X 20:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If updated, Support a swap of the GAA events. With the Ryder Cup, the AFL final, and the Berlin Marathon there's too much sports on the plate at the moment (though it remains how many will make the update).--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose recurring event not on ITN/R with nothing especially notable about this occurrence. No asteroid strike, polar shift, monkey revolt, or hamburgers eating people. As routine as bus #36B going from midtown to Dolphin Mall. If it's important, suggest it to ITN/R, and once it passes there, then bring it back here. Also oppose removing the football item since this will probably go up, let items expire off when they normally do. --IP98 (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    It used to be. It was there on the 1st of January. [6] Someone must've taken it down. It's not really fair in the circumstances to criticise someone for nominating it if that's the sort of internal bureaucratic political squabbling that goes on. And TBF, hamburgers eating people or revolting monkeys didn't get the Emmy Awards or the Mongolian wrestler up there either.
    Yeah, the notion of something particularly unusual having to happen is a bit off. Granted, a yokozuna promotion is something unusual (70 across several centuries); but most sporting events are not going to see some sort of "hand of God" moment or the like to see them considered anything more unusual than the norm. Nothing particularly special has happened at any of the sporting events listed all year. GRAPPLE X 21:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is exactly my point. There are soooo many sporting events, marathons all over the world, the Ontario Hockey League, just tons and tons and tons which are regionally important, but have nothing spectacular happen. To me, a routine sporting event really has to be on ITN/R to get a pass on notability. --IP98 (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This idea that something unusual has to happen, or that events have to be well-known or widely reported upon globally, troubles me too. We're an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet. The purpose of ITN is not to give news headlines. It's to provide hooks into topics visitors would not otherwise come across. If all we do is post about the Ryder Cup (or the Emmys, or the Oscars, or whatever else) — when the those things are already on every headline across the world and already driving traffic towards us — then we are not going to be successful in driving traffic to areas of the encyclopaedia people would not already go. We would not be living up to our potential to educate people on things they don't already know about or weren't already reading.
    That's why sports events like the AFL, the new yokozuna and hurling are important. I don't come here for news. If I want to get the headlines, I go somewhere else. I come here to be educated. I didn't know what a yokozuna was. I do now. And I found my way to a bunch of articles that I never would have landed at before. I've been educated.
    That doesn't mean we should post every kind of kooky thing — or stop posting the world news. But we do need to think more globally — which ironically means "more locally", just in other parts of the world. --RA (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    The yokozuna is a rare event, easy support. Any sport event on ITN/R, easy support. If a sporting event is special without a monkey uprising, nominate it to ITN/R, make the case for notability, then it's easy support. A routine sporting event that was routine, can't support. --IP98 (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    It has been on ITNR for several years and still was so as recently as this year. [7] And it was anything but routine, with more records broken by this extraordinary Kilkenny team. If 2009 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final - when they were already considered "the greatest side ever to play the game" - was good enough, this should be a shoe-in. It is the "fastest and oldest field game in the world" (CNN) and, that they ranked it above the UEFA European Football Championship, the FIFA World Cup, and soccer's Superclásico is not to be lightly dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Seems fine to me. Major championship, in the news all over Ireland, article is passably good. --Jayron32 03:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment So "Gaelic football" is worthy but this isn't?! The premier vomiting/hurling championship surely deserves recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has been waiting for several days now. The opposition is based entirely on the premise that it isn't an asteroid strike, polar shift, monkey revolt, or hamburgers eating people. But that goes for everything else on this page too so might as well just shut down ITN if the standards are that high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I note that there is a very lukewarm reaction to this nomination. Nothing is compelling in its favour. We struggled to support an ITN/R nomination, we're clearly struggling to support this. Let's not pretend that this nomination is important enough for the front page - the reaction shows it isn't, the lack of coverage across media sources shows it isn't. doktorb wordsdeeds 02:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I see five supports plus the nominator. There has been no rush to oppose these over the past four days. Where is this "very lukewarm reaction" you mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep; before your oppose there was only one other versus half a dozen supporting voices, I don't see a single reason why a 6-1 support/oppose split could be called "lukewarm". I think the fact that it's rightly marked as ready and the supports seem obvious are deterring further conversation as to me at least it would look like a done deal that wouldn't need bandwagonned. GRAPPLE X 14:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support- This is a clearly significant event and should be posted most years. It was removed in this discussion, and even that had enough consensus if it were an ITN nomination, just not enough for ITN/R. Please post. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 17:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: Since Miguel Cabrera winning baseball's Triple Crown was posted in such a hurry, why - after five days of waiting to see if the hurling would even be mentioned - has Henry Shefflin's extraordinary achievement not been included on the Main Page? There doesn't seem to be any problem with Shefflin's Wikipedia entry and it is the perfect opportunity to give this sport's top athlete some exposure on the Main Page.
    • Probably because no-one nominated it.Edit: I see it was added to the blurb Personally, I would not support it. Winning 7 All-Ireland medals is not a specific accolade like becoming a yokozuna or winning a triple crown. --RA (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's nine. No one else has nine. And it was part of the nomination from very early on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • To answer your question: Because the blurb would be really long, and we generally don't include those kinds on results (except for the purpose of providing something we can illustrate). I'd understand if the achievement was something that you be briefly explained, but becoming the first Gaelic athlete to win nine All-Ireland medals on the field of play is not brief, and I have no knowledge of this sport whatsoever, I don't know if there is a shorter way of conveying the same information. So, in other words, it'd be nonessential information making the blurb very long. -- tariqabjotu 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Essentially what it means is that he's a nine-time final-winning player; other men have gone on to win as bainisteoir of their teams (in GAA sports, managers are much much more often former players, for example my old PE teacher Pete McGrath coached Down to successful football finals having reached the final as a player previously). The information could have been phrased as "with Henry Shefflin earning a record ninth win as a player". However, this is one of those records I tend to oppose mentioning; nothing's stopping Shefflin (or anyone else) winning a tenth or eleventh when the time comes, and much like, say, baseball perfect games or cricket run records, this will be broken and probably more than once within ITN's lifetime. That said, Shefflin's career is a storied one and I'd be interested in seeing his article go places. GRAPPLE X 22:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Berlin MarathonEdit

Article: 2012 Berlin Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: Geoffrey Kiprono Mutai and Aberu Kebede win the Berlin Marathon in the men's and women's competition respectively. (Post)

Article needs updating

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

 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Until an article is created for it. Support if/when that happens, per ITN/R and a significant sporting event. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 15:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support even if article is never written because we can always bold Berlin Marathon or Geoffrey Kiprono Mutai if updated. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Anc516, with same condition for support. Is there any other ITN/R item which has been posted recently where there wasn't a specific article for that occurrence of the event? --IP98 (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Support per the above. ITNR. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If interest wasn't sufficient to create an article in advance then a question should be put over whether this event should be in ITN/R. --RA (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Because it is one of the World Marathon Majors. There were articles created for the last two. --IP98 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Another approach could be to list the overall winner of the championship rather than the individual races. --RA (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Those articles would need updating but are in much better shape. How about "Geoffrey Kiprono Mutai and Aberu Kebede win the 2012 Berlin Marathon in the men's and women's competition respectively." --IP98 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I support it so long as there is a rationale for the ITN/R, which there is (suggested improvements aside). --RA (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Still not created? Slightly worrying... --Τασουλα (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Clearly not important enough, as the lack of article goes someway to prove doktorb wordsdeeds 21:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
All that proves is that it isn't so important amongst English language article writers; nothing about significance. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with IP98's alt blurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not WR times. The last marathons we posted were for World Record times, or, in the case of Boston, the fastest marathon time (that didn't qualify for WR due to the course setup). SpencerT♦C 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But it is ITN/R. Other marathons that were ITN/R weren't posted because no one nominated them I think. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

September 29Edit

AFL Grand FinalEdit

Article: 2012 AFL Grand Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Australian football, the Sydney Swans defeat Hawthorn in the 2012 AFL Grand Final. (Post)

Article needs updating

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

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per ITN/R Decent prose. Added bold text to blurb. --IP98 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, ITN/R. (Incoming "not important outside of Australia" arguments ^_^) --Τασουλα (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. --Activism1234 00:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs a prose summary of the article. SpencerT♦C 00:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but not ready yet Support per ITN/R and a notable sporting event, but as Spencer noted, there are several empty sections, and the article summary is small. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as the premier event in the sport. --RA (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Anywhere near ready yet? --Τασουλα (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
      • It still has multiple tags which should be dealt with first. The hurling nomination looks good to go though if its sport you're all after.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Terrorist affiliation: MKOEdit

Article: Mojahedin-e-Khalq (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States delists the MKO as a terrorist organisation. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Against protests of "double standards" from Iran, the United States delists the MEK as a terrorist organisation.
News source(s): Washington Post, Tehran Times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Not everyday a group gets delisted as a terrorist org, and all the political dramafest going on around this makes it notable ---- Lihaas (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, it is very interesting move of the US, indicating its support for the group and future strategies over Iran.Egeymi (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Article appears to be pretty extensive. And it is indeed a rare event. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, decent update, rare event. --IP98 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing significant! Also, the article doesn't seem to talk about the "news". --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 20:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Fascinating It's only once gotten more than 2,000 views in a day, but I have to support this nom about a "Marxist, Islamic" revovlutionary movement that supports gender and religious equality and the free market. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
"Also, the article doesn't seem to talk about the "news" - probably because it hasn't been updated. And quoting this as "nothing significant" is going a bit far I think. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
If it isn't updated then what's the point of featuring it on the main page? And the fact that the US removed it from the list of terrorist organizations just proves their hatred of Iran and intentional support of terrorists for their own benefit, nothing more. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 23:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose MEK supports overthrow of US-supported leader of Iran. MEK = terrorists. MEK support overthrow of US-opposed leader in Iran. MEK = not terrorists. In any case, this is old news. The UK delisted them in 2008 and the EU delisted them in 2009. --RA (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) were also delisted in the US on 6 September this year (ref). We didn't post that. Delisting alone (whether in the US or anywhere else) doesn't make it news. --RA (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - if what RA said is correct above, this is a significant culmination of their status as terrorist or not. This organization has played a significant part in recent tensions with Iran, and are a main opposition group that has helped expose aspects of their nuclear program, leading to more tension. I'd say that this delisting is a rather significant indication of policy. --Activism1234 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you divide out RA's multiplicative factor of -1 for the US being evul he gives a very good support vote. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
My comment had nothing to do with whether the UK, EU or US are "evul". My comment is that this is neither news nor significant. The US is late to the table here. The UK and EU changed their designation of the MEK four years ago. Additionally, the argument that the re-designation of MEK is significant because it is a "rare event" is contradicted by the re-designation of UCP earlier in the month.
Unless some significance can be attached to the US re-designation of MEK four years after the UK and EU did so — and an explanation can be given for why the US re-designation of MEK is significant, while the US re-designation of UCP is not — the event itself is not significant. Linking it the tensions over the nuclear armament of Iran would satisfy that — and that link would need to be stated in the blurb — but from what I can determine such a link by us would be purely speculative. --RA (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Why only US was ever nominated and not the UK and EU ones mentioned in this discussion? How do you decide which of the three is most worthy, since I don't think anyone would have wanted all three posted within the span of four years, and this has proven not to be such a rare event. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
If you have a Time Machine please feel free to go back and nominate the others. Or change the blurb to "MEK is removed from the US and EU terrorist list". Either way, it's making news. --IP98 (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
For a "news story" tho, I'd like to see more substance to it's presumed significance. A much more significant development would be if MEK were designated the opposition-in-exile by the US (Guardian).
At the very least, context needs to be put on the de-listing, e.g.:

Against protests of "double standards" from Iran, the United States delists the MEK as a terrorist organisation.

(e.g. [8], [9]). --RA (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Or, to satisfy the would-be time travellers, "...joins the UK and EU in delisting the MEK as a terrorist organisation." μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this was important at the time, that importance didn't last very long doktorb wordsdeeds 16:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Adding an organization to the "terrorist" list is business as usual, but removing one from the list certainly does not happen often... obviously there are important political reasons. -- Vmenkov (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Agree with reasons provided above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

1922 Libyan temperature record disqualifiedEdit

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's basically a press release; it doesn't actually change any fact on the ground, relate to any good article, or have any presumed high readership interest. μηδείς (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending update or maybe DYK. Not making headlines, but if a new ice record is important, so is a new heat record, right? -- (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There is this article which may be relevant. Lugnuts And the horse 12:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This isn't a new record (which I would support), but rather the cancellation of an old record in favour of an older one. Nothing new has happened. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I saw this weeks ago where other news sources reported it. The announcement is from 13 September and the nomination is far too late, but even then it wasn't much news that a 1922 record had been annulled and replaced by a 1913 record. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No template for starters hun, seems a lil trivial and has doesn't seem to of received much media attention, even in its subject field... --Τασουλα (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it is old and no article has been given. However, it would make a good WP:DYK. --RA (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Moral support for my cherished meteorology, however regretful oppose as the story hasn't made quite enough splash and happened quite a while back (I remember reading about this a couple weeks ago). Ks0stm (TCGE) 07:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I'm a bit confused. I read this in the news weeks ago; why is it coming up now? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

New Chief Justice of IndiaEdit

Article: Altamas Kabir (talk, history)
Blurb: Altamas Kabir is sworn in as the 39th Chief Justice of India. (Post)

 Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support but the article is a bit small. Needs expansion for MP. --IP98 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This article isn't the type ITN should showcase. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support We would post this if it were a new chief justice of the US. Now, I do understand that Kabir is not American, but I am willing to forgive that in this one instance. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Per the American precedent. India is the world's most populous democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Removing [Ready] - The article is not ready yet. It appears to be of good quality overall, but it contains only a two-sentence update that provides little information beyond what is in the blurb. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not sure what "American precedent" is being cited, or why, but this is a case of a sitting Justice being elevated to the post of Chief Justice. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Do you really think that if John Roberts retired and was replaced by a sitting justice, it wouldn't be posted? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure, but I would not support posting it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the very good reasons above. Not significant enough for us doktorb wordsdeeds 16:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Only one oppose was given on significance and it only gave one argument (the other was a question on a previous statement), so can you clarify what reasons you are referring to? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable for reasons provided above. Article has been improved. Dont think there is much more to add by way of update. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

September 28Edit

Larry Cunningham diesEdit

Article: Larry Cunningham (talk, history)
Blurb: Country music and showband legend Larry Cunningham dies. (Post)
News source(s): [10]
  • I can certainly see this for the recent death ticker given he was recently active and supposedly a trailblazer. But I am not sure what admin one has to pleasure to get that well-supported change implemented. μηδείς (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly, I don't see the significance, though I don't doubt he made a contribution to this genre. --RA (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's a Country Music Hall of Fame and he ain't in it. -- (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But it's full of Americans and is located in Nashville so it has no credibility in this context. The subject of the nomination is not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Next we won't publish soccer tournament results because they are not NFL teams? μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
What links soccer to NFL teams any more than what links an American Country Music Hall of Fame to Larry Cunningham? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Considering country music is an American genre of music, I'm pretty sure the fact that he's not known in the US is a pretty relevant point. -- (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I miss Happy Days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • He's proving the point invalid. Anyway, aside from the pretty silly oppose based on him not being in one music hall of fame, I don't think this guy has the established notability to be included, as RA pointed out. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

September 27Edit

[Posted] Sudan/South SudanEdit

Article: 2012 South Sudan–Sudan border conflict#Resolution (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Under the auspices of the African Union, South Sudan and Sudan sign a multitude of agreements, including the sharing of oil revenues, following conflict earlier in the year. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Been woefully short of news, seems like this could be something as it has been signed. South Sudan just announced the details (including what was amiss) at the UNGA. Sudan havent gone yet, but im sure they will too ---- Lihaas (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - seems interesting, the two nations have been engaged in fierce rivalry and conflict and there's been a lot of tension, so this is significant. --Activism1234 23:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
comment can somene update? im watching the UNGA right now..Lihaas (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Editors often complain about results of international meetings being more important than the actual start of the meeting. Here are results. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the merits of the story, but #Resolution needs more text and more references.--Chaser (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support if we could maybe get a line or two into the lede of the target article, that'd be best. but this is making the news rounds and the article meets the minimum. Consider this to be a full support if the update gets bigger. --Jayron32 03:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can we make the blurb more concise? LukeSurl t c 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
By all means, any suggestionsv?Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
^^ That sounds pretty good. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Changing earlier to early, I have made it even gooder. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Goodness all round. (Oh, I hope Lihaas likes it...dum dum dum...) --Τασουλα (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Important, interesting, sufficient update imho. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You dint add the ITN tag to the talk page...Lihaas (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I added it just now. If this happens again, just post it to the talk page on your own, there's no specific editor required to do so. --Activism1234 19:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb I'm not sure it will matter much, but Thue has used the original, rather than the solicited shorter blurb. I've left a message asking that Thue change the listing to the shorter blurb. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I, personally, find it helpful when blurb changes go right in the template, especially if they are sensible. (It makes it easier for administrators to find the correct blurb). So in the future, feel free to go ahead and modify the blurb in the header template too. SpencerT♦C 05:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I, personally, object to doing that. The template box carries the nominator's signature, and it is never right to change another editor's words while they still carry his/her signature, so I would suggest that people should not feel free to do that. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I generally agree, but in this case Lihaas had sanctioned the change and not objected after the new wording was suggested. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the signature with the comments shown below the template box? I thought the template box was kind of a workspace for the item (since you can mark specific things with the article that need to be fixed in "notes", and then others can strike them once those issues have been rectified), and that "nom_cmt" was where the nominator put his/her own comments. SpencerT♦C 08:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a blurb, immediately followed by the nominator's name. If the blurb is not that proposed by the nominator, that is at best highly open to misrepresentation of what the nominator nominated. But this probably belongs to the talk page rather than a specific nom. Kevin McE (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Could we modify the template to have fields for Alternative Blurb, Alternative Blurb 2 etc.? LukeSurl t c 10:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added an altblurb field to Template:ITN candidate/sandbox. LukeSurl t c 17:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Isleworth Mona LisaEdit

Article: Isleworth Mona Lisa (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An earlier verison of Mona Lisa is unveiled by a group in Geneva (Post)
News source(s): Swissinfo

Article needs updating

 ---- Ashish-g55 19:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fairly intersting story. Not many people know that another mona lisa exists plus arts news relating to someone like Leonardo is fairly rare these days -- Ashish-g55 19:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Support - story crosses a number of international boundaries quite well. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The lede for the Isleworth Mona Lisa emphasises that this is one of a large number of fairly early images resembling the actual Mona Lisa. I cannot fathom why this is a story at all, outside the pages of periodicals on Renaissance art. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
the article i agree is not the greatest. Most people actually agree that its Leonardo's work. In any case we are not saying its authentic but that it was unvieled... -- Ashish-g55 20:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(after ec) I think the proposed blurb was misleading, then - this is the Isleworth Mona Lisa, not an earlier version of it. (I note that you've added a pipe-link.) The contention is that the Isleworth painting is the original, and the Louvre one the (slightly) later copy. But (and here's the dealbreaker for me) there's no independent verification of the owner's claims. If we run this story, we're essentially running an unverified publicity piece that runs against the broad (though not universal) consensus of art historians. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
again we are not claiming this is the original and the one in Louvre is copy. Its a highly publicized unvieling of a very famous painting and mentioning that in ITN is not claiming that its original. Article clearly states its disputed. Please edit the blurb if you find it misleading -- Ashish-g55 20:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is a minority topic that will be of great interest to many readers who will naturally seek out wikipedia as the go-to location for information on this story. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- According to the news source, many say this is a fake. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since it has not been scientifically confirmed. If it is well-established, it will be, of course, notable and deserve to be posted.Egeymi
  • Commnet It is not an exact science. Many indications point to it being atleast partially done by Da vinci. Since this is a version of the most famous painting in the world there will always be people saying its a fake. I still dont see why we need it to be a real for it to get on ITN. It was unvieled after 40 years in a bank vault, thats all we should care about -- Ashish-g55 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While I would like something of this nature to be posted, it does seem problematic, not least of all because the article needs improvement. The BBC sources I checked quotes an expert as saying it's probably a copy. Perhaps it's notable anyway, but I'm not sure.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very speculative. I think we would look foolish putting something like this on the front page. (Also, even if true, I'm not convinced of its noteworthiness.) --RA (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

September 26Edit

Andy WilliamsEdit

Article: Andy Williams (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Singer Andy Williams dies at the age of 84. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose "84 year old man diagnosed with cancer last year dies." I don't think "Moon River" makes him a leader in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Was it wider than a mile? Or did he not cross it in style? ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
"Mr Easy Listening" for decades. Perhaps not "a star" but certainly a leader. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for recent death ticker, which could be added as easily as:
Syrian civil war – Wikinews – Recent deaths: Andy Williams – More current events...
with not even an extra line of text needed. This will have a very high reader interest, and he was a major performer into his old age. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose for ITN blurb, support for recent death ticker. --Activism1234 04:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I fear that we're now entering some kind of 'bidding process' for deaths nominations in which everyone shows how macho and brutal they are. If we start saying "Oppose" all the time, just to shut down nominations, then it's going to get stupid. Who is notable for ITN - just world leaders? Won't that make ITN very politics heavy and therefore biased and having almost no world view? Andy Williams is a very well known, very well regarded, very successful singer across decades. His death is mentioned on the BBC World Service this morning so that must count for something. For the fact that he's a popular, well established, popular singer with charting singles on both sides of the Atlantic over many years, let's put him on the front page
  • Support Any hero of Nelson's is a hero of mine too. Lugnuts And the horse 14:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I realise your being facetious, but IDONTLIKE is not a reason. Sill reasons for consensus building...Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the general principle of deaths at ITN - we've had more successful and critically important musicians go un-ITN'd than Williams. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Not one of the handful of elite of his field. There are numerous singers more famous than him. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Surprised you think that. Who's in this handful exactly? Who else has earned the title "The King of Easy Listening"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Christopher Cross and Lionel Richie. -- (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if that's more disrespectful to Andy or to Bzweeb. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose US-centric; oldie-centric; Death at a mature age. Can't get used to losing you, but it's time to say goodbye, Andy. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 09:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • His lasting popularity in the UK was bolstered by his several TV series broadcast by BBC in the 1970s (but not mentioned anywhere in his article). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
His death was 'fairly' widely reported in the UK. --Τασουλα (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Currently number 6 at wikitrends, outpulling all our most recent featured articles, and the world-renowned Justin Bieber. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
(Didn't even know Justin had died.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
God forbid. That was a comment on his noteworthiness in Canada. μηδείς (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - King of Easy Listening, whoever's handful your looking in. Can't Take My Eyes Off ITN, even with Denise. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Active for 8 decades ('38-'12), sang by request at RFK's funeral, defender of John Lennon from deportation charges, and of the Frenchman he married from murder charges, parodied on Limbaugh and The Simpsons, what's not to love? μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready This good quality article has been plenty updated, has great reader interest, and there is majority support for a recent death ticker listing at least, with invalid opposes for US-centrism. Let's get him next to recent deaths per the three-time approved talk page discussion at the least. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose was famous decades ago but not so much recently. The US centrist argument does have a point: the comparison with Max Bygraves comes to mind. The difference there is that Bygraves was still working at the very top this millenium. You can't say the same about Williams. What is the difference apart from nationality? The proposal for listing by recent deaths was debated extensively but never made it as far as policy: that is not an option here. (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC).
That's absurd on many points. First, the US Centric thing is patently offensive racism and against all policy. Second, being parodied on the Simpsons and Rush Limbaugh is hardly "famous forty years ago". Third, he was highly active until 2011, although maybe you use a different meaning for "very top of the millennium." You have my sympathy that Max bygraves wasn't posted, but it's no reason to oppose this nom or spout nonsense. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
US citizens do not collectively form a race and using such emotive terms inappropriately does not strengthen your argument. It is acceptable to factor in the country of origin in assessments if the aims of balance and lack of bias are to be achieved. I drew a parallel between two suggestions and asked what the difference between them is. If it is only nationality and one goes up but the other doesn't that must be down to bias. (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The only thing non-hyphenated Americans have in common is their national origin. Opposition to American topics as such is bigotry, whether you want to call it jingoism, prejudice, racism, or whatever. It's shameful. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no way that Bygraves could be realistically be compared with Williams. Max was well-loved, as an entertainer, at least within the UK, but most Brits would see such a comparison as a joke. Williams was not really "an entertainer", from the same music hall tradition. But he was a global artist, who could reasonably be called "a star". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for recent deaths ticker or ITN per comments above, mostly Medeis's.--Chaser (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready--please don't remove the ready tag unless you actually contest that the article needs an update or has other tags that would prevent its posting. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm unclear on the purpose of adding "Ready" to a nomination, but doesn't that imply not only that there is an update, but also that there is consensus to post? A consensus to post clearly doesn't exist on this item. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur. There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus to post for the item. De-marking "ready". SpencerT♦C 00:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Read the policy and cut the nonsense. "Ready" has nothing to do with consensus to post, just with technical readiness. Read the policy. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Removing "Ready". I don't know what "policy" you're reading, but the instructions say the [Ready] tag should be used when an item is ready to be posted. That has always been interpreted to mean when both the article is updated and there seems to be consensus to post. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tariqabjotu. If the tag is purely about the article's update, we already have the template's "updated = yes/no" parameter. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Strongly disagree (though this really ought to be hammered out at the talk page, not in one nomination's thread). The idea of posting this tag was, IIRC, introduced with no discussion, and defended by the instigator as being for the purpose of drawing attention to the thread so that an admin can make the call as to whether consensus as to importance exists (I find a message on WT:ITN dated 18/3/2011 that states the tag was introduced during that week: I see no prior discussion on the subject in that archive). It has never been suggested formally that determination of consensus is for anyone to make: otherwise invites anyone to assume that they have the right to mandate an admin as to what they should do. Anything that goes in the template carries the nominator's signature, so only the nominator has the right to make that claim there. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to defer to BorgQueen's opinion , but "has always been" is not an explicit policy. Items are ready when the requirements for readiness are met. The question of consensus is explicitly separate: "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves." Are we now saying seriously that the ready tag prevents an admin from judging consensus rather than requiring it? I am curious if the people who are screaming the tag should be removed are in favor of or against the posting? μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] New yokozuna promotionEdit

Article: Harumafuji Kōhei (talk, history)
Blurb:  In sumo, Mongolian wrestler Harumafuji Kōhei (pictured) is formally promoted to 70th Yokozuna. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press via Asahi Shimbun

Nominator's comments: First promotion since May 2007, and 70th in over 200 years history. About yokozuna, we posted the news of Asashōryū's retirement in February 2010. -- (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Do you know what, this is mad and crazy and mental but I'm going with this. Only 70 highest ranking positions in 200 years is clearly significant. It's certainly not a position which comes around very often. It's certainly not of interest to a world wide audience but given how unusual it is, I'm saying we should take a risk doktorb wordsdeeds 10:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Yokozuna needs updating a bit as well (by someone with more knowledge than me) to incorporate this news. LukeSurl t c 11:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I've now done this. LukeSurl t c 14:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I feel that this would be a quirky and interesting story for ITN. Yeah I know, not "exactly" the greatest reason for supporting but, "meh". --Τασουλα (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Since all the major tournaments are of an equal standing, there's no "championship" to speak of in the sport; as such, promotion to yokuzuna is the highest accolade to be earned. GRAPPLE X 12:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - You know what, why the hell not. Let this be part of a greater effort to make ITN more inclusive.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per many above. If sumo had a single premiere championship it would be ITN/R. It doesn't, so this may be the closest thing. If this passes (which looks likely), I suggest adding new Yokozuna to ITN/R. LukeSurl t c 14:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment needs update. There are only two sentences at the end of the Ōzeki career section. Personally would like to see a "promotion to yokozuna" subsection with minimum update. --IP98 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It's good to see a different headline posted. ComputerJA (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks like it is in good shape, it's a current event, and I can find several news sources on this. --Jayron32 17:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, both significant and interesting.Egeymi (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as seems to be important and interesting sporting news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • support but the update needs expansion and more references. And this doesn't have to be viewed as a "quirky" or "mental" addition to ITN. Sumo is a perfectly established and globally notable sport and has featured on ITN before.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Consensus established, but this arguably needs more of an update before posting. We have about three sentences with three references: [11]. I'd defer to another admin if they want to post it, but I personally don't think it's quite enough.--Chaser (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a ref for his birth place. I am not sure that technically waiting for a fifth ref is beneficial--although I am surprised President Clinton hasn't offered his congratulations yet. Perhaps someone who can read the Japanese press can add an obligatory fifth update? Otherwise I am not sure why this hasn't been posted yet. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above --Activism1234 04:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question, in the article is there a reason 'ozeki' and 'yokozuna' are not capitalized in the headings? Are they not proper nouns?--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    No, I don't think they are. The only time I've ever really encountered "yokozuna" treated as a proper noun was when he wrestled Hulk Hogan. GRAPPLE X 13:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Damn, down Memory Lane...what happened to that silly WWE now, even the understaker stucksLihaas (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Rare and important sporting occasion. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support really nice for ITN to have something different, positive and diverse. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready - marking as ready based on the support here. --Activism1234 22:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support now, good update. --IP98 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - just for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted--Chaser (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

September 25Edit

September 24Edit

UNGA 2012Edit

Withdrawn by nom
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nominator's comments: Starts tomorrow, but it may need some debate. Most international of summits. Its not aITNR, but it ought to be. 2nd article will be updated as it starts...i watch it. --Lihaas (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Worth nominating if a decision is reached or policy announced or motion is agreed. Not worth nominating if it's just the start doktorb wordsdeeds 05:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
For the record, last 2 years (since ive followed it) there has been surprise/drama of newsworth. 2010 was Zelaya speaking via phone from brazil's tegucigalpa embassy, last year was palestine and this years expected one is Sixty-seventh_session_of_the_United_Nations_General_Assembly#Recognition_of_Palestine
We also nominate teh start of the olympics and other summit on ITNR that yield nothingLihaas (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
So? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? One is a sporting event, one is a diplomatic/governmental summit. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Ummm, OSE is for articles not ITNC, where precedence is debated by others not just me...And this is a "diplomatic/governmental summit", btwLihaas (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I know it is, I've already said that. And OSE can be invoked as you have based your nomination on "We put the launch of the Olympics, so why not the launch of this meeting"? You are using OSE to justify the nomination 06:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh! i thought you mentioend the summit in response to the above comment i made about olympics and summits.
Im also not using OSE to justify the nomination, please see ab ove, i was respondng to your concerns.Lihaas (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I disagree with Dok. A new policy or motion doesn't need to be announced to make this event significant. This is the annual gathering of all the world countries, and is a significant day in international relations. The UNGA still does have some credence/power. --Activism1234 05:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose something special this time? Sixty-sixth went to DYK, sixty-fifth doesn't even have an article. --IP98 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit divided on this. I'm sort of agree that a meeting of all nations should be notable. Also, the lack of previous coverage on Wikipedia shouldn't rule it out, that may simply mean the event is undercovered on WP. However, I do see that the UNGA is not being covered prominently on the websites of the BBC, Al Jazeera, or the NY Times, while has some front page coverage. My !vote is to wait and see if something significant happens which gets more prominent coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per IP98 μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's be honest here, the UN sessions are nothing other than formality and so is the organization itself.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 02:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't generally post the routine opening of legislative sessions, and this seems to me to be that kind of thing. If something newsworthy happens because of this, fine, but I don't see anything in relevent news sources that show this to be remarkable. --Jayron32 03:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
question why do we routinly post summits such as APEC/BRICS/G8 when nothing happens? For that matter why do we post elections/ITNR events? Using the logic abov we should even have ITNRLihaas (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There mere holding of summits and meetings should not automatically receive ITN coverage. (I disagree with Yerevanci's opinion of the UN itself, but this is still just a meeting.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but re-nominate if there is an event of geopolitical consequence during the session. LukeSurl t c 11:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

September 23Edit

[Posted] Emmy AwardsEdit

Article: 64th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the 64th Primetime Emmy Awards, Homeland and Modern Family win the award for Outstanding Drama and Comedy series. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Feel free to suggest a better blurb. --Johnsemlak (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - Emmys are significant event, ITN/R, and great show! --Activism1234 05:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support though this is ITNR, and it doesn't really need it. Should we mention the prank? Probably not. The blurb is boring, but accurate and follows the formula we usually use for these things. This looks fine to me. --Jayron32 05:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • mention Modern family as well -- Ashish-g55 05:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You dont need to supprt this, it WILL b e posted when updated with adequate proseLihaas (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Lihaas, we do need to support it, as we need to judge the prose. ITNR doesn't mean that blurbs can be passed uncritically without assessing the prose. I have done so, and based on my assessment of that prose, I have supported. If the prose wasn't up to muster, it would have been opposed, regardless of the ITNR status. ITNR is not a magic pill that means that it always makes the main page. There have been many times when ITNR items have not made the main page due to problems with the article. In my opinion, this article isn't perfect, but its fine enough for our purposes here, which is why I supported. --Jayron32 06:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
But ITNR does mean it makes the main page subject to the upate. Youre right to comment on the update, i was just syaing the support doesnt matter. I agree, and said, the prose if the cru. Re-reading your comment it was right, but the first comment "supported" it per any other "votE". Generally these type of artiles are deficient on p[rose, so your write comment was right ;Lihaas (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC) )
There's nothing wrong with posting support even if it's on ITNR. ITNR items are not posted automatically. Editors are free to oppose events on ITNR, so it stands to reason that editors are free to support as well. Posting support of an event listed at ITNR further strengthens the consensus for posting, which is always a good thing. Oh, and support as nominator :).--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. Decent prose at the top of the article. --IP98 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks ok to post. whats the hold up? -- Ashish-g55 00:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not really supposed to mark it 'ready' so if someone else could, that might prompt the admins. I'll update the blurb as per your suggestion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. tweaked the blurb to remove some similar words. welcome to reword. -- Ashish-g55 01:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting. Not exactly thrilled with the lack of prose outside of the top of the article, but looking at prior history (62nd Primetime Emmy Awards), the current amount is minimally sufficient. SpencerT♦C 03:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

World road race championships (Cycling)Edit

Articles: 2012 UCI Road World Championships – Men's road race (talk, history) and Philippe Gilbert (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In road cycling, Philippe Gilbert of Belgium wins the world championship (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport

Nominator's comments: World championship of a major international sport, contested by riders from 47 countries: posted last year. --Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose recurring event not on ITN/R, with nothing particularly notable about this occurrence. No gorilla attack, rapture, or talking dolphins to make this anything other than a routine bicycle race. --IP98 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
See above: Do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R. None of those things happened last year either. Kevin McE (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I vehemently opposed that PDN, and even tried to repeal it. It was boldly added without discussion. I stand by my oppose. --IP98 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
What is a PDN?--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"Please Do Not". I was tired of typing it out.. --IP98 (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not ITN/R though it was posted last year. I believe this is a race far less prestigious than the Grand Tours--certainly the TDF--and doesn't seem to generate a huge amount of interest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not prominent enough an event in the cycling calender for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 04:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how closely either of you follow cycling, but that is an extraordinary comment. It is the World Championship with all the prestige that implies: the winner wears a special jersey in all races for the following year and bands on his jersey for the rest of his career, winning it was key to Cavendish getting BBC SPotY last year, it is one of the major season goals for the main contenders, the race included 17 of the top 20 riders in the current rankings. There is a lot more to cycling than 3 week tours, and one day classics specialists, who might win the WCs, rarely feature in the overall classifications of Grand Tours (just as Usain Bolt rarely features in big city marathon races). Kevin McE (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Kevin you're probably more familiar with cycling than many of us but I would say I was well familiar with Cavendish because of his stage victories and Green Jerseys at the Tour de France but paid no notice of winning the UCI World championship. Given that this was a fairly unimportant headline on BBC Sport when I checked it seems reasonable to say this is far less important of an event than the Grand Tours. But anyway, I'll support when there's a wee bit more text. The standard for a new article should be 'three well formed and referenced paragraphs' which the article is a tad short.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This sporting event may be named a "World Championship", and it may even be, but it isn't the Tour de France (yes, I know the difference between the two styles of cycling here, so I don't need to be reminded), and as such it isn't really getting a prominent place in the news sources Google News is only showing 6 unique stories about this; the rest are unedited republications from wire copy. I'm not finding this a prominent story. The article is in OK shape, so I may have given this a weak support had it been a slow news day, but we have several items that look like they'll probably go up soon, so I don't see this as passing muster. --Jayron32 05:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
A far less specific Google News search, for Gilbert world championship, returns 11,700 hits, not 6. Kevin McE (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see a few long-form stories in there. Not alot, but enough for me to amend my vote to weak support. Thanks for that. --Jayron32 06:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious support This is the World Championship of a sport popular sport worldwide, why are we even debating this? Especially in the light of the posting of the Irish Football championship, watched in one country by maybe 2 million people at most? [citation needed] Fgf10 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    Let's not go down that road. Posting the Gaelic Football championship doesn't have to legitimize posting of every single sporting event watched by a greater audience. The Gaelic Football championship is the premier event of that sport, which can't be said of the UCI World Championships.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    In defense of Gaelic football, it had a whopping ~12k views vs. this one's 2.4k (For comparison UAAP Season 75 had ~4.8k views. Either there's massive interest in Gaelic football, or someone sleazeball in Pasadena woke up, saw this on the Main Page, and got dumbfounded on WTF is it doing in the main page. –HTD!~
Comparing page views with MP attention with one that hasn't had it? That is just because... ? Kevin McE (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I factored that in. It's up to the reader to analyze which of those came from MP clicks, or from web searches. –HTD 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Jayron. The news is picking up again, this isn't that prominent an event, and it hasn't received widespread coverage. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question- When I first saw this, I was thinking along the same lines of Fgf10. Is this indeed the only road race world championship, for if so I support. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There are women's championships, age limited championships, and time trial championships, but yes, this is the one and only annual world road race championship for elite men. Kevin McE (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that merely because it is a putative championship doesn't mean that it is the most newsworthy race. It could be, but consider golf. The "Official" championship of the PGA is the FedEx Cup, except that ITN pretty much ignores that in favor of the Grand Slam "Majors", and rightly so. Similarly, in cycling (and I know there are different types of cycling...) this isn't nearly on par with the Tour de France, which to be fair, isn't a "championship" of anything, but is still the most significant race on the schedule. Likewise, in autoracing the Daytona 500 is either the most important (or second, after the Indianapolis 500) race run on American soil, and it also isn't a "championship". Being a championship is all fine and good, but it doesn't mean that the bulk of the press treats it as significant. In the case of Golf, it clearly doesn't. Cycling may or may not, but having the name "World Championship" isn't an automatic magic pill. The significance still needs to be established by coverage in reliable news sources. --Jayron32 21:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The Tour is the most significant stage race: the World Champs are the most significant one day race: they are suited to entirely different racers (hence the Usain Bolt in a marathon analogy above). Nothing putative about it. No prize money, no contractual obligation (they race for national selections rather than the trade teams who pay their salary), vastly reduced sponsorship opportunities (again, because no trade teams), but still 17 of top 20 in current rankings take part, although the course was highly unsuited to many of them.
Exactly the same event got unanimous support last year (for a far worse race): Anglophonipedia? Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Is Usain Bolt really the correct analogy here? Gilbert and Cavendish both ride the grand tours and one day races, and gain a lot of prestige from doing tour races. According to the article Philippe Gilbert, in 2012 His goals for his new squad were to perform highly in the Spring classics and help his team-mate Cadel Evans repeat his 2011 feat of winning the Tour de France. No mention of winning the UCI championship as a goal. Also the article UCI World Championships has no information explaining how important the race is in cycling. As far as I can tell, and as far as one could reasonably tell from reading WP, the UCI world champnionship isn't one of the top goals.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The Usain Bolt analogy is problematic and depends on the racer and how hilly the year's World Championship route is. "his new squad" in your quote refers to his trade team BMC Racing Team. The source [12] also clearly says "He changed teams and went into 2012 with high goals with BMC". In the World Championship road race he competed for the national team of Belgium. [13] says: "The Belgian will be able to take confidence from the result as he continues to prepare for the road world championships later this month, which is a major season objective for the 30-year-old." I follow road cycling and rate the World Championships road race as the third or fourth largest event efter the Grand Tours in France, Italy and maybe Spain (see Triple Crown of Cycling regarding Spain). It's certainly the largest one-day race (except possibly the Olympics and that can be debated). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Whoever put that into the PhilGil article didn't read the source he cited very carefully: Gilbert is quoted there as saying, "but my main concern is to be in good shape for the World Championships". Last year's top ranked rider, that is his "main concern" for this year. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
At the road cycling World Championships, Philippe Gilbert of Belgium wins the men's road race.
PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the rationale offered by Johnsemlak. In road racing there are more prestigious events, for example the Tour de France. While it is important to show a diversity of sports, there are numerous prestigious events in all. Reserving mention of each sport for the most prestigious is sufficient. --RA (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] All-Ireland football championshipEdit

Article: 2012 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Gaelic football, Donegal defeat Mayo in the 2012 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final. (Post)
Article updated

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

 --RA (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • ITN/R so we have no choice but to support the nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 16:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The sport's premier competition which is usually posted like the Australian-Canadian-American versions. Only the second time Donegal has ever won this in their history. It was posted last year when the winning team had won as recently as 1995. And, as the updated article says, this was "one of the most novel final pairings of all time" and a reference detailing how the game was shown in cinemas and screened live internationally.
  • Support - ITNR, red box. --Activism1234 16:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R (You guessed it) - and ENGVAR ENGVAR ENGVAR...--Τασουλα (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Who cares about Gaelic Football? I'm sorry to sound offensive, but even if it's listed on the ITN/R, it doesn't make it any more important. Yes, it is considered a separate sport, but let me ask you a question, why don't you add every European country's fooball/soccer champions? --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 18:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe because this isn't soccer? This isn't Ireland's soccer champion. It has no connection to soccer. And no, it isn't just "considered" a separate sport. It is a separate sport. It has about as much connection to soccer as Canadian football, American football or Aussie rules, all three of which are routinely posted each year if updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • PS. The timer is extremely red and says nothing has been posted for three days. This looks up to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

"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." - This is obviously an important event in Ireland. Maybe not in your country, but this is none of your concern and you have no right to dictate what is "important" enough to go on ITN. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's not my concern, then why is there a discussion at all? And who are you to tell me what rights I have? I presented my opinion, don't like it, good, I don't really care about yours. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion to see if the article meets the predefined criteria of In The News, not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or whatever else is on our minds. That is, what we discuss is is how an article does, or perhaps does not, meet the criteria, which is primarily a) is the article something which we would be proud to put on the front page and b) is the topic currently in the news in a prominent way. Not what we feel about the merits of the topic, but does it meet the criteria. We look to evidence in reliable news sources for the second criteria, and we look for any obvious flaws in the article text for the first. Neither criteria has anything to do with how much we care about the topic. --Jayron32 00:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not about liking or not. I don't like hockey either, but I think that NHL champions should be on ITN, because NHl is watched from many countries by millions. What I'm saying is that Gaelic Football is only played in a country with 4 million population (and it's not about specific country, Ireland or Bangladesh, that's not the issue) and it can't be considered an international even in any way. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 02:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There is not now, nor has there ever been, and rule that a story appearing on ITN has an international interest. --Jayron32 04:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, ITN used to have an "international importance or interest" criterion, but it was was too contested on whether it applies to American college football or if it doesn't apply in cases such as this, it was either removed or reworded. –HTD 01:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I know nothing of Gaelic Football, and I've never even seen a game (probably like most Americans), but it's significant enough of an event in Europe to make it post-worthy. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 18:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R and decent prose. Don't like it? Comment at WT:ITNR. PS: the redness of the timer is irrelevant. --IP98 (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I know it is, I just like how bright of a red someone decided to put into the template for the three day mark. It makes the black text fuzzy on my screen. Fixed it. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 18:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Recurring and important. Should be posted, just as the other sports are. (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready - --Activism1234 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Possible photos There are some nice photos on the Donegal GAA article, showing Donegal players in actions (albeit from a 2008), which illustrate the game. Another possibility is a photo of an actual gaelic football. --RA (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. Consensus yes, article update looks good, and we've posted the previous few finals on ITN as well. SpencerT♦C 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thank you and kudos for explaining the reason topost. now, spread the word? ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Recommendation - remove picture or post one of the game. Too confusing - makes you think that one of the players is pictured. --Activism1234 22:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Never heard of it. We seem to shoot down a lot of other things much more prominent because not everyone has heard of it. Is there an "Irish Wikipeida" this would be more relevant to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, this is not 'Wikipedia about Americans and things that interest Americans' - nor ceteris paribus, Brits or Australians. It is Wikipedia in English, but is about the whole range of encyclopedic knowledge. Gaelic football is certainly within that range. Whether it's a good fit for ITN is debatable, but it's been a slow news week, and the point is certainly arguable. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • To add to what Alex has correctly said; en.wikipedia is not a wikipedia on anglosphere subjects but one on all subjects, for the anglosphere to read. ga.wikipedia will likely have a more complete coverage of GAA sports but they shouldn't be relegated to one wiki only. GRAPPLE X 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    Try suggesting the latest S.League championship here and you'll be laughed at lol –HTD 16:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    Apples and oranges, really. That is not remotely close to the highest level of association football. The All-Ireland final is the highest level of Gaelic Football, deserving of the same place as American Football, Canadian Football and Australian Football. In all cases, there is limited participation outside their home nations, yet the All-Ireland final, the Superbowl, the Grey Cup and the AFL Grand Final are the top championships of each, and each is rightly at ITNR. Resolute 16:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    How can a sport followed by four million people be a "major" sport rightly at ITNR? –HTD 16:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    Because amount of supporters is not a measure of significance. Otherwise, Asian sports would have a disproportionate advantage, but the opposite is the case. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    Then what is? If it has a small amount of supporters, it isn't news at all, right? That's why whatever shitty happened at the Man Utd-Liverpool match was all over the news, and a similar occurrence at the Packers-Seahawks isn't that much covered? –HTD 16:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    Simply put, this is the major championship of its sport, and while the two things you mentioned got more coverage than this, they are not as significant because they aren't major championships. They are in the news more, but not as significant. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    There's no one disputing that this is a "major championship", only that if this championship is notable enough for ITN. Why is it notable? Because it's in Ireland? A max of four million people audience? Is this important in sport generally? It's not at Google News's UK sport page, either; if this was that important, there would still be follow up reports up to now. –HTD 16:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Libya bans militiasEdit

Article: U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Libya announces a ban on non-state militias following mass protests against the attack of U.S. Consulate. (Post)
News source(s): AJE, NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Short background: On Friday up to 30,000 angry protester stormed some militia bases linking them to the embassy attack, five protesters were killed. Militias announced they will voluntarily disarm them selves. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Libyan state institutions have no writ, so theire pronouncements mean didly-suqat. Reality is on the ground and far opposed from Tripoli. Theres zilch capacity to carry this out. One militia left a base in Benghazi doesnt mean anything will change with the others (or even this come mid-term). Just a heat of th emoment govt announcementLihaas (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Support. As the previous poster notes, this is a test of the Libyan government's power. Many Libyans apparently support it. So this will be a watershed moment in determining whether the new Libyan democracy is functioning, or if it is more a sort of Somalia-like system. Right? Wnt (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This is a rather unusual and noteworthy development with important implications. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Internet censorship in IranEdit

Article: Internet censorship in Iran (talk, history)
Blurb: Internet censorship in Iran is extended to include Google and Gmail, with plans for a domestic network largely separate of the World Wide Web. (Post)
News source(s): Zahra Hosseinian and Yeganeh Torbati (2012-09-23). "Iran readies domestic Internet system, blocks Google". Reuters.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Selected from the Current Events portal for September 23 due to a lack of ITN items. In any case, this seems like a pretty radical step which should be watched closely. --Wnt (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

the new engine coukd be dyk..Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added what I found to the article - the new engine hasn't been given a name in the U.S. press, nor do I see specifics for what sites are on it. I wouldn't try to start a new article until more news comes out, but it is newsworthy now. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
US press wont get much positive/neutral news. But if there is a persian name it could bhe BaiduLihaas (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This only really gets notable if Iran does in fact release a domestic network (separate from the World Wide Web). Oppose until (if?) that officially happens. SpencerT♦C 22:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - two more websites, isn't significantly earth-shattering for ITN. See WP:DYK. --Activism1234 22:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Continuation of an existing situation. Can't see why this is important enough for the front page, as censorship already happens, further censorship is not worthy of the prominence doktorb wordsdeeds 05:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

September 22Edit

[Posted] Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of MelbourneEdit

Article: Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After 40 suicides of victims trigger a parliamentary inquiry, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne confirms the sexual abuse of 618 children over 80 years. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Selected and updated due to a lack of ITN items, as one of the more remarkable items on the current events portal list. And for chivalry. --Wnt (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus! 618! And confirmed only! That's bloody appalling, can't do anything but support that. -- (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, certainly notable and confirmed by Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, so no doubt in regard to its correctness. There are also reports of activists, indicating that the exact number of victims is close to ten thousand.Egeymi (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Should be on the ITN without any discussion. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 21:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
oppose no global note , unlike ireland/usLihaas (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
what?--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 22:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A sad, disgraceful story, but it is making the news [14] shows unique (not just wire) stories in varied sources from all over. The article is in decent shape, so I say this gets my support. --Jayron32 04:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support No idea what a "global note" is, Lihaas. For the shocking number of victims and the manner in which this story joins the (unfortunate) narrative of similar cases within the Church, I'd say this nomination fits our policies on notability. From a purely ITN point of view, it also helps break up a rather northern hemisphere bias we've had of late doktorb wordsdeeds 05:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 618 children! highly notable and confirmed. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 10:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This meets minimum content standards, but after reading over the article, to me it still seems a tad brief in Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Catholic_archdiocese_of_Melbourne#History_of_abuse concerning the newest events. Is it too much to ask for a bit more expansion, or am I wrong and does it look OK to anyone else? SpencerT♦C 06:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, especially considering a topic like this that has the potential for BLP concerns in the article, this reference wouldn't load for me as well and I'd prefer to have excellent referencing as well. SpencerT♦C 06:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support posting the article looks ok to me, the Pell aspect says he was cleared, and the size of the rest of the article will likely get expanded once posted reducing that section in weight, might be a case for 'semi protection' before posting it though as it is likely to get a bit more vandalism than your average post I'd have thought.EdwardLane (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted Article update meets minimum standards, and consensus is clear. SpencerT♦C 05:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Very serious and wide-ranging case, with an obvious connection to similar cases elsewhere. Like others, I have no idea what Lihaas is on about. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A rather parochial news story, and interesting how the people voting 618 children! ("What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children!?") aren't voting over 80 years. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    • So, raping a different child every 3rd week or so is an unremarkable thing for a single church diocese to do, newswise? --Jayron32 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Crimes are horrific, Jayron, but I assume you mean statutorily raping and not forcibly? If the latter, "forcibly" needs to be in the blurb. The general issue here is that this is a very local story, no different from the Sandusky case (how many kids in how many years?) which we did not post specifically because it was essentially a local story. The exception here is the bias one gets when there is an unpopular umbrella institution to add as a target. But if we were to look at, say, how many children were statutorily raped in the NYC school system over the last 80 years, I fear the number 618!!! would pale in comparison. I am not morally offended by this posting but I do think we need to reason according to standards rather than have sensationalism override our numeracy. μηδείς (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
We did post that JoePa got fired as a result of the Sandusky investigation. Hot Stop (Edits) 17:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We have objective clear standards. The standards are a) the article isof sufficient quality and b) it is in the news, as evidenced by checking the news sources for how many sources, what prominence the sources give it, and how deep the coverage is within them. This passes on all counts. To base promotion of ITN items on any other standards is to base them purely on our own personal, unique, and subjective opinions. --Jayron32 17:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting that the 40 suicides claim is not referenced or clarified in the article, which is not very informative in general. The article needs fixing or the blurb modifying. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The 40 suicides is referenced: it shouldn't be necessary to link to the source after every sentence. Kevin McE (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pull As it stands this article provides nothing other than unsubstantiated press reports to back up the 40 suicides or the 618 confirmed cases of abuse. That those numbers are mentioned in article in such papers as the Telegraph establishes nothing verifiable, because there is now way to trace back to any actual church or legal documents which verify these numbers. there is not even an official press release from the Catholic Church, let alone a court document. I don't dispute the potential facts, or the presumed gravity. But we need documentable verifiable facts here, folks. This is an epic wikipedia fail so far. please do not argue with me--get the names of the relevant church or legal documents and post them. Articles in the press that state no verifiable facts are verifiable sources. μηδείς (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It isn't our role to do the presses job for them. These numbers are being widely reported in reliable press, it isn't rumors or unsubstantiated by any Wikipedia standard. If you have equally reliable sources that question the numbers, post them. But this is verifiable in the sense that the sources that are reporting it are as reliable as anything we can get. --Jayron32 03:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Medeis, you've made your point clear. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
That's absurd Jayron. We don't simply mimic what is said in the press. There are all sorts of policies like WP:ATTRIBUTE that apply here. HamiltonStone has added some great sources about the reports and claims by the government and church that were nowhere near being added without my complaints. Still the best source we have for the 40 suicides claim which is on our front page, for God's sake, is the word of one non-notable reporter for the Telegraph UK online. Your hearsay as to what you have heard is unhelpful in the extreme. The burden here lies solely on those adding the info to the articles and making the claims. At this point we've got the equivalent of Abigail Williams of Salem, Mass. running the front page. We need authoritative verifiable sources for such claims, not, frankly, scandalous claims that we don't need no stinking badges. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's a New Zealand TV station reporting the 40 suicides and 620 abuse cases. Catholic Online is reporting the 620 confirmed cases, and also reports the 10,000 possible cases. Reuters is reporting 620 confirmed cases involving 74 clergy. If you have another source which contradicts these reports, please let us see it. --Jayron32 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
You might look at the article's talk page discussion for what is actually in dispute here and why. There;s little point in repeating that there are 618 victims--that was the Church's own figure and never disputed. To address an actual concern, do any of those sources you just gave attribute the 40 suicides figure to any identifiable authority, or just say something like "according to revelations"? [upon verification, no, they don't.] If we don't have some official statement from the church admitting it, the police or state reporting it, or some politician being quoted giving those figures, then all we have are press reports, which are in essence rumors. Stone has been doing a good job trying to get sources--but as it stands as of this edit we cannot report 40 suicides (also 30 and dozens!) as fact; at best we can attribute it to press reports--which is not what we do on the front page. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Your first source says "revelations that at least 40 victims of the Catholic clergy had committed suicide." That's obviously problematic on two grounds. Revelations where, by whom? And were these people (men women and children--not just children) molested by "the clergy", or by individuals. These sources cannot be taken uncritically. The first objection here is very problematic given our blurb. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. If we modify the blurb to remove the 40 suicides, is there anything else you have objection to? --Jayron32 04:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
(Luckily, Lane has provided a source immediately below that makes removing the mention unnecessary. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC))
It was a leaked police report that gave the figure at 40 according to this. EdwardLane (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
That looks like a reliable source. Is there any reason, other than Medeis' wilful insistence on downplaying the seriousness of this case, to consider changing the blurb, or in any other way entertain his suggestions? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is rather offensive Alex. Without my demanding sources and actually working on the article (see its history) would we have any of the documentation that's necessary for serious allegations like this? What exactly have I done "willfully" that has harmed that article, the nomination, or this page? Are you unable to imagine someone having the objectivity to oppose an article for ITN on one hand yet on the other be able to want to improve it and maintain our front page standards if it is posted?
The source Edward Lane has just provided is an excellent one, the first I have seen that actually quotes a police source (Carson) by name which is exactly what was needed. This should have been in the article from the beginning. On that basis I am happy to withdraw my opposition to the blurb as is. My opinion of the notability of the story still stands, but, strangely it would seem to some, I am able to be concerned with bringing an article up to our standards separate from my opinion of the story's ITN-worthiness. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't find that strange. I appreciate the work that's gone into improving this article, including yours. But when someone who's cast aspersions on the worthiness of a story posts a pull request so soon after posting, on such a sensitive topic, it's not unreasonable to expect criticism and resistance. I hope this remains a creative tension, but I won't apologise for taking this seriously. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The item should have been pulled at that point given the seriousness of the citation problem. Indeed, it should never have been posted until it had been much better supported. But who wants to be seen opposing a sensitive article about children victims? Your point seems to be that it is reasonable to expect that an editor who has opposed a nomination will of course give invalid willful (i.e., obstinate and childish) reasons for criticizing it after it has been posted. I don't want an apology on top, given you have at this point admitted my criticisms were indeed valid. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

September 21Edit

[Posted] Record Polar MinimumEdit

Article: Climate change in the Arctic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The extent of Arctic sea ice falls to a record minimum. (minimum was on 9/16) (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NSIDC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: As an advance on the below nomination (a prediction), this is a story about the current state of the sea ice. Significant, and, in a sense, global in scope. --LukeSurl t c 17:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. The actual minimum was on September 16th, but I guess you couldn't know it was the bottom until now a few days later. A very significant climate record, especially in the context of global warming. Thue (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support, this is factual with neutrally worded blurb on a subject that could be controversial. It's not majorly notable however, it's been the same trend for years, so in a way that was obvious years before but now is just expected every few years. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEEEE. Erm, yeah, conditional support. Science stories dont' often come up, and this one seems to be making the rounds in the various news sources. However, before I can remove the conditional part, we'd need an update to the bolded article. I don't see one yet. If that is done, you can count this as a support. If that isn't done, you can't. --Jayron32 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Edit: Nevermind, I found it. It's there, but its a bit skimpy. Could we fill this out a tad? That'd be nice, but this seems to meet the bare minimum, news has been slow, and this is a minority topic. Still, don't let this stop anyone from improving it. --Jayron32 23:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - People need to be aware that, as Jayron32 notes, we are all going to die. And the reasons above. --Activism1234 01:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Not to ignite any arguments over climate change, this is only the lowest recorded minimum, and may not be a true minimum. I'm fully aware of what this implies in terms of the issues, but this could be taken as fear-mongering without conclusion. --MASEM (t) 01:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We've been here before, and we'll be here again. Not sure we should be posting every update along the way doktorb wordsdeeds 05:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment While I of course agree that "we should be posting every update along the way", this seems to be a genuinely big news important milestone. We haven't been posting every update, but we should post this big milestone. Even for those willfully denying human climate change, the opening of Arctic shipping such as the Northwest Passage should be reason enough. Thue (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - 50 percent is definitely a big number. The change is drastic and it can certainly kill a lot of people. Also because the temperature at the poles has started dropping only recently, I believe this is the true minimum. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Another day, another "record low" in the Artic. Call me back when Brighton is renamed Atlantis. Lugnuts And the horse 08:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. This is a drastic record, smashing the extreme record from 2007. To call it just "Another day, another "record low" in the Artic" seems delusional to me. Thue (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Although I didn't see/hear about this till now, I think this is big news. Weak per Sun Creator. Bahrain will probably sink into water in 20-30 years as many parts of it are under sea level with 134m as the highest point. God forbid, then we'll have to move to the hell of Saudi Arabia. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I oppose most milestones like this. So it's the smallest in 5 years, what if it's smaller next year? post again? Is it the smallest in 10 years? 100? 1000? Do we have any way to know? No...-- (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Your oppose is factually wrong. It is the lowest since measurements began in 1979, not "the smallest in 5 years" as you say. Please take the time to get the minimum amounts of fact before "voting". Thue (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It's a completely fair comment, in the larger scheme that geological events happen on the order of millenia, not decades. A 5-year minimum is a blip in that. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It is still not a 5 year minimum. Am I the only person here with a minimum of reading comprehension? Thue (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
          • The Arctic sea ice September minimum extent reached new record lows in 2002, 2005, and 2007. Obviously I'm a stupid idiot, please explain how I'm wrong. --IP98 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
In 2002 it was lower than at any other time on record. In 2005, it was lower than at any other time on record, including 2002 - the record was broken. And so on. This year, it was the lowest ever - even lower than the previous record, set in 2007. I don't think you're a stupid idiot, but yes, you don't seem to have read this for comprehension. And an event that occurs only 5 times in over a decade seems rare enough for ITN, when it's on a topic this serious. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok so it was the smallest in 5 years, and even smaller. I don't know where 1979 came from. I don't think it's a big deal. -- (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It should come as no surprise to people that the ice levels have been dropping regularly for years now. Not really necessary to post something like this. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 15:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As said by others, a pointless post. One does not post every time something hits record highs or lows. A poster above brought up a great point, if it is "record minimum" again next year, we would be pressed to include it again if this is posted. Even, if it is claimed just NEXT MONTH that a new record low was established people would point to here and say it should be put on the ITN again... and again and again and again. As far as I know, we don't post such things, including "hottest year on record!" "this is the highest number of hurricanes we have had in a year on record!!" (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The disappearance of this ice is a big deal; all time records are a big deal, but especially when human agency is involved. In a few years you'll be able to look at Earth from space and see a "big blue marble" ... from over the North Pole. Unplanned, unpredictable alterations to your terraforming are of interest on any planet, especially when you don't have a backup option lined up. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • 2007 was a record low as well, yet it does not seem we posted it on ITN75.73.114.111 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Was 2007 nominated?--Chaser (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
        • And in any case, the 2012 minimum was way lower than the 2007 minimum. So it would be perfectly reasonable to post the 2012 minimum even if the 2007 minimum was not posted. Thue (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, largely per this lucid article which makes clear the importance of the phenomenon.--Chaser (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This is just the sort of informative and educational news item that a reputable encyclopedia should be highlighting, to balance the more ephemeral trivia that is often posted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Enough misinformation. This is a genuine minimum since records began. The fact that new weather records of this sort are set quite frequently should be a cause for global behaviour change, not petty whining at ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Jayron32 summed it up well. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support via Thue and Wnt.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. I expressed an opinion, so I'm not going to post it myself.--Chaser (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Belated support of important climate change news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I only see a single sentence related to the recent events at hand. If that's all that can be said, generally I lean toward thinking not notable enough. Please alert me if I'm wrong. SpencerT♦C 05:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Polar ice capEdit

Article: Polar ice cap (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A researcher at the University of Cambridge predicts that in about four years, the Arctic polar ice cap will melt completely during the summer months. (Post)
News source(s): [15]
Article needs updating

 --Doubtcoachdoubtcoach (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Another day, another ice-cap prediction. Post it if/when it actually has melted. Lugnuts And the horse 10:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment the "Post it if/when it actually has melted." is silly. Even a record partial melt can be very significant. (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't often say this but, "I agree with Lugnuts". This is a very nicely laid out research paper, no doubt, and I'm sure he was well paid, but ultimately it's no more notable than "weatherman says it's going to be a bit warm next month". It's nothing much to do about nothing. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, much as per above. However the ice minimum this summer was an all time low - I think that might be a story. LukeSurl t c 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it's a prediction, another prediction. The prediction does not seem news worthy. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If/when the ice caps completely melt, I would support that, but I don't want to see predictions like this on ITN. I'm sure a lot of research went into that prediction, but anything can happen. That's why it's a prediction. Four years from now is difficult to predict. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 15:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Uterus transplantEdit

Article: Uterus transplantation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Surgeons at Gothenburg University in Sweden perform the first-ever mother-to-daughter uterus transplantation. (Post)
News source(s): NPR

Article needs updating

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. If it had been the first ever uterus transplantation I would have supported. But the first mother-to-daughter thing seems more like record trivia than a milestone. Thue (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Thue. The "first mother to daughter" thing almost trivialises the story in a way. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose More of a DYK fact to me, than an ITN story. I agree with Thue as well. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 14:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Syria stickyEdit

Withdrawn by nom.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Time to rmove? News has slowed lately (inlight of the protests, mainly). There have also not been b big battles/casualties lately. In the last few days, the biggest syria story is an internview with assad predicting an end. So thats more speculative.Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep sticky. If you look at Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012), there have been claims of at least 147 dead each of the last seven days. Each of those days would be worthy of an ITN item if it had happened in isolation. Thue (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep sticky The war is ongoing and bloody. For example, just yesterday there were reports of 110 dying or being wounded in an airstrike to a gas station in Northern Syria. --hydrox (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep sticky - news has slowed?? Not large casualties? Um... --Activism1234 18:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral Though I dont understand why Syria gets a sticky and Afghanistan doesn't, I think we're probably stuck with the Sticky until Assad is overthrown.--IP98 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The Syria war is far hotter than the Afghanistan war, so the sticky difference is fair, IMO. When was the last time 150 people died from the war on one day in Afghanistan? (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So when Syria is down to almost daily bombings or shootings, with only a dozen weekly causalities, we can drop the sticky? --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrations across PakistanEdit

Article: 2012 diplomatic missions attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Dozens of Violent protests across Pakistan against anti-Islam film leaves two dead (Post)

Nominator's comments: The dead includes a police men and a journalist. --Saki (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

2 dead is not really an ITN blur, however some sort of an update to the blurb may be warranted. Probably as the day progresses that may be more elsewhereLihaas (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Deaths are up to three now [16]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
We could simply bring the blurb up again as protests are still on-going in a number of countries (Karachi, New Delhi, Kabul and Tunis.[17]). I've also heard in the radio there are planned protests in Germany and Lebanon, so this story is still up and developing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Update Nine killed in Pakistan. --Saki (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose It's a blip in a huge story, I can't see why we need to inflate its importance on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 14:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

27 deaths so far. Received a huge amount of media coverage from around the world. --Saki (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
We're now up to 19 deaths 1 which I think is now pretty significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Support: significant death toll now.[18]--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support pending update it's a very small fork and the protests section has no source. Is it time for a sticky yet? --IP98 (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose God forbid me from agreeing with Doktorbuk, but I agree with Doktorbuk here. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article appears to have been deleted. SpencerT♦C 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Updated blurb with another article that references these attacks, since the original article was deleted. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Doktorbuk. In addition, the article that contains the most information about this event is already featured in a posted ITN blurb (Attacks on Diplomatic missions...). If these protests continue, and more and more events like these occur, then I would think it's time for a sticky. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sledgehammer trialEdit

Article: Sledgehammer (coup plan)#Trial (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 200 Turkish generals are convicted/exonerated for an attempted coup. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Pretty big case, with results due in a few hours, it deals with civil-military relation in a country previously prone to coups. Also the blurb can/should be altered. --Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - significant, a major blow to a faction in Turkey and the military, while a gain to others. It's big news. One of the top generals was arrested over this, and it has led commentators to discuss in-depth the situation in Turkey regarding renewed internal strife over Erdogan's policies. --Activism1234 18:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neural leaning oppose the coup attempt was in 2003? --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since this event is not new and has no significant new effect on the civil-military relation. The initial phase of it was much more important and influential.Egeymi (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Essentially a stale nomination. Of no wider significance or importance doktorb wordsdeeds 06:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Operation Fast and FuriousEdit

Article: ATF_gunwalking_scandal#Investigations_and_fallout (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The U.S. Justice Department's internal inquiry faults its employees for the inflow of arms to Mexico as part of the Drug War after Operation Fast and the Furious. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Justice Dept report admits guilt and refers hits employees for disciplinary action. Its not everyday that a state [institution] admits wrongdoing, and the repercussions are high enough in the Drug War. The Source in the section also says its an issue in the election. --Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Ho and indeed hum. A rather domestic story gets an administrative conclusion. Not really that important enough. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Umm, U.S.-Mexico relations?Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Umm so? Might as well say "Umm, 2012 Presidential election". doktorb wordsdeeds 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - What does it mean for the DoJ to be 'faulted'? By whom? I personally regard this as too domestic and bureaucratic a story, but if it goes ahead, I'd like a clearer blurb, without jargon words like 'faulted' and 'inflow'. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1) The article is a lumbering mess, the last paragraph of the investigation section doesn't make the connection that the DOJ "admitted guilt". 2) The Mexican reaction is actually quite tame. If there had been some fallout in relations, then this would be an easy support. 3) The fact that it's an election issue means it needs even more careful consideration. Both sides are shouting at the top of their lungs right now. 4) Lastly, this is an extension of the Bush era "Operation Wide Receiver", so it's nothing really new. Not like the DOJ or ATF suddenly went rogue and decided to try this madness. --IP98 (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Reworded the blurb slightly, faulted comes from direction for its employees to be disciplines. (which doesnt happen if theyve been doing as expected or even excused)
I agree abiout the article quality, but the section is informed/updated.Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Holder being held in contempt of Congress earlier this summer was more notable. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not!!! - Politics as usual in Congress.--WaltCip (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
You do realize that the Justice Department is part of the executive branch, and this nom has nothing to do with congress. μηδείς (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Congress is the one conducting the investigation which is the only reason why this non-story is supposedly an issue to begin with.--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a separate investigation. That's why it's called an internal investigation--The DOJ has released its own report, entirely independent of the congressional investigation. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Notable and documented. (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1) generally all "non-absolute" milestones. 2) updated is buried -- (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
the section is updated and the blurb directly goes to the sectionLihaas (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

September 20Edit

Afghan GovernorsEdit

Nominator's comments: This is significant to Afghanistan, US, and UK, particularly the firing of Mohammad Gulab Mangal. First article on Al-Jazeera Central and South Asia section, and coverage in US sources as well. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Clarify Can we get a clearer and not so overlinked summary of what this really means, so it can be discussed rationally? Would this be like the president of the US reappointing the governor of Texas to Govern NY, and the Governor of New York to govern California? The lack of a primary link in the blurb makes it very confusing to know where to look. Looking at the sources, this is not so much a shuffling as a firing of any governor with US backing--which requires a more accurate blurb. I can support a more accurate blurb. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • A total of 10 governors were either fired or hired. You're right, it wasn't so much of a shuffling as a replacing. Any ideas for a rewrite of the blurb would be helpful. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
"Karzai summarily replaces 10 provincial governors"? --IP98 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose A cabinet reshuffle, then? These happen all the time. Not important enough unless we now count Afghanistan as 'double' for some reason? Not sure why this is important. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support? I couldn't find a good WP article which explains this: Are the governors presidential appointees or directly elected? If the former, neutral, if the latter, support. --IP98 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support IP98's blurb. This is effectively a coup by a major western "ally" as the west is withdrawing its forces. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

September 19Edit

Aung San Suu Kyi given US Congressional medalEdit

Article: Aung San Suu Kyi (talk, history)
Blurb: Aung San Suu Kyi is given the United States Congressional Gold Medal in person. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: As many know, Aung San Suu Kyi is an extremely important international figure whose campaign has gained world support and interest. The fact she was able to receive this presitigious award - Congress' highest medal - in person is a major achievement. We've posted Burma-related stories like the easing of sanctions on Burma, etc. --Activism1234 04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose while she is important to Myanmar, her getting this medal doesn't change the reality there. It doesn't bring free elections, it doesn't overthrow the military, it doesn't improve the quality of life, so it doesn't impact the story of Myanmar. The story is the country of Myanmar ending a military dictatorship and returning to democracy, a story which she is clearly part of. The story is not her house arrest and return to freedom. Many Myanmar stories are posted, but her belated receipt of a nobel prize was opposed earlier this year. --IP98 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? If we didn't post that, it'd be odd to post this. Anyway, the article says this award is given for achievement with "impact on American history and culture...". Oppose.--Chaser (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I find myself agreeing with IP98 again. She is a highly notable person, of course, but this is not a highly notable event. Prizes are dolled out to leaders and statesmen all the time and I can't feel comfortable with okaying this nomination as it might provide the precedent for others to follow. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose- Even if this was her being awarded the medal, I might not support (unless ITNR). Receiving, despite the circumstances, is no more significant. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Embassy Sticky?Edit

With the embassy attacks, and now the French closures, this story doesn't seem to be going away. Sticky time? --IP98 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily opposed to it, but my bet is this will simmer down in a week. --Activism1234 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Tangentially related comments about current blurb moved to WP:ERRORS.--Chaser (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the story is still in the news and article "fixed". These events are still developing. I'm worried that there is currently no article for the whole "Islamic unrest"; there is one for the attacks and one for the video, but none of them are covering the bigger image of protests/riots/attacks as a result of the video and now some cartoons. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there an "innocence of Islam controversy" article yet? The Pakistan riots are part of the story, but have no embassy to attack. --IP98 (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait I would want to see more before considering a sticky. If deadly protests continue to occur in a few days, then I would support posting a sticky. I don't think we should post a sticky when it looks to me like the protests are starting to die down. I could be wrong. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 14:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] France to close 20 embassiesEdit

Article: Charlie Hebdo (talk, history)
Blurb: France announces plans to close its embassies in 20 Muslim countries in expectation of a violent response to a cartoon of Muhammad in the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. (Post)
News source(s): [19]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is major (21 countries involved) global news and should go up by Friday. I am happy to change the relevant article and add other updaters. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support as nom, Permanent member of UN Security council and 20 other nations involved. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - major development. for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 20 is a big number. Big enough for itn.--Τασουλα (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support At last, a story! Clearly important, clearly notable. Personally, I fully support the magazine to do what they've done. I see there's a lot of coverage across numerous media sources. We should have no problem with putting it on ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - see above. --Activism1234 21:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not yet. This has enough support to post, but the updated (bolded) article has absolutely no mention of 20 embassies closing, and seeing as that's the main focus of this story... Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I've just added it in. --Activism1234 21:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment As the nom I am not set on any specific article, as opposed to the story itself being the focus. But Activism's update seems reasonable and adequate, and unless this turns into an even huger story I am not sure we need an entirely new article. Neither am I opposed to Innocence of Muslims being an Article2. But didn't we already do that? Can we have an explicit rationale for that addition? μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)comment the 2nd u-pdated article is not even in the blurb, so i removed it. The update consists of 2 sentences and 2 qutes, it could be larger as the section is very short. (and the article is poor with nothing but a log of "history" by year.
oppose just speculation at the moment as nothing has happened. And its mostly playing off the current issue.Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
There's an error in the blurb. Sources indicate that France has said they are shutting down the embassies - not planning to. I'll bring it to the appropriate noticeboard. But it's not speculation. --Activism1234 23:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm error page doesnt have a spot for ITN... Can an admin change the blurb? Based on the refs (more are provided in the article itself), it should be "France closes its embassies in 20 Muslim countries in expectation of a violent response to a cartoon of Muhammad in the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo." Here's another ref that uses past tense btw. --Activism1234 23:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Error page doesn't have a spot for ITN"? What are you talking about? It even has the massive ITN update template. -- tariqabjotu 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
A section was added after I brought this up. --Activism1234 22:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Well, not quite. It's been there since almost the beginning of the page's history, but someone had accidentally deleted something that made the ITN section invisible for a few hours (and apparently didn't notice their comment didn't showed up). -- tariqabjotu 02:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no need to put the wording on errors, you can ask for an update here. The wording should be "France announces it will close..." since it is scheduled for Friday. Assuming it's still up it can got to "France closes..." at that point. 23:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiribati castawayEdit

Article: Castaway (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A man from the Republic of Kiribati is rescued by a shark after being 105 days lost at sea. (Post)
News source(s): Radio New Zealand International

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I think it is a good blurb for the main page, to let people know about the Republic of Kiribati too. Timothyhere (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment It seems to be that people from the Republic of Kiribati are prone to get lost at sea, in our article castaway there are three cases of Kiribati people lost at sea haha. Poor people. Timothyhere (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, is this a joke? There's no article, for one thing, but more specifically, this is somewhere close to being the least important story ever presented here and I remember when we had to deal with the flipping Occupy movement. Under no circumstances should this trivial piece of flim-flam come within touching distance of the front page. That's before I even start with the peculiar language used by the nominator. Complete balderdash. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment Are you paid to be aggressive?, you could have opposed without attacking me. Timothyhere (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I will. This story is a flimsy curiosity piece with no notability whatsoever and has no chance of making it to the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment you're still agressive. But anyway, I thought it could be relevant since it doesn't happen often to have a man lost at sea for 105 days. Anyway... thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyhere (talkcontribs) 16:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm being honest. This story would need an article, or at least a very good update on an appropriate article. It doesn't. From what I can see there's very little mention of this story anywhere else but that one website. It needs to be very important for inclusion and I just can't see that happening. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the second time an argument like this has come up. OMG. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't find many news organizations reporting this as a major story. That should at least be one of the criteria for posting on ITN. The other should be a significant update to a decently written article. I also don't see much of that. --Jayron32 17:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - see WP:DYK. Suitable for DYK, not prominent or significant for ITN. --Activism1234 18:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Blimey Thats Good!" T'is a a salt-blastedly good blurb fer th' m'n page, t' let people know bout th' Republic "I Be Cuttin' Off Your Peg-Leg" o' Kiribati too. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no idea where the Republic of Kiribati is. sharks swimming close by... If the nominator could take it to DYK...they might have more luck there. Maybe. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Tasoula, the fact that you are ignorant of the whereabouts of an entire country does not make this not newsworthy. This is no different from the pointless 'Who?' responses. Seriously - come up with a proper reason to oppose. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It was obvious that this would snowball with opposes. But I have to give kudos to the nominator for nominating at least something, because the reality is that it's already Wednesday (or Thursday to some) and we still haven't posted any news from this week (and even this piece was originally reported on Sunday evening for those on the Western hemisphere.) It's a terrible newsweek, with all 'World' section headlines being dominated by the continued Innocence of Muslims protests. I have really tried looking, and I haven't found anything suitable in the sources I normally employ. --hydrox (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we need a sticky? --IP98 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral in the grand scheme of things, is this any less "important" than a Chinese bus crash, Chinese wife in prison, or the US Open? Not really... I do think this is an excellent DYK candidate. --IP98 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Recommend for DYK if it can merit a standalone article. If not, definitely not notable enough. SpencerT♦C 05:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there a world record for survival at sea (not that one could be very easily verified)? (But careful, I feel there might be another list article on the horizon, crammed full of delicious flim-flam trivial curiosities. Or maybe that's just a mirage.) Luis Alejandro Velasco Rodríguez, in Márquez' The Story of a Shipwrecked Sailor, managed only ten days, but still got a best-seller out of it! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is cool, but it isn't really news. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Some rather inappropriate comments here suggesting DYK from editors experienced enough to know that such an article would have little hope of passing WP:BLP1E. The inevitable AfD is here. Kevin McE (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

September 18Edit

[Ready] Marikana strike endsEdit

Article: Marikana miners' strike#Mediation (talk, history)
Blurb: Lonmin and striking miners come to a settlement in the Marikana miners' strike which resulted in 57 deaths and hundreds arrested, amidst solidarity protests. (Post)
News source(s): Financial Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We reported the biggest single incident in this dispute, this seems to be the final conclusion. Minority topic too since it's a business story. -- (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

per the request of the OP, I am hatting the non-sequitor part of the discussion. --Jayron32 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • As of right now, neither Marikana miners' strike nor Lonmin contains any information about the above blurb. Please repeat after me "Update first, then nominate. Update first, then nominate. Update first, then nominate." Say it before you go to bed at night. Say it again when you get up in the morning. If someone will be so kind as to attempt to make a Wikipedia article better, we can then decide if this qualifies for the front page. mkthxbye. ---Jayron32 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What an appalling attitude to take towards a new nominator here. Items are frequently proposed with the specific purpose of gaining assistance in building/updating the article, or in anticipation of a sporting/election result. You owe an apology. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Which administrator tool did I misuse? --Jayron32 19:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Where did I say you did that? Kevin McE (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Where is it relevent that I am an administrator then? You brought up that fact. I'd like to know where my being an administrator is somehow related to my appalling attitude. There is nothing in having an appalling attitude that involves the use of any of my administrator tools, so it is a nonsequitur. If my appalling attitude upsets you, it shouldn't be because I am an administrator. My appalling attitude should be appalling regardless of who I am, and other users don't get to be appalling merely because they aren't administrators. You used the word "administrator" here in your edit summary. --Jayron32 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you not think that it is incumbent on administrators to show the highest standards of wiki etiquette, respect for contributors, exemplification of compliance with wp:bite and wp:AGF, and recognition of the modus operandi of particular projects? Appalling behaviour is appalling behaviour whoever commits it, but administrators should have determined that they will refrain from such attitudes before they apply for a role that grants authority and the assumption of respectability within the project. If that is not something you are willing to commit to, I would question your choice to become an administrator. Your obscene edit notes make it clear to me that your status as an admin is not an indicator of any commitment on your part to improvement of Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I have nothing but the highest commitiment to the integrity of this project. That would be readily apparent to anyone who looked at the careful way I interact with users. You, personally, individually, and uniquely, I don't have any use for. But otherwise, I strongly endorse the goals of Wikipedia, and believe in maintaining the utmost levels of decorum when dealing with other users. --Jayron32 21:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Having looked at the edit summaries, I politely suggest that it would be better for everyone involved if you took a break from this (seemingly pointless) discussion. —Kerfuffler  harass
21:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
See the Mediation section of the strike article. (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes. Thanks for that. In that case support, though it would be nice to see the update added to the lead. I'll probably dash off and do that myself. --Jayron32 19:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant to the discussion Lihaas (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You need to be humourless of you're going to be an Admin Jayron. Boobies. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we draw a line under alleged administrator bad conduct and consider the actual proposal please? I'm blonde enough to deal with casual insults but would rather people focus on the story suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC) (was 46.208... in a previous incarnation - perhaps I should setup an account)
    • In that case, I left a relevent message on the user talk page of your old IP address some time ago. I have no idea if you got it. Starting an account is generally a great idea. See WP:WHY which explains some of the benefits of having an account, one of which you've just discovered. --Jayron32 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am now user bd85282513da4089c441926e1975898c after finding it very difficult to find a good user name. I am a number, not a name, but I can't call myself a number because the system will not let me. Can you please rename me to 3142, which properly reflects my lack of imagination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bd85282513da4089c441926e1975898c (talkcontribs) 04:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Account rename requests should be posted to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. There's a little form to fill out, and a special administrator named a "bureaucrat" will be along shortly to act on your request. I'm not a bureaucrat, so I don't have that ability. --Jayron32 04:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I was going to nominate this when i updated the page yesterday, but im not sure if its ITN-worthy for 2 reasons. 1. We just recently [posted it, 2. all unions have not indicated support for the measure even though an announcement was made to return t o work. Further, not sure if the update is adequate. Ill try to find some more today.
Ive now added more to the page to qualify update -wise. Just pending consensus. For which im neutralsupporting as its a slow news week, we hafe 2 related tories and this has repercussions to the mining/investment sector (As mentioned on the page), as well aspossible repercussion to labour relations/unions
Remarked as "ready" per the update, consensus is for the posting admin to adjuge. /(per previous discussion of the use ready on ITNC)Lihaas (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this was posted a few weeks back during the killings, the end of the strike on it's own doesn't mean anything. The Chicago teachers stike also just ended. Not ready what consensus? What discussion? What? --IP98 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with IP on this one. No idea what kind of cluster-fruitcake we're dealing with above, but aside from that mess, there's some form of story which I think has been covered in enough detail by ITN before. No idea what we're supposed to be considering in all honesty. Whatever it is, is not for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 16:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- Asides from the Muslim protests, this has been the biggest story in the world, and the fact that it's ending is even more notable than the related event that we posted. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question How is this ready? The !vote is 2 opposes and 2 supports. Was there a past discussion which said the end of the strike should go up?? Removed ready tag. --IP98 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Careful. I removed the [Ready] tag for the same reason and Lihaas went stir-crazy. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
What the hell has any !vote got to do with judging the readiness of the article's update? Kevin McE (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't we already have "updated = yes/no" parameter in the template for that? --BorgQueen (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Dr. BUK has no right to close an article that is not far from consensus. There are more supports than opposes...before he goes "crazy" and attacks on every avenue he doesnt like!
2. This has been cited as ready in other aspects other than said users vengeance mongering.Lihaas (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I won't remove it, but "Ready" doesn't refer to the article status. It's a tag that alerts admins to the need to post the article, since an admin is needed to do that. Readiness means both article quality and consensus existing. While I voted support above, this is clearly NOT ready to be posted. It should not have the tag Lihaas. --Jayron32 04:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

September 17Edit

[Posted] Toronto International Film FestivalEdit

Article: Toronto International Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The film Silver Linings Playbook, directed by David O. Russell, wins the People's Choice Award at the 2012 Toronto International Film Festival. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

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: Please feel free to tweak the blurb. --JuneGloom Talk 22:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2009--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
comment there is absoltely NO update whatsoever per the 5-odd sentences in prose required.Lihaas (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, when the articles are updated.Egeymi (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending updates. I'll have a bash at some later. Lugnuts And the horse 08:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added some prose to the article. - JuneGloom Talk 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK to end GCSEs in core subjectsEdit

Article: GCSE (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UK Government announces a shake-up of secondary education qualifications, which will see GCSEs in core subjects in England replaced by a qualification called the English Baccalaureate. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: GCSEs, and their sister exams, IGCSEs, are taken all over the world. I'm not deeply familiar with this story but if GCSEs are indeed headed for the scrap heap even in only a few (very important) subjects this is a big educational story with international implications. --Johnsemlak (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems like a big deal, but I live in the USA and have no reference for the IGCSE. Convince me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP98 (talkcontribs) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a Brit I don't find this notable, so how is it notable outside? Subheading:Government attempts to look good by giving qualifications a new name. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor educational news with no impact outside of the UK. Should I start decrying "British bias!"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note See "Please do not #3" above. Chinese earthquakes don't affect south Florida much... --IP98 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont find this particularly notable (its not outright abolished), but it should be aminority topic. Education = culture? (marked as sch)Lihaas (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per SunCreator, though I am not a Brit.Egeymi (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm usually the first to big up British nominations, but this is perhaps the very definition of a domestic story that doesn't travel very far at all. It's worth nothing that this is for England, not the UK. The Welsh assembly has stated it will take its own time to research what should be done with GCSEs there, and Scotland has always had its own education system independent of GCSEs. So this nomination is already reduced to "England ends GCSEs in core subjects". Just not important enough for Wikipedia. England getting its own nomination on the front page for a bit of departmental administration would be bizarre. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soon to be forgotten in England. It's not even on the front page of the BBC news site any-more. --Τασουλα (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not relevant to anywhere outside the UK. Donnie Park (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am a Brit, and this is just a policy announcement. If this plan goes through, I might support "Students sit/receive the first English Baccalaureates" as and when that story could be run. But the government announces big changes to things all the time, and a lot of it never happens. Conversely, we haven't done anything on the progressive erosion of the NHS, because that has not been accompanied by big publicity splashes like this one. Just as we are not Apple Computer's press agency (cf iPhone), we are aslo not a press agency for Mr Gove, the DfE, or Conservative Central Office. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • While I agree entirely, have you looked at the ITN recently? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Frequently. What did you have in mind? (I must have left my psychic powers in my other jacket today.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not significant outside of British high schools. --Activism1234 00:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
comment can someoneexplain why thi s was closeD? we dont normally close things even when against consensus.Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
This may help explain. SpencerT♦C 03:20, 22 September 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.

September 16Edit

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

NHL lockoutEdit

Article: 2012 NHL lockout (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The National Hockey League locks out its players after the expiry of the collective bargaining agreement. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is the second lockout in eight years. --Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The NHL regular season isn't scheduled to start until Oct 11. Thus, for now, actual regular season games haven't been affected or are minimally affected. If there's a significant impact on the regular season, that would be notable. We posted the end of the previous NBA lockout.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the season has not been touched yet. If the whole season is cancelled, then I think it should go up on ITN (same policy that we had for the NBA lockout last year). --PlasmaTwa2 13:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I remember the same thing happening in the NBA too. It was rejected for pretty much the same reasons given above and I can see the same applying here. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I think its obvious that this doesn't really mean anything unless the season gets cancelled. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • C (Clarification) I would indeed support if it came to a full-blown cancellation of the season. I would also throw a major tantrum IRL as well if it came to that. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now – wait until the NHL season's scheduled start. If a CBA hasn't been agreed by then and the season is indeed cancelled, then that would be the most appropriate time to put this news up. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not important until it's important. Even then, these lockouts in US sport are becoming more and more commonplace, and really don't effect the rest of the English-speaking world, not really news, just a bunch of jumped up rich kids wanting more money. We'd do better to ignore it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's still time before games start getting missed. Once games are in jeopardy, I would support posting this. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 01:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We didn't post last year's NBA lockout either, for similar reasons: no games have been cancelled yet. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment just to clarify some misinformation stated above. Last year, the end of the 2011 NBA lockout was posted when an agreement was reached. (discussion) The 2011-12 NBA season, which would have started at the beginning of November, started after a players strike on December 25th, and held a reduced 68-game season (the normal season is 82 games). Reduced-game seasons have happened twice in the history of the NBA to my knowledge. The NHL has had two seasons significantly affected by a players strike: The 1994-95 NHL season was shortened to 48 games. The 04-05 season was cancelled.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:58, 18 September 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.

September 15Edit

September 14Edit


It is a new species of monkey, the first one confirmed in decades.CNN Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Template+Blurb plsssssssss <3 --Τασουλα (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
weak oppose not first one confirmed in decades - check out Myanmar_Snub-nosed_Monkey for an example EdwardLane (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
See also Primates described in the 2000s. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The linked CNN story got it wrong when it claims "The scientists say it is only the second discovery of a monkey species in 28 years." The scientists in their own source [20] actually say "the second new species of African monkey to be discovered in the past 28 years". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a side note, superlatives become less significant with the number of qualifiers they include, eventually it just seems like a grasp to aggrandize the subject without justification. When we're down to the second new species of African monkey in (arbitrary timeframe) it is toeing the line of rediculousness. Which is not to say that I wouldn't support this if it were shown to be a major story in the relevent science press and the article was in a good state. But this just highlights the problems when we try to make the case based on superlative statements rather than based on evidence of news coverage and article quality. Just about all things in existance can be described in superlative terms if you pile on enough qualifiers. If this is going to generate significant support, it would be best to frame the debate around showing actual evidence that the science press finds this a major story, and also on ensuring that the article itself is up to standard. Puffing the discovery (or passing on the puffery of others) with superlative terms does the process no justice. --Jayron32 13:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The scientists' claim is also wrong: Cercopithecus solatus was described in 1988, Miopithecus ogouensis in 1997, and Rungwecebus kipunji in 2004. Ucucha (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Your first was actually discovered in 1984 and the second was "recognized as distinct as far back as 1969", so I think the scientists got it right by saying the new one is the second in 28 years (since 1984). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Unopposed I am not against this for ITN, but DYK does seem like a better choice. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no ITN template, no article, etc... Isn't that groundbreaking outside of the realm of biology to have a sufficient impact. Interesting for DYK, but not for ITN. --Activism1234 21:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The link in the header is the article for the species. The templates were arbitrarily introduced relatively recently, and have never been considered a pre-requisite for a nomination being considered sufficiently notable: such an expectation is to limit ITN/C to the handful of sad individuals like me that frequent the page. Precedent suggests that new primate species have been considered sufficiently notable (see Myanmar_Snub-nosed_Monkey, for which support was unanimous). Support Kevin McE (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I agree with Activism1234. I highly suggest that this goes to the DYK nominations. ComputerJA (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others have suggested, it's a fun fact suitable for DYK, but I don't think it's meant for ITN. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Snow no original facts were incorrect, not as significant as first proposed. (People asking for "templates" need to get a grip though...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

September 13Edit

[Ready] Death of Peter LougheedEdit

Article: Peter Lougheed (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Premier of Alberta Peter Lougheed dies at the age of 84. (Post)
News source(s): CBC News The Globe and Mail (#1) Calgary Herald Washington Post The Globe and Mail (#2)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 2nd Globe and Mail ref and the ref are the sources verifying the claim that he is the greatest, while the first three websites cover his death. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. We don't report the deaths of heads of provinces/sub-national entities. And "considered one of the greatest Canadian premiers"? Not NPOV at all. Most people have never heard of Peter Lougheed. Mocctur (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Under WP:ITN#Deaths, sub-national regions are indeed covered. Lougheed meets criteria 1 and 2 (as he "was in a high-ranking office of power and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region" and "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field."). And no, there is no POV involved, as the last two sources provided state that he is one of the greatest Canadian premiers (and these statements were made while he was still alive). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment It is quite possible he is one of the greatest of Canadian premiers, we would just need some really good sources to say that. I somehow doubt other sourc es would say he wasn't, but if he did we would reference them too--that is the essence of NPOV--not the refusal to say anything at all. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The 2nd Globe and Mail ref and the ref are the sources stating he is the greatest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Were they saying this before he died, or is it just the usual post mortem praise? Kevin McE (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It was based on a survey released in June. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He's a very accomplished politician, but his death isn't notable enough for ITN unfortunately. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think what the OP meant was he was named the greatest Canadian premier in the last 40 years recently this year. And I'm not too sure on this - his death was met with international reaction and he was a very notable politician in Canada, so I can see why we could post this. – Connormah (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support now - I remember we posted Ted Kennedy, I'd say Lougheed is similar to his stature in Canadian politics. He also was the first PC premier in Alberta, the ruling party for the last 41 years. Very well qualified for a posting I'd say. – Connormah (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Another obit [21] from a former prime minister saying he "built Canada" – Connormah (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not Canadian, but what I've read about him (especially this) makes a pretty strong case for him being included on ITN. Hot Stop (Edits) 02:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable enough. (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he may be a great politician, but unfortunately not notable enough outside his country.Egeymi (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Lougheed is the main reason why Alberta is able to export so much oil and gas to many countries around the world. Although his name itself may not be well-recognized, his actions have had a profound impact on the rest of the world. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral because I oppose most deaths. To all the "not notables" above, please see "Please do not #3" above. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I can't think of a US governor who didn't go on to become president who comes anywhere near this guy in impressiveness, one should read the refs and his article, well worth posting, and again, this should be a strong incentive for an admin to institute the recent death ticker. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • i can't support the update as is. It only mentions his death and standard obit details.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As the updated article also states, his condition was not disclosed to the public. So other than his pre-existing health conditions that may have lead to his death, I don't know what else to say (unless he's awarded a state funeral later this week). —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, Lougheed's article has now been expanded to include the fact that he's going to lie in state this week in Alberta's legislature. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Public memorial plans should be revealed within the next few days. – Connormah (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw the sentence about the public memorial but that is only one sentence. The remainder is unnotable details. The bit about the COD not being disclosed may be notable, but i can't see why from the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Added details about flags being flown at half mast and plans to rename Calgary's airport after him. Good enough? —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Better. It would be nice if there was information on notable individuals who commented on his death. Did Harper say anything on his passing?--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Just added an entire paragraph regarding tributes made to Lougheed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support- I'm not from Canada, but I ask that everyone who opposed this read the sources, especially HotStop's, and realize that even though he isn't at all known outside his country, he was incredibly successful, and the impact he had on Alberta is undeniable. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 14:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per hot spot and also because news at this time is slow. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral It seems that the person is of extreme importance for the internal politics of Canada, but nothing makes him notable outside the country. Tough decision for me, but a neutral vote is the right for this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure of the significance of this individual outside Canada, certainly not even a tremor of interest in Europe to this event. Also note a certain hyperbole to the blurb "powerhouse", "greatest .... premiers".... is that what ITN is about? Death of an old person, sorry, but not important. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I can draft up a new blurb. "Old person" I don;t think applies here - he was very active in the last election and it has been said that his endorsement of the current party helped secure their re-election. – Connormah (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Bare bones Alt - Former Premier of Alberta Peter Lougheed dies at the age of 84. – Connormah (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. While I do worry that this may be below our normal notability threshold, he clearly is very notable in Canada. The update is satisfactory, and the article is B-class. Plus news has been slow lately.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
This seems ready. Can someone mark it so? I really don't want to see this wait five days from nom to posting like the Catalonian protest did. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I marked it. I might be biased, but the supports outweigh the oppose, especially given how many knee-jerk (not a head of state) opposes there were to start. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree on the marking and the rationale. Head of state is a reason for listing, not a requirement of listing. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose very uncertain about the notability of this person and the blurb "powerhouse", "one of the greatest", seems to be missing [citation needed]. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Please read the last two sources listed before making an unjustified oppose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Not ready I'm really confused as how this was marked ready when there isn't even a slight consensus towards posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Because readiness for posting is judged on the fitness of the article, not the state of consensus. For what it's worth, I agree that there is no consensus, and remain personally neutral on posting this. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Several oppose votes should not be counted as they violated criteria 3 of Please do not. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I cannot agree that the article obeys its readiness because of its fitness instead of the votes that were given to it. What if the article is strongly opposed but very well updated? Indeed, my vote was neutral as well and it's not up to us to judge if there are opposes that should not be counted. We should call an admin to conclude the discussion and make the final decision until the nomination goes down in the history.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, Kiril, the ready tag simply means the article is sufficiently updated, reffed, and free of problematic tags. It has nothing to do with consensus per se. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Re-adding the ready tag if only to drawn an admin's attention before this gets archived. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • comment on blurb The original blurb was unpostable and very POV. I've replaced it with the minimalist blurb suggested above. However, I think we need something in the blurb that conveys his notability. Suggestions?--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Blurb Influential Canadian premiere Peter Lougheed lies in state in the Alberta legislature. [22] μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Earliest colour filmEdit

Article: Color motion picture film#Additive color (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Film historians in Bradford, UK, announce the discovery of the earliest known moving colour images, shot in 1902. (Post)
News source(s): [23], [24]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Rewrites the history of film technology. The footage was previously considered mythic and had never previously been seen because the film-maker died before designing a projector to show it. Seven years older than the first Kinemacolor film. BTW, spot the ENGVAR issue... Formerip (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - the year, 1902, should be mentioned, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Would not object to DYK, except that it is a discovery, just like a new pyramid tomb, earliest stone tool, Roman coin hoard, etc. - it's just that not such a long time has passed since. Nine years is quite a large chunk in the history of cinematography. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- It wasn't discovered like the blurb says, only unveiled by a museum. What's the significance in that? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it was discovered in an archive. Watch the video here. Formerip (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • unknow - the new date is really very diferent? like when was invented the Iphone in 2003 or in december of 2002, by Steve Job of by his co-workers, on west los Angeles or east L.A.? sure is good data but I dont know if it is a news, something really change? --Feroang (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose That it would have been the first had he actually succeeded opens up how many cans of worms? per Bzweebl, and we don't decide these matters. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it seems to be more suitable for DYK.Egeymi (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for DYK Yes. Lugnuts And the horse 08:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support for DYK too, as it's been made clear it wasn't really "just discovered". --Τασουλα (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, but that hasn't been made clear. I see below, however, that you are now Neutral. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for DYK I agree it's a curiosity which doesn't quite fit within ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the DYK criteria. Formerip (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me for I'm not too familiar with the DYK nomination process. However, if it doesn't fit DYK then it's not news or a notable enough event in the realm of motion pictures. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it either neeeds to be a reasonably sized new article or a largely expanded old article (like fourfold) for DYK. It's nothing to do with the subject itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for filling me in. Well, all I can say to that is...>__> wait for suffient update then someone can nominate it. If anyone remembers too XD --Τασουλα (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I doubt there would be enough of an update to any article to justify. But I think it is news anyway (see above), and not just national news. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll go for a neutral then. Also, I spotted the ENGVAR issue I did! Arne't I a clever girl? >_> --Τασουλα (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for ITN; does not meet and is not likely to meet DYK criteria (I wish the folk who continually suggest DYK for these things would remember this because sooner or later you're going to end up with an editor whose nomination could have passed here, certainly won't pass DYK, and will abandon either route in future). As for the merits of this one, it's a surprising anachonrism that not only stands on its own and would attract interest but it's a refreshing change from militias, disasters, corruption and the Paralympics/Olympics. GRAPPLE X 12:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That's rather odd. Where did anyone get the notion that DYK noms require ITN support or are harder to get? DYK criteria are rather clear and quite easy to meet, I have done so myself every time I have wanted to. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No, no. What I'm saying is that a short update to a long article clearly does not qualify for DYK. Overlooking a possible ITN posting because someone thinks it suits DYK better only works when the article actually meets the DYK criteria; there are several "go to DYK" posts above which are clearly misguided as this isn't something that's going to qualify there. That this might not be posted because of those votes is the problem, as if the DYK criteria were more widely understood they would have been cast differently (they might become outright opposes, but that at least is direct and realistic). GRAPPLE X 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
comment saying "support for DYK" here is irrelevant becasue 1, the criteria is different and 2. ITNC decisions dont mean anything on DYK's objective postings.
Further, 1 sentence on the new find is not na update.Lihaas (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The update is five sentences. Formerip (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
If we wait long enough to post this, they might find some even older stuff... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The update fr ITN is the 2012 find, not the filnm shot in 1902. So all it satys is "However, in 2012, specialists at the National Media Museum in Bradford, UK, re-discovered his original footage and were able to digitally imitate the method he set out in his patent, successfully producing a series of moving images in color"Lihaas (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in a slow period this seems appropriate ITN material. None of the opposes checkout, two falsely claim it wasn't discovered and the DYK's route is not possible(unless DYK rules are changed). Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Suncreator. ITN doesn't always have to be politics and wars and deaths. This is suitably historic and the DYK red herrings above are distractions. This is clearly ITN material, not DYK material. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: The current update to the article about the recent events seems to be one sentence (please correct me if I'm wrong), below minimum ITN criteria. SpencerT♦C 05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
That whole paragraph is update, because it is new to the article and wasn't previously important content (as noted above, the discovery has been described as "rewriting history"). We could add filler along the lines that Professor Beelzebub of Bradford University thought it was "way cool", but IMO that would be contrary to good content-writing. Formerip (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 12Edit

[Fixed] [Posted] Pakistani garment factory firesEdit

Article: 2012 Pakistan garment factory fires (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 300 people are killed in two garment factory fires in Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A large amount of deaths from a fire that was inside the factory building. I was not sure which article to link to...or if a new article should be created about the fires, so I did not include an article in the nomination. (If you find one that fits this event, or if a new article is created about this event, please do include it in this nomination). Andise1 (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Support: Notable for sure - its the top news in the subcontinent. No article to be found though. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen and heard it as a top story on several news sources. However, there is no article yet for me to read to decide if I should support or not. We've got the cart before the horse here. Create an article, let us read what is created, and then we can decide if it needs to be on the main page. --Jayron32 03:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • As a note, an ITN item does not require a new article, just an update in the most appropriate place. We need to avoid the connection that the only ITN appropriate candidates are those with brand new articles and encourage consolidation into lists of events for a year when the event may not warrant an article but is likely ITN worthy. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's entirely true, but there needs to be some bit of text somewhere for us to review... --Jayron32 06:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Update created 2012 Karachi garment factory fire. --SaqibQ (talk) 06:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, certainly notable event that has alleged connections with lax safety laws and since the article is created, it should be put to the related slot above.Egeymi (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support very notable event and should be included. Note: the article has been redirect to 2012 Pakistan garment factory fires. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support after updates: First, it's definitely a significant news item. Second, I totally admit to having a political goal here; it's events like these that eventually led to reforms that favored workers in many other countries, and in many ways contributed to the establishment of middle classes. This makes it potentially a watershed moment. However, we could do much better, perhaps with a map (like on the earthquake pages), some information about why so many people died, and perhaps a small compilation of any other information floating around about worker safety in Pakistan. Right now the article is really just a news blip. —Kerfuffler harass
    07:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support pending full sourcing of the aftermath section. Sources are necessary when attributing quotes to individuals. —WFCFL wishlist 08:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  Done. Reference provided and now Strongly support. -SaqibQ (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support One of the worst accidents in some time, high death-county, etc. Lugnuts And the horse 09:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Horrifying disaster with a huge death toll, and with relevance to wider issues of health and safety, and worker rights. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why have we rolled two fires together? News sources do not seem to be paying attention to the fact that there was also a fire in Lahore on the same day. Formerip (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think probably the reporting started on Karachi and then the TV found out about another one and just threw it in. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to current article state. Support thanks to Mohamed CJ for removing POV content. Will glady support when fixed. For example "and did not bother to register them with any social security institute to get rid of workers' rights in any case." really has to go. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not sourced and looks highly POV, perhaps even with BLP violations. I've removed the whole paragraph. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support This seems to be a very serious disaster. It's not common to hear that 300 were killed in fires in a garment factory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
PULL article is very poor. Unsourced bits and single sentence tidbits are not encyclopaedic, theyre news. There is also several BLP violations of unsourced criticism os the lax enforcement. Not to mention possible copyvio (some of which i removed)
I implore people to please check the article BEFORE postingLihaas (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The article was checked when it was posted 2 days ago. Unsourced, POV and BLP items were removed. Article was in good shape. You're welcome to remove those items yourself, or point out specific items here that you feel prevent this item from main page prominence. --IP98 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
It was one IP editor, I rolled it all back and reported the IP to WP:AN/I. -- (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Even the rolkk back was poorly written. But should be good now. Another alternative is semi the page while on ITN (which used to be done).
BTW- im not questioning notability on this. Admin's adjuging consensus was great.Lihaas (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Death of 'Professor' Sid WatkinsEdit

Article: Sid Watkins (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sid Watkins, world renowned neurosurgeon, former FIA Formula One Safety and Medical Delegate and head of the Formula One on-track medical team dies aged 84 (Post)
News source(s): [25],[26]

 --Torqueing (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Who? --MASEM (t) 00:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please read at least the quick start instructions before commenting, namely:
Do not add simple "support" or "oppose" votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
--hydrox (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Technically you are correct in citing the rules violation here but I do agree with Masem that this is far far from the notability threshold for ITN. On the BBC this isn't even making the F1 news page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an interesting death that cannot command a full blurb, but could be worth posting on the Recent Death line. There has long been strong consensus in favor of instituting that, but I do not know whom I need to sodomize around here to get that done. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
No, this wouldn't even make recent deaths. He's not even the most notable death of today. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd abstain from voting in any case since I have no idea who the guy is other than having just read the article. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, to be clear, even looking at the guy's page, I still have to ask "who?" Far far below the level of importance to the general world to be ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Not so fast. The story has been since posted on BBC's Formula 1 pages. --hydrox (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who? Not notable in the world scheme of things. Next death, please. Lugnuts And the horse 06:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Clearly notable enough under a death ticker. Clearly not on a par with killings at embassies, a Western democracy admitting to a systematic, institutional cover-up into dozens of deaths and the smearing of a city, or the passing of someone like Neil Armstrong. —WFCFL wishlist 10:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Clearly a highly significant figure in his field, and well-known to those concerned. But I'm not convinced he's well-known more generally. I agree with Medeis (though I don't feel his offer of sexual services is relevant), and disagree with Bzweebl - this would be a good entry if we had a 'Recent deaths' ticker. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Urgh, this is a tricky one indeed. The guy is clearly notable in his field a fair bit, but in his native country? As for "international fame" I don't think that should be coming into this, to be honest. He isn't being claimed as such...--Τασουλα (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Travelling the world on the F1 circuit and therefore mixing with the cosmopolitan world that international motor sport essentially is, I don't think there is any doubt about the world-wide renown of this individual. He was probably better known internationally than in the UK. Leaky Caldron 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This man was massive in F1, and motosport at wide as well. Jackie Stewart is now calling for the establishment of a permanent memorial. It's a good article, well-written and well-referenced extensive prose. The individual clearly fulfills criterion #2 "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Also, this is not at all UK-centric news; F1 is a global sport, and Watkins' persistence and medical field work saved or helped save the lives of at least the following drivers: Didier Pironi, Nelson Piquet, Gerhard Berger, Rubens Barrichello, Mika Häkkinen, Martin Donnelly and Karl Wendlinger, who between them have 5 driver's championships and 47 GP wins. I admit it's borderline case what comes to general notability, but given the good shape of the article and "minority topic" nature of this topic, why not? --hydrox (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - helped Richard Hammond to recovery after his 2006 car accident. Clip of radio tribute by Hammond here: [27] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Recent Death All you people who are "supports" and "weak opposes" are wasting your time by not asking why this nom has not been posted under the well supported Recent Death Ticker. Who supports that? Vote recent death again and let's get this started now. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5Edit

Article: iPhone 5 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Apple announces the iPhone 5, with 4 inch display and LTE, to be released September 21, 2012. (Post)
News source(s): CNN,, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal

 --Mr White 19:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Boldly closing discussion per WP:SNOW. This isn't going anywhere. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Oppose Press release for a commercial company. Not news. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Never. It is never acceptable for us to endorse a commercial product (with commercial rivals) at launch. If the iPhone 5 goes on to achieve something far outside the norm, we could consider posting the story in that context. —WFCFL wishlist 20:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose next we'll nominate the latest Ford Focus or Sony Bravia or Dell Inspiron. Just another part of the product line. (I still want one). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Tsk. Formerip (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Commercial hype. Short of some major breakthrough, such as running on free energy. this sort of commercial release it not likely to get my support. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, quite strongly, as a marketing hype story. At the end of the day, it's just another incremental upgrade to an existing product, nothing new or revolutionary in its field.[28][29] You could name it "Super Duper iPhonetor 2,000", or whatever the marketing department came up with, and it wouldn't change a thing. Also, similar Apple product upgrades have been unequivocally declined in the past. --hydrox (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Commodity parts soldered together into consumer gadgetry. Why does every single apple product launch end up here? --IP98 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Companies release products everyday. Nothing special here. --RA (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Obvious oppose Of course Wikipedia can't post product announcements for one company and not others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- We don't advertise, especially for free. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Meh. Not news for ITN, and the announcement isn't anywhere near as impacting as previous reveals of apple stuff. Don't get me wrong, I like apple products, I own an Ipad2 and an iPhone 4S, but this new system isn't exactly breathtakingly revolutionary. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Obvious promotional bias. —Kerfuffler 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ^^ And then there's that too... --Τασουλα (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I watched excitedly as the iPhone 5 was unveiled, along with probably millions of others. Fascinating. But don't think it's for ITN - significance, other than being a better version, isn't much, and is promotional. --Activism1234 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose We are not Apple's marketing department. Canuck89 (chat with me) 01:16, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose In addition to Canuckian89's view, WP is not marketing dep of any other firm. It is not news.Egeymi (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've reopened the discussion as I wanted to comment and while SNOW is clearly relevant here the discussion hasn't degenerated into name-calling or the like. Clearly there's absolute consensus here but I personally would consider supporting this item myself. I understand the strong desire to not advertise for Apple or any other company but if we posted this we would simply be following the vast majority of the international media, so I don't think bias would be an issue here--the Iphone launch is clearly 'in the news'. There are other valid concerns-do we post other similar product launches (and I could imagine that resulting is a massive debate of trying to figure out which phones are notable enough) but again, the international media clearly feels the iPhone launch is more notable than other phones so I think we would be safe here. For me the one argument that convinces me is that the Iphone 5 isn't particularly groundbreaking. That may convince me to oppose, but I feel that even if this was a groundbreaking device many editors here would oppose all the same. We didn't post the launch of the original iPad and I think we can agree now that that was an extremely groundbreaking event. And in response to the 'we aren't the Apple marketing dept' argument--Apple isn't paying wikipedia to post its news. I highly doubt that this was nominated by an Apple employee (an Apple fan, maybe). Again, it's legitmate news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
My problem with any apple product is the frequency of it. More than once or twice a year we get new version of same product with a couple minor changes. Apple fans like to treat them as a new revolutionary product thats never been produced before which is almost always far from the reality. We posted Windows 7 because it was basically known that it will be replacing long standing windows xp as the main os on billions of computers. I doubt we will post windows 8 and i will not support it in october even if nominated. Same goes here... this is just another product, nothing new or big. -- Ashish-g55 15:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Pro-independence protest in CataloniaEdit

Article: 2012 Catalan independence demonstration (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Hundreds of thousands of people in Barcelona, Spain take to the streets demanding independence of Catalonia. (Post)
News source(s): BBC and RT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Last year we posted about a similar protest (see hereMohamed CJ (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

2010 was obviously two years ago, not last year. ---hydrox (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
My bad, thanks for correction. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support - only one region of Spain is still only one region, but the numbers are pretty big. But the article states it's due to happen. So natural wait. (Keh, seeing this makes me realise how different the situation in the UK is...) --Τασουλα (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The number seems high, but it's easy to get a large percentage of an ethnic minority to go marching in the streets. This is nothing more than a self generated bother. --IP98 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Er, what do you mean by "it's easy to get a large percentage of an ethnic minority to go marching in the streets"? Who are the ethnic minority here? In what way is it easy? Do you have any evidence that what you claim is the case? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Catalonian nation" is the ethnic minority in Spain, but a majority in their region. Essentially a bunch of people skipped work to walk down the street crying for something impossible. This is staggeringly not news. Tragically it will go up, but it's not news. --IP98 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, this "minority" accounts for 16 percent of the nation’s population and 19 percent of gross domestic product, giving it an economy the size of Portugal’s... --Davidpar (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
All of which serves to reduce the notability of the marches. So an ethnic minority in the country, in their majority region, marched in the streets. Not exactly a surprise here. Like I said, people ditched work to walk down town complaining. Not exactly an arab spring, and not exactly news. No different from a bunch of protesting Basque. Not at all even a little bit news. 100% same as 400,000 students marching in Montreal. Self generated bother. --IP98 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Just as a point of mathematical order, the national government's estimate of 600,000 marchers is 8% of the population of Catalonia as a whole. Local police estimates reach 20% of the entire population. That is quite impressive either way. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. To clarify on numbers, 600k estimate by the Spanish Government is the lowest of three. The other two being 1.5m by Barcelona police and 2m by organizers. The population of Catalonia is ~7.5m. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this is a major development in the European/Spanish economic crisis. Tachfin (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
"European economic crisis" is not a magic word for posting just anything. A connection to the ongoing crisis is there, but only indirectly. There has been a considerable separatist movement in Catalonia for years even without the economic crisis. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral Not sure if we should to post this, given we posted a demonstration for same cause with similar attendance two years ago. However, I would definitely support posting if a referendum was actually announced. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The coverage of this event is ample. I've read it as the top, or near the top, story on several news websites, and was a major story on NPR and TV news today. The article is solid, and under those two most important criteria (level of coverage and quality of article) this seems like a no-brainer. --Jayron32 17:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Fine article, as Jayron notes, and a huge demonstration that is worthy of ITN. The issue is nothing less than the breakup of Spain. I'd call that notable. Jusdafax 17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Spain isn't going to break up because of a street marche. This is no different than upset students in Quebec or squatters in New York. It means precisely nothing. It took weeks of marches much larger than this to overthrow the Egyptian government. I repeat, this means absolutely nothing. Nominate the referendum when it happens. --IP98 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Catalonia is going to be next state in Europe because Catalans want it. Madrid can not do anything against the will of a nation. --Davidpar (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
        • When a new state is formed, great, until then, it's yet another disgruntled European protest march. I see absolutely no different between a Spanish sourpuss and one in New York. 100% not news. --IP98 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
          • This spring will probably be elections in Catalonia as a result of the demonstration and the main Catalan political party have the goal to achieve the "full sovereignty" of Catalonia. FT says that these elections will be de facto an independence referendum. --Davidpar (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Great, when that happens, and there is a referendum, and a new state is formed in Europe, please come and nominate it, because that will certainly be news. This is not. And gazing into a crystal ball and predicting a shake up of Europe doesn't make it any different. --IP98 (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose only a couple of years ago, twice as many people protested. What's changed? This is a protest, it hasn't made anything happen. Certainly didn't make the news on the British or international BBC homepages... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Then you're looking at the wrong webpage, Rambles... Lugnuts And the horse 09:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support it did make to BBC homepage and has been broadly covered. How many times a year can you soee 1.5 million people demonstrating?--Arnaugir (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It will mark the future of Catalonia and Spain politics. @TheTamblingMan Anything happen? More than a million of Catalans claim to be independent. A couple of years ago they were against a recent decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court to annul or reinterpret several articles of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia]. Now is the first great demostration in support plainly to the independence. --Davidpar (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with the amount of 600,000 people. That's what says the Spanih government. International media, organizers and police says more than 1,500,000:

list of 16 references

--Davidpar (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You should take that up at the article, this is not the place for it. And the article last I saw gave the govt figure as only one among many. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The Spanish government will say the lowest figure possible. Here you have a bird's eye view of the demonstration: [30] Thanks. --Davidpar (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I don't generally like posting protests, but this is very big in numbers and world coverage, as the collapsed section above shows. It was even big news before it happened. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Major protests reported worldwide. I have also heard figures much greater than only 600,000 people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply The thing about "reported worldwide" is that it's not really that big of a deal. Consider some of the 16 sources above. Telegraph just ran the Reuters wire and NYT ran an IHT article. Using free internet web page space to re-post a wire story isn't exactly special. This march wasn't a surprise. NYT and Telegraph both could have sent correspondents. They didn't. They posted wire stories in the hopes of getting extra Google hits to generate more forum posts and get more ad revenue. It's not reporting, it's Google bombing, and it doesn't make this utterly worthless protest news. --IP98 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
      • There were 20 correspondents accredited in the march, including The Guardian and BBC. --Davidpar (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but the article is a mess, and this won't be posted until it's cleaned up. It's full of red links and [citation needed] tags. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
How do red links as such count against a nom? μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I delete no notability red links. In my opinion, the article now is OK. --Davidpar (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is still severely lacking in references. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support Obviously a major even for the Spanish economic crisis and Catalan separatism. I would also recommend to replace More than 600,000 people on the blurb with Up to 1,5 million, which is the number reported by local police.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - this should definitely be posted. Those who understand a bit about Spanish regions will realize, Catalona protesting for independence and autonomy as a region from Spain is rather significant, and has been making headlines. I think blurb should clarify though who the people in the streets were. Was I one of them? No, I wasn't. Meaning clarify we're talking about Spain, for people who will only glance at the ITN and will know what it's talking about. --Activism1234 00:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article needs references. For example, there are statements in quotation marks in 2012_Catalan_independence_demonstration#Demonstration that do not have a reference attached to them, as well as unreferenced sections in the article. SpencerT♦C 02:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable. Size of the article is more than adequate but the controversies section has no references as Spencer pointed out. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm uncomfortable with posting a figure disputed by a fairly large government, and would prefer "hundreds of thousands". I don't think this would do the numbers too much of a disservice. For example, it's widely believed that more than a million people attended the Team GB Olympic and Paralympic parade, but the BBC report the figure as "hundreds of thousands" due to uncertainty. —WFCFL wishlist 09:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've modified it to hundreds of thousands, seems more neutral (Reuters and AP mentioned "tens of thousands"). Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Huge amount of coverage. Lugnuts And the horse 09:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support pending sourcing of the controversies section. —WFCFL wishlist 10:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. According to the BBC, this is an annual rally, and I don't see it listed at ITNR. Formerip (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Off on two points. The day is an annual holiday, the rallies have been held twice, in 2010 and 2012. And something's not being on ITNR has nothing to do with mitigating against its current nomination on the merits. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
How was this march different from the last one? --IP98 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Massive popular protests like this make headlines worldwide, and show that the news is not just about the acts of celebrities and individual politicians. I am baffled by IP98's objections - "So an ethnic minority in the country, in their majority region, marched in the streets. Not exactly a surprise here. Like I said, people ditched work to walk down town complaining." I have no idea why it's relevant or interesting that they 'ditched work'. What's important is that a large proportion of the region's entire populace demonstrated publicly for their right to self-determination. That's not nothing. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Other than numbers, I see no difference between this and the occupy marches (except that the occupy marches went on for weeks). A group of like minded people gathered en masse to express an opinion. So what? Jon Stewart got half a million people to come hear him make wise cracks at the national mall. This event is no where near the significance of the arab spring. In those demonstrations, people were genuinely rebelling against a government known for brutality. Spain is a democracy. These people are in no danger, and after an day in the sun they went back to work the next morning. This simply isn't news, and I don't like putting it on a pedestal. --IP98 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. More references after the march: "Catalan message", by FT --Davidpar (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this not Ready This has been updated and consensus is hugely in favor. Can't we please do this in a (semi-)timely fashion? μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The referencing issues I pointed out above still have not been resolved. SpencerT♦C 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
      •   Done Added references! --Davidpar (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Not done "Catalunya Libertat" is hardly a WP:RS, or WP:NPOV. I'm just posting this now while I check the rest of the references. --IP98 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Vilaweb is another one. It might be old, but it's essentially a self published blog. Drudge report in Barcelona. None of these sources are in English, and it's a hassle to search all the publication names on WP to see if they're legit or not. I'm done with these two. Lots of good sources too, BTW, it's a good article. --IP98 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Great, so IP98 votes oppose. Let's hear from an admin why this has not yet been posted, because whatever the criterion it will be fixed immediately. Otherwise, get on with it and post this, per very broad and strong consensus. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Rambling Man and Formerip also opposed... --IP98 (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm hallucinating. Vilaweb is the first news media in Spain to be based entirely online! --Davidpar (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
First doesn't mean reliability. I head that same WP article, and what I read is that this is a self published news site with a forum and web directory, created by a former journalist. See Drudge Report. --IP98 (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
VilaWeb is a well-known Catalan online newspaper (writen by journalists) with a complementary forum and a web directory. --Davidpar (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope, it's a self published blog. It's not featured too heavily so I'm ignoring it. I wish the article had more English sources, when the event organizers web page is featured so prominently as a source, it's hard to check. *shrugs* --IP98 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Relevant event from my point of view really.

Can an admin please give the reason at this point why this has not been posted? I have read the main Spanish sources, against my assumption, they do actually say this is the biggest such protest ever. (I had assumed the 2010 one was). If something still needs fixing, please let us know. Otherwise, Please Post. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted a note on BorgQueens talk page, but you can always go to AN/I. --IP98 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I can't see how ANI would be appropriate though. The inertia here seem odd, and I have even had another editor leave a question about this on my talk page, although I am not an admin, the nom, or even Iberian. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm so used to typing AN/I, you're right though, it's totally not appropriate. If you do IRC, you can try #wikipedia on Freenode there is probably an admin there who can post. --IP98 (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but shouldn't it appear below the Dutch election? The election was held on 9/12 (according to it's article, I don't know for sure), and the march and the hillsborough report was on 9/11. --IP98 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Fixed, but the Hillsborough disaster article says: On 12 September 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel[46] reached a conclusion that no Liverpool fans were responsible in any way for the disaster, and that the main cause of the disaster was a "lack of police control". --BorgQueen (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

European Stability MechanismEdit

Article: European Stability Mechanism (talk, history)
Blurb: Germany's Federal Constitutional Court rules that the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism can proceed. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

 Thue (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose no doubt this clears a major roadblock, but I'm still opposed to posting various milestones for this. When it comes into force, I will certainly support it then. I opposed other ratifications, and even the original signing. --IP98 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
oppose hasnt changed anything, it was going ahead. Only thing this could do was stop whats happening already and we posted the original mentionLihaas (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
My clear impression was that the ESM would have been meaningless without Germany, so it wouldn't just have "gone ahead"; so this result has changed alot. Thue (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
For practical purposes, it had already given support. Merkel said so, hadnt the legislative assembly passed it too? Judicialy was sort of an appeal (or in common law countries anyway)Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
No, the court had ordered Merkel not to sign it before the court had looked at it. So it was not an appeal-process. Thue (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Wait until the mechanism actually enters into force. This is just a detail of ratification by one particular country. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would have been ground-shattering news had the supreme court come to opposite overall conclusion. But with this expected result, it seems to have little practical impact, as it just means what was supposed to be done will be done with some more oversight. --hydrox (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not quite a mere legal formality, but not a real game-changer either. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Election season returns -- DutchEdit

Article: Dutch general election, 2012 (talk, history)
Blurb: VVD receives a plurality in the Dutch general election, 2012. (Post)

Article updated

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

 --Lihaas (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Wait until a government is formed. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Election is closely contested, which means government-forming is expected to be difficult and might take long (see e.g. [31]), even very long. That's one of the reasons why we always post elections when the official results are announced, if they are just reliable. I see no ground to depart from this practice. --hydrox (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
note forgot to mention , this could take over a week to form.Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I know that. That's why I think your posting is a premature attempt to win credit, and that we should wait. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I quite explicitly said im not sure how to do this hence i posted here ofr discussion (As do many others at ITNC). By precedence we post results and hence many people could WELL prefer it to be posted soon.Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lihaas does this all the time. Further down this page he says "Damnit, I was going to post that" as though he's just missed out on some point scoring or goal or something like that. His rush to gain kudos is why his posts are so badly spelled. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Doktorbuk does this all the time. NPA attakcs instead of COMMENTING ON CONTENT! Keep your slander to yourself!
I quite explicitly said im not sure how to do this hence i posted here ofr discussion (As do many others at ITNC). By precedence we post results and hence many people could WELL prefer it to be posted soon.
As for below, im certainly not he only one who said i just came here to post something!Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd check your definition of slander, as well as your spelling, before repeating such accusations. Please be both patient and civil. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you then by any chance see fit to inform the original poster to "be civil". NPA are not civil. Comments should be made on content...which i explained to your post why i posted it now, (and in a civil manner)...and instead of this illy charade were upto its better to add contentLihaas (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, drop it.--WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i just said the same thing directly above your comment. That this was deviating and should end. pelase see that and the originalLihaas (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You were right to hat this discussion as tangental to the main topic, but can I just say for the record Lihaas that I do think you post these things far too early, far too often. —WFCFL wishlist 15:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't wait but post once we get results, per ITNR and every other election. If a government is formed while it's still on the template then the blurb can be updated. If later, it can be re-nominated (though might not be significant enough if it's as expected from the results). Modest Genius talk 12:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support but remove the POV/OR word 'wins'; X received the most votes or seats(whichever unit is applicable) in the Dutch general election, 2012. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 13:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
changed to "gets"?Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Holy sh*t, what the hell was that about? The argument I mean. Anyway, Support Per ITN/R. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

receives (present tense) or 'received' (past tense) reads better then 'get'. Let me explain about 'Wins' with an example:
  • 'wins' is a value judgement; it makes a judgement on a value, the value(or fact) is the receiving of most votes(or whatever unit is used), the judgement is that as a result of the value an individual or party 'wins' the voting process. The making of the judgement call maybe correct but it may also be incorrect. On the day of the results of the 2000 U.S presidential election with sourced news information using the win judgement wording would read "Al Gore wins a plurality in the United States presidential election, 2000", but the judgement wins in this case was false because George Bush actually became president. So it would behoove Wikipedia to stick to the facts not to make value judgements based on those facts. While even facts can change, it is not good practice to include judgements, especially in ITN which by definition has new information that could change. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Trivial support per ITN/R. Also, just post is as soon as the official vote count is announced and the article has been updated with the figures, for this is a high-profile event. The Dutch election is one of the year's most important elections in Europe (only comparable to the French presidential election in April), due to the tendency of the Dutch political map to set direction for the rest of the continent in crisis, with Euroscepticism expected to rise. --hydrox (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready. Results are out, article and blurb updated and I think we have consensus. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've amended 'get'(a word that was inserted as a result of my request) to the more natural 'receives' as explained above. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 12:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Propose to amend the blurb to: The VVD of Prime Minister Mark Rutte receives a plurality in the Dutch general election, 2012 (to show that the party is led by the sitting PM) --RJFF (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: The result section needs to mention that VVD has gained a plurality in prose. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It currently lacks citations. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Good call; the table had a minor mistake corrected now + added a BBC ref. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Hillsborough disaster documents and related purposesEdit

Article: Hillsborough disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​British Prime Minister David Cameron leads apologies to the families of 96 people killed at Hillsborough Stadium in 1989, after an independent report finds South Yorkshire Police made significant failings on the day of the disaster. (Post)
News source(s):

 --doktorb wordsdeeds 04:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • ALT 1: The British Prime Minister, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and The Sun newspaper apologise for their organisation's roles in the Hillsborough disaster (tribute pictured) and subsequent cover-up. (feel free to tweak this blurb as necessary) —WFCFL wishlist 16:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT 2: British Prime Minister David Cameron leads apologies for the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, after an independent report finds that the facts of the incident were concealed by the authorities. (again, butcher as necessary) —WFCFL wishlist 20:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominator's comment Families are viewing the documents today. See doktorb wordsdeeds 08:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Further Nominator's comment Clearly this story has moved on from the initial nomination. We know now that the police altered over 200 statements to their own advantage, that a Conservative MP may have fed fake information on behalf of the police to The Sun, and that the editor of The Sun who for over 20 years has been a defender of their controversial coverage has apologised. We now know there are question marks over the police, the ambulance services, Sheffield Council's regard for health and safety and Hillsborough's own safety concerns. To conclude, the nomination NOW should feature David Cameron's apology and some brief reference to the findings of the report. I make no apology for sounding passionate on this - I watched Hillsborough happen live on television, aged nine years old, and the images stick with me still today. I never thought I'd hear some of the findings or hear the depth to which the police and elements of the media plunged at the time. I hope that we can find a consensus to post this story on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 15:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Further nominator's note I have edited the article with some detail and numerous sources, and with another editor added a lead paragraph. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
pure speculation at this point. No indication its newsworthy. That said a subasrticle "Documents of..." could be DYKLihaas (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean that the papers have already been released by a non-independent body? I'm really confused about this so I can't support or oppose. Too tired! --Τασουλα (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Another minor stage in a very long process with absolutely zero impact on anyone except the families. I can only assume the reason that this is even being covered in the UK press is because it's still silly season and they don't have anything else to talk about. Modest Genius talk 09:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a highly cynical and somewhat offensive stance. We're talking about the END of a process here, one which started not long after it had become clear that the initial Report in 1990 had significant holes within it. 96 people died by being crushed against each other, concrete walls and cages at a football game - how on earth can call this "silly season" I cannot countenance. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
If there's something significant in there, then there will be a prosecution or some other major development, which might be suitable. If (as seems more likely) there's nothing much there, then this is a non-event with no significant encyclopaedic value. Oh and the nomination is the release of some documents, not the event itself, so I don't see how your last sentence is relevant. Modest Genius talk 12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the release of this report is not significant. The event itself would have been notable for ITN, but not a report on it. This will get very little coverage internationally as most have moved on. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It will be legal or political action as a result of this disclosure which makes ITN, not the release itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support - We now have the political responses to the release; clearly highly significant national news, with international interest and coverage. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is trivial. Wait until something develops beyond the standard slow news day. Lugnuts And the horse 10:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Overwhelming evidence of corruption and evidence tampering by a British police force. Finally correcting a lie which has been perpetrated for 23 years. The idea that this is a 'silly season' story is one of the most idiotic things I've read on here in some time.yorkshiresky (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It is completely silly and trivial, know why? Because this whole affair has been dragging on for ages and has been given disproportional amount of media coverage in the UK when most people don't care. It turned into something of a media circus and sensationalism all to often. Tragic sure, but important in the grand scheme of things here? Not by a long shot. The releasing of these papers actual brings nothing new, or stuff we already didn't know. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Really, nothing new? Did you know that the police amended 164 witness statements? Did you know that 41 people may have been saved? Or that the police tested corpses for alcohol and when they didn't they looked to see if they had criminal records?yorkshiresky (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to the above Are you seriously saying the release of these documents didn't tell us what we already didn't know or suspect? This is a matter between the families and the of the nation is either too busy with the troubles of life to actually be too concerned. It's a story of little to no significance to most here. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a significant difference between was is officially acknowledged and what is 'suspected' or even 'known'. We knew/have known or suspected for decades that Israel, Pakistan, and India had nuclear weapons but the official admission makes a huge difference. As noted, the report has prompted a response from the PM, so there is significant impact already.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has a clue about this news story would regard it as "completely silly and trivial". It certainly shows a fundamental lack of understanding of modern British history. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Possibly one of the most ignorant and offensive statements I have seen posted on Wikipedia in my six years here. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment David Cameron has made an official apology. I think we really can't regard it as 'trivial' now. This seems quite significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm going to agree the PM's apology has given me a bit of persuasion. Clearly that goes beyond media sensationalism of something we seem to of already gone through before...--Τασουλα (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • CommentSupport I don't think I've ever read so much contemptible, erroneous nonsense contained in some of the opposes, above. Leaky Caldron 13:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to above I'd advise you keep such opinions on the merits of people's voting to yourself. Making sweeping statements such as that which have little context isn't helpful. Go ahead and deny it all you want, this story is of little historical importance to most of the UK. To most people it's just a curiosity. Offensive you might think, but the truth isn't always pretty. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll ignore your advice thanks, it's as ignorant as your original opinion on the ITN nomination. Leaky Caldron 14:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A significant report detailing high-level corruption in a cover-up following the greatest British sporting tragedy ever, which as prompted an official apology from the Prime Minister.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this is stirring up quite a little row, and since there was no wikipedia at the time of the original disaster, I see no reason not to post this. --IP98 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaning Support based on the extent to which this report is being accepted: by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and nationalists alike, and even by Kelvin MacKenzie for instance. "Leaning" because while I don't know how widely this is being reported beyond these shores, but my gut instinct is that it is.

    I apologise for the inevitable fallout of the rest of this post, but I am saying this because I consider it absolutely pertinent to this discussion. I cannot allow the falsehood used to support one of the rationales above to go unanswered, nor the veracity with which someone who admits to knowing little about this asserting that the whole thing was "trivial" and that "most people [in the UK] don't care".

    Regardless of whether or not this particular point of the story should be posted, and it is certainly legitimate to argue against posting, it is a categoric lie for anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of the UK to state that this process has had "absolutely zero impact on anyone except the families". EDIT: I am glad that MG has clarified that this is not his opinion of the Hillsborough disaster itself. The legacy of this was far-reaching: the impact of the incident itself and the Taylor Report on sport in the UK and further afield, the demonisation of an entire city for a generation, and a demonstration of the difficulty of trying to unearth the facts when the authorities are involved, even in a democracy. —WFCFL wishlist 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Edited comments in italics, preceded by "EDIT:"WFCFL wishlist 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

    Agree with WFC. The significance of Hillsborough certainly goes beyond those families physically affected. As one commentator put it, Liverpool supporters were blamed for killing their own fans for years after the incident. And to show how the Hillsborough disaster has had reach outside the UK, a US based radio host had his show cancelled after he suggested that Liverpool fans were to blame for the deaths and Liverpool fans in the US organized a protest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The significance of the actual disaster, certainly. But the issue is the significance of this release of documents. Don't conflate the two - the nomination is for the latter. Modest Genius talk 16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that you have made that distinction. But today's announcement calls into question the Taylor Report itself, categorically refutes previously mainstream assumptions about Liverpool fans at the time (assumptions which in many quarters were made about all scousers), and openly admits to systemic problems with the British justice system with regards to incidents of this scale. —WFCFL wishlist 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose We're only talking about a release of documents? I'd rethink if the documents prove something notable, like corruption. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
164 police statements modified. 116 of them to put a more favourable slant on events? Evidence that "took the Prime Minister's breath away"? Leaky Caldron 15:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the blurb needs fixing for sure... And the update is insufficient. It's unsourced and was difficult to find in the aritcle. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Sourced now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Based on the updates to the article and lead, I'll change to weak support. It's clearly garnering lots of coverage, but the fact that it's an old incident, much like the dingo that ate her baby, prevents me from fully getting behind it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the documents do indicate that both the police and the ambulance services concocted lies and even implicates that Margaret Thatcher may have been aware of the lies. In any case, I'd support the listing at ITN, perhaps with a reword of the blurb to say that PM Cameron has issued a full apology following the release of the documents. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • CommentI think the blurb needs to be modified to more accurately reflect the significance here, including the reaction of the British PM. The nominated blurb currently only mentions the release of documents, which many editors are perhaps validly opposing as not notable enough. Can someone suggest a wording which better reflects the aftermath?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Reply That is something I've just mentioned in my further nominator's comments. I'm open to suggestions. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment David Cameron already issued one apology in 2010. So this is a second apology about a slightly different aspect. Modest Genius talk 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you cite that so we can compare with what he said today? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That apology came before these documents were made public. He wouldn't have known about the police re-writing statements, about an MP briefing news agencies with false information or Sheffield Council knowing the ground failed health and safety regulations but allowed the game to go ahead. His apology now should be seen in the new context. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so the "slightly different aspect" is the police service fabricating statements, the ambulance service fabricating statements, the local council being negligent, the fact 40+ people could have been saved if the services had been better prepared and the 23 years the families had to wait for an unreserved statement of regret? Modest Genius, can you confirm? Is that the "slightly different aspect" you're referring to, or is there something else? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - the reports has major implications which could see overturning of inquest verdicts and prosecutions of those involved. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending article update and blurb re-write - The article has no mention in the lede of the report and what it means, and just a few lines for an update far down towards the end. There should be a solid, fleshed-out section, a quality mention of this in the lede, and a blurb that briefly indicates just what kind of malfeasance occurred. Then it's ready to post. It's a big story and worthy of ITN. Jusdafax 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This has now been done. —WFCFL wishlist 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support Frankly, one of the biggest stories in the UK for months. The fact that there has clearly been massive corruption by the British police (apparently admired around the world) is huge news. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Prime Minister apologising for state cover-up into the circumstances of the deaths of 96 people is a highly important news event. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't marked as ready due to the contentiousness of someone supportive of a nomination doing so, but the update is certainly there now. —WFCFL wishlist 19:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    I think if we could revisit the blurb (e.g. British Prime Minister David Cameron apologies following the release of the HIP's report) then we have a genuine good-to-go ITN, despite the early "this is trivial", "this is silly" etc comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    It's almost there, but I can't figure out a concise, accurate way of referring to the cover-up. That is the real news here. —WFCFL wishlist 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    "British Prime Minister David Cameron apologises on behalf of the country for the mishandling of the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster following an independent report citing police [corruption]"? (Where corruption should be reworded to reflect the fact that the police just covered their arses by fabricating a bunch of stuff... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Some of the comments above are quite unbelievable. One of the biggest cover-ups in Modern British history has been exposed, dominating all news coverage and people are marking it down as "silly season" coverage or a "non-event"? I genuinely cannot work out if this just ignorance of the story or deliberately trying to antagonise others? I totally understand if this has not hit headlines outside the UK but this is from UK contributors! Anyway, back to the story, a huge scandal dominating the UK news and i would presume of significance outside the UK too, so strong support Rcclh (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Nothing significant on international level.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 23:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Factually incorrect, as demonstrated elsewhere in this section. —WFCFL wishlist 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. If this in fact leads to convictions, then I would support. SpencerT♦C 02:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While the report and its findings not trivial, it doesn't quite qualify as notable. The apology on its own is definitely not notable. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, lack of international significance. Nsk92 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    Don't confuse your own ignorance with insignificance. It's been reported in the New York Times [32], it's also news in Australia [33]. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Merely a continuation of an ongoing investigation; most of this was already known. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Factually incorrect, as demonstrated elsewhere in this section. —WFCFL wishlist 08:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No Consensus I have to agree, I don't see consensus here. Is there any startling new revelation? That would be newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
A Conservative MP passed on fake information to the press, the police changed over 200 statements to their advantage, that sort of thing. I say that's newsworthy. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

From the article:

"On 12 September 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel[38] reached a conclusion that no Liverpool fans were responsible in any way for the disaster, and that the main cause of the disaster was a "lack of police control". Subsequent apologies were released by Prime Minister David Cameron on behalf of the government,[39] Ed Miliband on behalf of the opposition,[40] Sheffield Wednesday Football Club, South Yorkshire Police, and former editor of The Sun, Kelvin McKenzie, who apologised for writing the headline "The Truth".[41] McKenzie said he should have instead written headline that read "The Lies", although this apology was widely discredited by the Hillsborough Family Support Group and Liverpool fans all over the country, as it was seen to be "shifting the blame once again."[41] Amongst the main findings in the Report, it was concluded that the safety of the crowd was "compromised at every level" and overcrowding issues had been recorded two years earlier. The paperwork suggested that the then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, Irvine Patnick, may have, in good faith, passed on inaccurate or untrue information from the police to the press.[42] The Panel concluded that "up to 41" of the ninety-six who perished may have survived had the emergency services' reactions and co-ordination been improved.[43] The panel found that South Yorkshire Police and other emergency services had made a "strenuous attempt" to deflect the blame for the tragedy from them and onto the Liverpool supporters. 164 witness statements were amended, 116 of them removing statements which were unfavourable to South Yorkshire Police. In addition police carried out blood alcohol readings of the victims, some of them children, and ran computer check on the national police database in an attempt to "impugn their reputation".[44] Labour MP for the Leigh constituency in Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, a former Secretary of State for Health, led the campaign for a full inquiry, promising to find results in 2011.[45] He thanked the Prime Minister "for every single word" of his statement to the Commons.[46]"

doktorb wordsdeeds 06:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Apologies for what may seem as provocative language, but I hope those reading this will at least accept that I have not tried to play down the seriousness of the Penn State incident. Have I correctly understood the status quo here? If it involves America, a cover up within a school of one person of mid-level notability kiddy fiddling is worthy of plastering over the Main Page. If it involves Britain, a systemic cover up of 41 preventable deaths by politicians, police and the media (who had previously demonised an entire city), publicly recognised after decades of denial by people at the very top of all of the relevant fields, is not notable? It's not my intention to play the race card here, but I truly cannot understand the disparity. —WFCFL wishlist 07:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Hillsborough-specific responses should be posted here, but I have started a related, general discussion on this subject at my talk page. I welcome all thoughts, regardless of your nationality, views on this story etc. —WFCFL wishlist 10:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and get on with it. Old news is stale. This should be on the main page today. Should have been on yesterday. State authorities having been found to have conspired to hide their causing of 96 deaths in a western democracy is big big news. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am marking this 'ready' again as it was so marked previously and I see no explanation of why the ready tag was removed and the article is clearly updated. The !vote count is now at 14-9 plus nominator FWIW.

  • Further comment. Unfortunately, few of the comments here reflect the primary purpose of this project--to link to quality articles about topics in the news which have been substantially updated. The article Hillsborough disaster is a fine article, rated 'B class'. The update is extremely substantial, comprising 7 referenced paragraphs. That is well above our normal update requirement or the normal size of the updates we post. I am neither a Brit nor a Liverpool fan (my relevant biases can be found on my user page) and while the international interest here is debatable, this is clearly of interest to our UK readers at least and most likely to readers interested in football, the most popular sport in the world, and we have excellent Wikipedia content to show off.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of someone trying to make head or tail of the consensus, can I point out that the report only entered into the public domain yesterday afternoon (UTC), that the prime minister's statement took place between 11:35 UTC and 12:50 UTC, and that the apologies from other organisations came in the subsequent hours. It's not for me to say whether those opposed would still oppose, but three or four of the opposes were made before the impact of this report and the apologies would have been evident. —WFCFL wishlist 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • A number of the opposes are completely vacuous, containing no sensible counter-argument whatsoever. Not liking a nomination is not a valid reason to oppose posting details of the biggest "cover up" by public bodies in history. Leaky Caldron 15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to thank everyone who's worked on the article since the news was made public yesterday. Maybe if I'd waited until the afternoon the nomination would have had more chance to succeed? In any case I can't think of anything else I could add to sway people either way, so I guess it's up to a passing admin now to decide. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • further news South Yorkshire Police is reopening investigations into the force's conduct.BBC--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a reason why a run-of-the-mill election has been posted while this nomination languishes unposted? Can an uninvolved admin please quickly take a look here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - In case there's any doubt as to the amount of interest in this topic it had nearly 250,000 page views yesterday While I'm glad that something like the Chess Olympiad made ITN it seems absurd that "biggest cover up in history" is ignored.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but suggest alternative blurb. Neither David Cameron nor any other individual apologiser seems to me to have been a central focus of the story. How about:
An independent report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds that police and emergency services failed in their duty and manipulated evidence to blame the victims.
Formerip (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Any objections to this blurb? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Gah, I don't want to stop this being published in a timely manner but I think the global significance would be drastically enhanced if we can include the fact that David Cameron apologised on behalf the British Government somehow. That's epic and gives gravitas to this story (beyond the obvious heinous lies of the emergency services and police)... An independent report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds that police and emergency services failed in their duty and manipulated evidence to blame the victim, resulting in an apology from Prime Minister David Cameron. ? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you BorqQueen. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for posting. Needs to be victims - plural. Can you modify? Thanks. Leaky Caldron 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Absurd blurb From the length of this blurb: An independent panel investigating the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds that police and emergency services failed in their duties and manipulated evidence to blame the victims, prompting an apology from British Prime Minister David Cameron, this is apparently the most important, or confusing, isssue ever posted to ITN. Shorten it please. This: British Prime Minister David Cameron apologises after an independent panel on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds negligent police and emergency services manipulated evidence to blame the victims would make a good start. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Leave off the final, "prompting an apology" ending. It's quite political actually to highlight "David Cameron", how about the response from the opposition parties? Best left off which helps with shortening the blurb. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope, part of the impact is that a world leader (and a reasonably prominent one at that) apologises for all this cover up. The opposition parties' view etc is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

September 11Edit

[Posted] Egyptians attack US embassyEdit

Article: September 11 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Egypt and Libya, U.S. diplomatic missions are attacked, causing four deaths in Libya including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. (Post)
News source(s): Huffington Post, ABC, CBS, Daily Beast, CNN, BBC, Jerusalem Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: before shouts of ZOMG US BIAS, consider the significance of this event - thousands of Egyptians protesting against an Egyptian ally and country that donates aid and enjoys friendly relations, but whose ties have been in the air following the Egyptian revolution. The implications of such an attack on the embassy of a foreign country can be huge.

There's no surprise this is a top story... --Activism1234 22:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Is there an article for the film? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - What film? An article on the protests would have to be created. Not sure what's up with this yet. Protesters are enraged about a movie, but we are not sure which one? That's murky. No deaths or injuries yet. No doubt that it is in the news... but for how long? Possible that this could blow over... so I for one am standing by on this nomination. Jusdafax 23:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That's the silly part about the whole attack... I think it's clear that the film was a pretext to protest, you or I probably wouldn't attack an embassy because civilians in that embassy's country are making a film... But 3000 people getting riled up over this could have far-reaching effects in regards to Egypt-US relations and Middle Eastern affairs as a whole. --Activism1234 23:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • So We have about two dozen guys with bandanas on a wall protesting a film? Sounds more like a publicity event than anything else. Is there any source that shows this as a general uprising? μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Two dozen, correct. Plus about an extra 2,976... --Activism1234 23:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
A source that backs you up might change my vote (although even 3,000 protestors is nothing for the NJEA). μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Here. Al Jazeera also makes a connection between 9/11 anniversary and the attack. Yes, scaling an embassy, tearing down a flag in mass numbers isn't cause for bombing, and may lead to no difference in relations, but embassies are a very touchy subject, look at the whole Julian Assange item with England and Ecuador.
      • The filmmaker's name is Morris Sadek, an Egyptian Copt who resides in the USA and has had his Egyptian citizenship pulled. There are some articles about this, which happened last year. [34] It seems he made a film that has a trailer on YouTube that someone recently dubbed into Egyptian. Sadek has no Wikipedia entry and appears to be fairly unknown to date. Here [35] is what the New York Times says is a link to the YouTube trailer for the "Muhammad Movie." And here is the NYT article [36] Jusdafax 23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that's good info. But it's not the notability of this movie producer the nomination is about, but rather the attack on the embassy itself, which was a result of this movie, regardless of who made it. --Activism1234 23:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
          • There's no doubt that two or three thousand protesters gathered outside the embassy walls and that a couple dozen climbed over and tore down and burned an American flag. "Attack" is a media buzzword in the headlines, but it appears that aside from the flag, no property was destroyed and no one was hurt. So we are left with the protesters who, it appears, have all left the embassy grounds. How many remain outside the walls overnight is unclear. I hesitate to cast a !vote on this as it stands. But there is no doubt it is in the news, no doubt at all. Which leads us back to the question... which article, if any, to link to, or does a new one get created? Jusdafax 00:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on what Jusdafax has said, assuming it is accurate, and assuming Obama doesn't take this as an act of war and start bombing--it's just posing by the brotherhood and, with my general opposition to all protests and conferences, not something we need to encourage. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Important note - changing blurb to reflect that a member of the embassy in Libya died as a result of the attack (will reflect protests there as well). Also note here, they threw bombs and there were gunmen, which is pretty much an attack, and not just media sensationalism. In my view, the fact someone was killed out of this event makes it even more significant, not because it's 1 death, but because it's 1 death in international affairs with a world superpower. However, blurb could probably be rewritten to focus on details of the attacks, and I'm open to suggestions. --Activism1234 00:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - While an embassy being stormed by 3,000 protestors certainly seems significant, the embassy was evacuated prior to the "attack" there appears to be no major damage or injuries, and the crowd has largely dispersed. The US consulate in Benghazi, however, was actually attacked by an armed mob who fired RPGs at the building and set fire to it. According to the Libyan gov, "There are fierce clashes between the Libyan army and an armed militia outside the US consulate" and "One American staff member has died and a number have been injured in the clashes". The two events in conjunction seem significant enough to post. Swarm X 00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This could develop into something bigger, but for now this is a simple pair of protests. Larger protests take place across the world all the time with multiple casualties. Activism's argument of "1 death in international affairs with a world superpower" seems weak to me; we don't post casualties in US wars, and I don't think we posted the Afghan police shootings. I really do think that even though this did take place in embassies, it is being overblown by the media, partly because of... US bias. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is on the front page of both the English and Arabic versions of Al Jazeera because of US bias. Totally. This story is borderline at best for ITN, but chalking it down to US bias? Give me a break. Swarm X 01:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • US bias isn't only in American sources, as proven by your links. I also note that this is a regional story for Al-Jazeera, taking place in two North-African predominantly Muslim countries, so it is probably because of that that it's the number one story right now. Anyway, it's also been a slow news day, so for these three reasons, mostly the second, I'm not surprised that it is on the front page of Al-Jazeera. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, so Al Jazeera, a Middle Eastern company repeatedly accused of being anti-American is actually biased towards the US...because you say so. Yup. Totally makes sense if you don't think about it. Swarm X 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, they're certainly biased toward reporting on the US. —Kerfuffler 03:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, my main argument was that they are biased towards predominantly Islamic countries, although I do think that they are biased towards reporting on the US also. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now unless this escalates into something bigger. As far as protests for misrepresentations of Islam go, this was somewhat tame. SpencerT♦C 01:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the first time an organised group to lunch attack on embassy in a country and far from one that brings something to raise concerns. We have never posted similar news with no indication on its notability. What makes it really notable? The attack on the "US embassy"? The nearly "3000 people" and the "death of an official"? The suspected but not proved "terrorist attack"? The event happening in Egypt when the country is "politically not stable"? Or the media coverage that is "pretty low"?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
We posted the israel embassy attack in cairo last year (granted it was more unstable then). Although the more notable event is in libyaLihaas (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The burning and destruction of the embassy in Benghazi, Libya with a death involved is notable and approaches ITN-worthiness if only for the undeniable irony that the US was instrumental in the regime change and death of Ghaddafi, and the embassy burned was, according to CBS, the center of the US-backed resistance movement. CBS, by the way [37] says the filmmaker is one Sam Bacile of California, and Sadek is promoting it. I've gone from dubious to slowly accepting on this story which could change quickly and expand as the day continues in the Middle East. Is there an article yet? Also the blurb is confusing. Jusdafax 05:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that it was the consulate, the embassy is in tripoli.Lihaas (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Dammit, just came to post this.
Dunno why the ambassador is based in benghazi.Ambassador happened to be visiting Benghazi. Two of his security personnel were killed and oanother staffer, with 2 injuies. Anyhoo, this is more notable now...when was the last time any ambassador was killed? Repercussions will follow (how i dont know, no real effective central govt). And the high irony is that the weapons were likely from the US/france. Christopher Stevens could be the article, or a seperate 2012 attack on U.S. consulate in Benghazi coul e made.Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support according to Reuters, US ambassador to Libya has been killed in this attack. --Tachfin (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
update created September 11 2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks in very stub form, someone can update. Also the link Christopher Stevens goes to some non-notable person, thsi ccan/should change to the ambassador.Lihaas (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Strong support for.... this article being posted as soon as its ready with the text about the death of the US ambassador. This is a massive story now and totally noteworthy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with a re-drafted blurb to put the murder of the ambassador first. This is extremely serious stuff, currently making headlines around the world. And we desperately need a bio for the ambassador. (Related topic: is there a WikiProject for biographies of diplomats?) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with correct article(s) linked This is a fast developing event, as can be proven by the need to create a new article whilst updating the initial one. It's clearly worthy for the front page as a story, but the blurb should point to the correct article(s), decided upon here or elsewhere doktorb wordsdeeds 10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support with the ambassador's death now. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support With the ambassador dying, this story has become big news. Giants27(T|C) 11:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
comment updated and marked ready.Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support Even without the ambassador dying, the violation of an embassy is major news. This is even more so. Excellent article. --IP98 (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thx, just 2 question for the page. 1. which base in germany (im guessign Ramstein but no source), and 2. what should we add for "Weapons" in egypt.Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be delib erate, Its uncertain at th emoment if its smoke inhalation or otherwise. Even if the car was shot, it may have not deliberately targeted him as ambassador.Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Which goes to show that this information is still too raw, and as something that pretends to be an encyclopedia, we should have taken more time to get the facts straight before posting it. WP:NOT#NEWS. —Kerfuffler 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm normally vigilant on trivial news items being made into articles. This is a situation that has been brewing for 24 hr+ and has escalated into an international issue due to the deaths of the US embassy staff. The event is clearly now notable - per EVENT having an article on it makes sense, but it will take time for all the information validity to wash out, such as how exactly the ambassador died. As long as our blurb reflect the lower-common denominator - that 4 US embassy staff died - and not the hows or the whys that are unclear, we're fine. This is the type of coverage that Jimmy Wales has praised us for in the past even if it is fast-changing and developing. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep. It's good that we didn't change it to assassination as it turned out he died due to suffocation. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The current blurb says the Arab world, which is inaccurate. Violence happened in parts of the Arab world + other countries such as India. I suggest "Arab world" is changed to "several countries" or at least add "parts of" before. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
    The nature of the attack in Chennai is not yet clear, and isn't even mentioned in the article. I don't agree that it's necessary to use a broad phrase like "several countries" in order to encompass minor attacks that, as of now, haven't contributed to the death toll mentioned in the proceeding phrase. Now, "parts of the Arab world" vs. "Arab world"? What exactly is the difference? When someone says that ten people are killed in tornadoes in France, no one believes the entire country was engulfed in tornadoes. I sense that your objection is primarily due to a desire to downplay the widespread nature of the protests and attacks now. That being said, I think there needs to be a reevaluation of the article title and the blurb, as they focus solely on the attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions, while the article and the story talks about the protests on the KFC in Lebanon and the protests outside embassies of various western countries. -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The main problem I see currently is that the blurb (and article) are mixing violent attacks on embassies with protests. I'll address this in article talk. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the description of the incident should be broaden or elaborated as protests are occurring across the world and only a minority of embassy and consulates are being attacked, as this is quickly becoming a global event, the protests are notable enough for ITN. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • even a current US ambassador's death is not important enough to make ITN? Protests in that part of the world are common enough, but the death of an ambassador is the real news here. Why was it changed? Where was the discussion to change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

September 10Edit

Proof of the abc conjecture announcedEdit

Could do with some more clear info on what has changed since the last nom. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Original research is not suitable to be announced on Wikipedia until the result has been indepedently confirmed. Quoting the linked article in short: "Many mathematicians have expended a great deal of effort trying to prove the conjecture. In 2007, French mathematician Lucien Szpiro, ... claimed to have a proof of it, but it was soon found to be flawed. He [Mochizuki] has developed techniques that very few other mathematicians fully understand ... 'At this point, he is probably the only one that knows it all.' ... The work 'uses a huge number of insights that are going to take a long time to be digested by the community'". It's a claimed proof by a mathematician to a problem that others have failed before. I've seen enough of claimed P=NP proofs rejected in my time to be very skeptical until this has been properly reviewed by other mathematicians. --hydrox (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Judging by that, I would say nothing substantial has happened since the last nomination of this was solidly rejected...--Τασουλα (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Link to previous discussion: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/September_2012#Proof_of_the_abc_conjecture_announced --hydrox (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: Totally agreed that we need it verified first, and this should not have been brought up again given that nothing further has happened (or at least been announced). It's just promotional. WP does not need to the @math Twitter feed. —Kerfuffler 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close: Nothing to see here. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is trivia at its most trivial. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • To be fair, it will be a Big Deal in computer science if it pans out. But given how many similar claims have been made in the past, there should be little confidence of this proof surviving. —Kerfuffler 18:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close - There isn't even one reliable source for the accuracy of this proof; it hasn't been peer-reviewed. It seems like this was only nominated for the first time the other day. Let's cut this short. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I know I shouldn't really be bringing this up, but the anon probably has a COI on this issue or something. It just sounds odd that they would nominate it like this twice. --Τασουλα (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • But you brought it up anyways. ;) The IPs in question are and Both are from ISP [TalkTalk Group] in UK. The fellow who proposed the proof is from Japan. I do not know who in the UK would benifit from promoting this article. Maybe the guy just loves math. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Chill This is a major development, and it did go from some guy's blog to a blog hosted by Nature, for god sakes. Yes, it needs to wait until the proof itself is published under peer-review. But acting as if this nom is in bad faith and accusing the IP of malfeasance is really out of bounds, and calling this trivia is just plain ignorant, and a horrible reason to oppose. What's next, is the IP going to be called a Nazi? There's no need to make this into a conspiracy mongering hatefest. Just oppose on the simple grounds that it has not yet been peer-reviewed. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

By invoking *that law* you are all but invalidating your point. This nomination failed once, and has come back without almost no improvements, no further evidence in its favour, no positive argument, no persuasive argument, nothing. If you want to insult contributing editors by referring to *that law* then that's your choice, but it does nothing to add credibility to the nomination or your argument. As it stands, all we have is an abstract theory and a seriously below-par article. It's not important enough, notable enough, interesting enough, peer reviewed, or at the right height of standard article-wise. I'd suggest you'd need to chill, too. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You are sorely mistaken if you think I think arguing with you helps the project. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I would agree it certainly isn't trivial. Just nothing has changed since the last nomination...and no, I don't thin the IP has acted in bad-faith, the COI thing wasn't supposed to mean anything. I was just curious dear ^.~ --Τασουλα (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Medeis, I would strongly advise you to chill, and not go dropping alarming references to Nazis into a discussion of mathematics. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's only natural that Godwin's law comes into play. By rule of the Interwebs, the invocation of Nazis means oppose and close – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I know that. I meant that Medeis (a) falls foul of the well-known corollary to Godwin's Law (which is mentioned in our article), that mentioning Nazis in order to shut down a discussion by invoking the law doesn't work, and (b) actually served to escalate this discussion by posting a relatively long, strongly-worded response. I reiterate: until the proof is peer-reviewed, this is not a story. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

September 9Edit

[Posted] US OpenEdit

Article: 2012 US Open (tennis) (talk, history)
Blurb: Andy Murray wins the Men's Singles at the US Open while Serena Williams wins the Women's Singles. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN (Women's)

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.

 Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Post Serena now when article is updated; update blurb when Jokavic wins.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Joka-who? Lugnuts And the horse 08:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah the joke's on me. Good thing I didn't put money on it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. Wait until mens is finished. It's tomorrow, no reason to rush. Needs update no prose. --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I oppose all trivia in the blurb. Oppose mentioning first Brit, oppose mentioning williams' number of wins. --IP98 (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added a prose update covering the women's singles final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when the men's final is over. Wait for now.Meets ITNR.Regards, theTigerKing  17:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    Why wait? We have a winner now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    Hold your horses.Still two hours to go before the match begins.Regards, theTigerKing  17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Support when results are in Per ITN/R. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
We have usually posted the women's events first, and then added the men's. I trust when the blurb is posted, it will be without the redundant capitals in the current proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • all the results :) --Τασουλα (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Provided the right man wins, of course. Formerip (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    If Murray wins can we add something in the blurb like 'first Briton to win a grand slam in xx years? Seems somewhat significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Murray has no run away at match point. Pity Djokovic gave it away..
Its done, but oppose the trivial addition of "first ABriton" to ITN, itll be on the page.Lihaas (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be no mention of him being the first Briton to win for 76 years, it's a side thing and a little trivial. Also, for the sake of raging nationalists it's best to keep any mention of his nationality off the front page I should warn. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree that nationality should not feature (it doesn't normally). And another reason for not posting the "first British since..." bits is that he is not the first British GS winner in x years (that would probably be Virginia Wade), nor even the first British male GS winner in 76 years (that would be various doubles winners, including his brother a few years ago in the mixed doubles and Jonathan Marray only a few months ago in the men's doubles). Andy Murray is the first British male singles Grand Slam title winner in 76 years, but the qualifiers 'male' and 'singles' are important. But this is all irrelevant, as I've said below that only a 'normal' ITN posting is needed here. But I thought it worth pointing out in case someone suggested something and got it wrong (as above). Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (if updates are sufficient). Also agree that a normal posting is all that's needed here. No need to emphasise the various records/duration-since-last-winner elements for either Williams or Murray. And agree with dropping the unnecessary capitals in the blurb - suggest following the wording used in previous tennis Grand Slam ITN items. Oh, and well done Andy! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As a non-Brit I support mentioning the nationality as I said above. I think it's pretty significant that a country that hosts a grand slam event and gave the world tennis in its modern form has had its first mens' major winner in over 70 years. It's just a guess but I imagine that in a year that's been pretty successful for British sport this will be one of the more significant British sporting moments in decades. It's a nice factoid to add as a hook to the blurb. I suppose it might be pretty hard to be concise though with both the mens and womens winners to mention.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • As I said above, if you are going to suggest this, please get it right (finding a source would probably help you get it right). You added 'men's', but missed out 'singles' in what you said. i.e. it should be stated as the first British winner of a male singles Grand Slam tennis title (not 'major') for 76 years. But it is precisely because you need the qualifiers 'male' and 'singles' that it is difficult to keep this concise enough. The alternative would be to split up the two, and expand the entry on Serena Wiliams, as her achievements establish several records (see her article), helping to cement her place as one of the greats of the women's game. I suspect, though, that by the time this is all sorted out, someone will have posted the simple "X and Y win" entry. If people want something different from the ordinary ITN/R postings, then you need to plan ahead and get consensus here ahead of time. Oh, and the reason posting the nationality would be a bad idea is that it could lead to a squabble over British/Scottish... (silly, but very likely). Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Here's the thing: The only ITN worthy news is the tournament final itself. Not the greatest Briton in 70 odd years thing. It's never the norm to post stuff like this along with the regular blurb anyway, it's that...uncomplicated folks! And sadly that is likely, anyone who quickly scans the page history will know that :( --Τασουλα (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree 100% (and have said so twice above already). I'm merely trying to make sure that inaccuracies don't get posted (even if it is vanishingly unlikely such 'extended' entries will be posted anyway). I could have not corrected Johnsemlak, but thought it safest to do so anyway. It would have been quicker to post the entry to ITN, but I think someone should rustle up a picture first. Of Andy, of course! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm aware of the qualifiers that are necessary and just not looking them the precise durations involved; of course I agree the blurb must be factually accurate. I don't think there's consensus to post the nationality so I'm not sure it's worth much discussion for now; but I maintain I think it will be a very significant result. The BBC called it 'historic'. Of course they're flagwaving but here there's a substantive reason to do so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
            • You could look up Djokovic's first Grand Slam win and see if his nationality was mentioned on ITN back then. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
              • Not sure about tennis, but I know that when Bradley Wiggins won the Tour de France this year we mentioned he was the first Brit and we did the same thing with Cadel Evans (first Australian) the year before. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Women's final has a prose update (here); men's final needs a prose update. SpencerT♦C 06:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support without mentioning Britain's first X. However, I was wondering if there would be any way to word it something like: At the US Open Andy Murray wins the Men's Singles, his first Grand Slam victory, while Serena Williams wins her 30th Grand Slam title (or 15th singles title if you prefer) in the Women's Singles. (possibly not the best wording). Both numbers seem somewhat significant to me, and it is a compromise instead of invoking the nationalities. Just a thought.--23230 talk 08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's a relevant event. Newinhere (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added an update to the Men's singles final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 16:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nigeria floodingEdit

Article: 2012 Nigeria floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Flooding in Nigeria kills 137 people and displaces over 120,000 other people. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, MSCNBC, Yahoo

 --Activism1234 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support': Obviously major news in Nigeria and to the global relief/aid community (such as me!). This coupled with the massive amount of Boko Haram attacks in recent months...not having a good time. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Question - should a new article be created for this, or is there an existing article we can update? Feel free to create and update on your own if you'd like. --Activism1234 21:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support when a new article is created. ComputerJA (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Pending Article Creation Huge natural disaster. Definitely ITN worthy, but not until its own article is created. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 22:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Article created - I've created the article and I am working on it. I have made a list of many references to use on the talk page - I've got to go for now, so feel free to update the article with them. --Activism1234 23:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Obviously a major natural disaster, but the article doesn't seem to be ready--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 00:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Event and article is stale, as these events occured in July and August. No longer "in the news', as I define it. Jusdafax 01:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Article is being updated to include the events of last day, which so far have killed 137 people and uprooted over 120,000. --Activism1234 01:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jusdafax, and suggest WP:DYK. Unless I'm mistaken, the only recent development is the announcement of the latest death and displacement figures—incidentally, the sources indicate a figure of 36,331 displaced persons, not 120,000. The Reuters report states: "Floods across Nigeria have killed 137 people and displaced more than 30,000 since the beginning of July, the local Red Cross said on Sunday." (emphasis added) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, a major natural disaster. The article has been created and can be expanded.Egeymi (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing event. Death-toll is high.Regards, theTigerKing  17:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is this item marked "ready"? Putting aside, for a moment, the question of whether it should be featured at all, neither the article nor the blurb are suitable for posting. The figure of 120,000 displaced persons is not supported by any of the sources and the article contains no recent update. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I concur, and have removed the ready tag. The item may be significant, and a proper article and update may be appropriate for posting, but I as well have serious concerns over the state of the article. If these were fixed, I could support as well, but merely being a significant event should not excuse an article in this state. If this needs to be on the main page, it needs fixing up. --Jayron32 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: No update for any flooding occurring in September. If there is notable, recent flooding, please update, but otherwise, I would suggest DYK if eligible. SpencerT♦C 06:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 40th Chess OlympiadEdit

Article: 40th Chess Olympiad (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 40th Chess Olympiad concludes with Armenia winning the open and Russia winning the women's section of the tournament. (Post)
News source(s): Tournament's official website

 Երևանցի talk 15:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per ITNR. Currently I'm working on the update. The article will be ready in less than an hour.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I also support a different wording in the blurb mentioning the conclusion of the women's tournament as well. Something like "The 40th Chess Olympiad concludes with Armenia winning the open and Russia winning the women's section of the tournament." sounds better. The same blurb was used when we posted it two years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: I love chess. Oh wait. Premier chess tournament isn't it? So yes!!! --Τασουλα (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Listed on WP:ITN/R. ComputerJA (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just completed the update of the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I could add that this was definitely posted last year. I remember! --Τασουλα (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It was posted last time, but it was in 2010.:)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It's a memory game is it? :P well, I don't think I even knew ITN/C existed back then...I think I may of been a mere IP making small edits back then. If I remember correctly, it's always Eastern Europe that has the great success. Keh. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
          • The game is popular worldwide and record 157 countries fielded their own national teams at this Olympiad. However, it's true that the countries from Eastern Europe usually achieve the best results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready Seems that we've already reached a consensus, the article is updated, and if no further objection is given, the nomination should be marked as ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support adding biased support. Bi-annual international sporting event; this year with 159(!) countries entering a team. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - per above reasons. --Activism1234 19:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Tariq al-HashimiEdit

Article: Tariq al-Hashimi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fugitive Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi is sentenced in absentia by a Baghdad court to death for his involvement in murder of two people. (Post)
News source(s): (CNN)(The Hufftington Post)(Reuters)

 Egeymi (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - it's not every day a vice-president gets put in jail, and when you consider that's in Iraq, the implications can be huge. It's top news story on a variety of outlets as well. --Activism1234 15:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It should ne noted that the article's subject is sentenced to death and is currently a fugitive (as now noted in the blurb) and is in Turkey. He appears unlikely to be returned, and is not in jail nor likely to be as far as I can tell. Jusdafax 16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support on the condition we change "former" to "fugitive" in the blurb--he had not left office when he fled. Also, the lead doesn't even mention the death sentence. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for suggestion, since the term "former" was completely misleading. I corrected it.Egeymi (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Activism. It is a important story also we can use BBC.--Reality 16:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. 1) "two deaths" is rather minor. The article is missing an important piece: who was killed and when? If he was coordinating attacks while serving as VP then I can support. He left office in May, and the warrant was issued in December. 2) Per WT:ITN we don't post until the appeals process is complete, so I guess we have to wait until he comes out of hiding to appeal his conviction. Comment this will probably go up, so please include "in absentia" in the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment how influential is vice president's office in Iraq?--Երևանցի talk 16:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    The most important thing here is not that he is a vice president, but that he is the leader of the Sunnis in government. al-Maliki Seems to be running a purge of all non-Shias using stuff like this. So this is very notable as part of the control battle. Thue (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to above: Pretty much irrelevant in that case, as he's a former vice pres. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article, rightly or wrongly, is rated in the "stub" class. I won't go into details just yet, but I see some possible BLP disputes in the article, and if it is put on the front page as it appears as of my posting, there could be issues. Strongly suggest anyone thinking of making a !vote here take a careful look at the article. Jusdafax 16:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Pending a sufficient update. Also per Activism, and I hope what Medeis has mentioned has been addressed! --Τασουλα (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Top story in various media outlets, including Spanish-language websites. ComputerJA (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems to be a part of the Sunni-Shia battle for control of the power in Iraq's government. From the context of what seems to be a systematic purge by al-Maliki, it is probably made-up charges, but who knows. In any case very notable, more from al-Hashimi being the leader of the Sunni fraction than from him being the Vice President. Thue (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Ready - marking as ready. --Activism1234 20:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong postmortem support — Good God Iraq, please do something about your Prime Minister ASAP. He's stoking the flames of sectarian conflict. Don't let your country descend into war yet again! Kurtis (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Shouldn't it say for "his alleged involvement"? Acoma Magic (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The standard usually is that once someone is convicted in a court of law, it has met the legal standard necessary to say that he actually committed the act he was accused of. The whole "alleged" thing is to allow news media and other reporting organizations to avoid libel accusations down the road in case the accused is exonerated in a court of law. Once they are convicted, they are legally recognized as having actually done it. A person on trial is an accused murderer or an alleged murderer. A person convicted of such at a trial is just a murderer. --Jayron32 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

September 8Edit

[Posted] Venice Film FestivalEdit

Article: 69th Venice International Film Festival (talk, history)
Blurb: South Korean director Kim Ki-duk wins the Golden Lion at the 2012 Venice Film Festival for his film Pietà. (Post)
News source(s): [38]

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

Nominator's comments: I'm not too sure which link should be bold; the director, the film, the award or the festival? --JuneGloom Talk 18:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bold the film and the festival. Lugnuts And the horse 09:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Embolden the festival itself. I'm probably leaning towards supporting this one on the main page; the Venice festival is probably #2 in the world after Cannes but unlike the awards given at that one, the Golden Lion is more of a "lifetime achievement" which sets it apart. If it's deemed that there's been too many culture or film items then this'll probably stumble though. GRAPPLE X 18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, this significant art event is an opportunity to include something different (but notable) on the main page.Egeymi (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per ITN/R. Venice is #3 after Cannes and TIFF. Conditional due to lack of prose. Boiler plate lead and a brief summary of the competition section. Maybe bold Pieta, which is a little better. --IP98 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, Venice is #2 after Cannes, with Berlin #3. Lugnuts And the horse 08:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, but regarding TIFF, Variety magazine acknowledged that "the Festival is second only to Cannes in terms of high-profile pics, stars and market activity.". Mostly I'm just making a plug for the home team :). TIFF doesn't have a "winner" so there is nothing really to post when it ends. --IP98 (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a significant event to be featured on the main page.--Երևանցի talk 22:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • FWIW it's an ITN/R item. --IP98 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per IP98. It is of global significance and recognised at ITN/R. News about arts are very rare, so it would be great for balance. Is a pitty the articles are in such sorry state. Would also unlink South Korea from the blurb as the least relevant wikilink of five. --ELEKHHT 03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    I forget, what is the current policy on linking countries/nationalities on the main page? I seem to remember a policy that nationalities are always linked. Otherwise support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support One of the big three film festivals and per ITN/R. Lugnuts And the horse 08:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No objection to the posting, but the obvious lack of unanimity in the importance of this suggests that it probably should not be at ITN/R: this seems to have gone through primarily not because it is considered important in this discussion, but because someone thought it important in a very short, scarcely commented upon nomination at itn/r. Kevin McE (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Surely the bickering about the #2/#3 ranking of the Venice festival, and a single oppose !vote, doesn't amount to a lack of consensus? Anyway, I think as per usual as with ITNR items editors may not feel a need to post support !votes. As to how Venice got on ITNR, I'm unfamiliar with the discussion that resulted in its inclusion but it may simply be that it's obviously notable as (by many accounts) the number 2 event in the international film festival calendar. There have been subsequent discussions about which festivals to include and I can't recall a suggestion to drop Venice.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Venice is also the oldest international film festival in the world. Lugnuts And the horse 18:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Summer Paralympics closing ceremonyEdit

Article: 2012_Summer_Paralympics_closing_ceremony (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The closing ceremony of the 2012 Summer Paralympics is held after 11 days in London. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: As of this writing, the closing ceremony is tomorrow, but writing it to give people the chance of updating the article to the best possible. In addition to have enough comments before it goes live. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support end of a major event with big TV impact of closing ceremony resulting in this being significant news. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 10:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
comment can we add "...after 11 days"? We can also bold that as its updated and sourced. (i made the suggestion to the blurb above)Lihaas (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose. We already posted the opening. Also articles are just tables and little prose.-- (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The opening ceremony was enough. Jusdafax 16:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

not a valid reason for opposition. Opening and closing ceremonies of the Summer Olympics 2012 were in ITN.Regards, theTigerKing  17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does that matter to why the Paralympics closing should be posted. They are two separate events, even though similar. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 03:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm interested to know under what conditions this is less ITN-worthy than the closing of the able-bodied Olympics - what's the difference? Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The opening and closing ceremonies were both posted for the regular London Olympics, so why should the paralympics not have the closing ceremonies posted? It seems a bit weird to post about an opening ceremony of an event but not about the closing ceremony of the event. Andise1 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support. We posted both the opening and closing of the Olympics so why not this? besides I don't remember we posted anything about any event during it and we did not add a sticky as well. So if I was right, then this would only the second ITN post about the Paralympics. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fact that we posted the opening and closing ceremonies of the London Olympics is of no relevance. The Summer Olympics, and the men's World Cup, are events of extreme global notability; the paralympics don't come close. We DID post the opening ceremony. We don't have a policy of posting women's events equally with men's events either. For example, we don't post the opening of the Women's World Cup. We almost never post the opening or closing of multisport events, such as the Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, Asian Games, etc. The Olympics and the World Cup are exceptions due to the level of global notability of those events. Also, 'x-event was already posted' is an extremely common rationale used here to oppose posting an event.--Johnsemlak
  • Support. No-one seems to be giving a valid reason not to post this. It's one of the world's major sporting events and the closing ceremony is likely to be major news in several English-speaking countries. Are we supposed to avoid posting out of respect to the proper Olympics or something? Formerip (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Consistency is a valid reason to oppose. We don't post both the closing and opening of the Women's World Cup, the Commonwealth Games, the Euro2012, the Pan -American games, etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN/R states that the opening ceremony for the Paralympic games is ITN/R, but not the closing ceremony. Unfortunately, the Paralympic games receives only a fraction of the worldwide attention that the Olympics gets. I've seen one story about Oscar Pistorius, who is receiving the clear majority of news coverage in these games, on the CNN and BBC headlines, but nothing else at all about Paralympics coverage. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the event itself, but I think that the opening ceremony is all that needs to be posted to ITN. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Anc, the fact that you haven't seen much coverage of the games makes it easy to guess where you live, but I don't think it tells us much else. Formerip (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Where I am from, nor where anyone else is from, means nothing to why something should or shouldn't be posted. Even on the website, I have yet to see anything besides the opening ceremony, and articles about Oscar Pistorius (who is on the front of the BBC right now, in a small headline). When the closing ceremony is held tomorrow, I would like to see how much attention it gets before I consider changing my vote. To date, the level of coverage that I have seen from US and Non-US news outlets has consisted of the opening ceremony, Pistorius claiming another runner had an unfair advantage in a race, his gold medal today, and a picture slideshow of the opening ceremony. Other than this, even from non-US news sources, there has either been hardly anything, or it was either buried underneath other stories, or about Pistorius. Here is an example to support my argument: the official Paralympic YouTube channel is one of the largest sources of live and on-demand Paralympic games coverage worldwide, with over 780 hours of coverage. Its most popular video about the 2012 games has 198.8 thousand views. This video is about the opening ceremony. The next most popular video is about Pistorius, with 153.8k views. Third is of a swimming event with 88k views, and the rest are significantly less in terms of views. The opening ceremony was deserving of ITN praise, and Pistorius has also been covered heavily, but otherwise, there hasn't been anything else. If there is a huge buzz about the ceremony tomorrow, I will consider changing my vote. In addition, while the opening ceremony for the games in 2008, and the Winter games in 2010 were posted to ITN, the closing ceremony has never been posted to ITN, and on top of this, as other users have mentioned, the article could be better.. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 01:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
FormerIP the fact that you think it's getting that much coverage worldwide probably tells me where you live. Yes, it's getting a lot of pro-British coverage on the BBC; the coverage is markedly lower elsewhere, in Russia an example I can think of .--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support (though without "is held after 11 days"). The coverage in the U.S. seems to have been anomalously low, in other countries there's been more attention, and in the UK the Paralympics has been a significant proportion of the news cycles. The Paralypics represents the premier competition for dozens of sports and has seen various records and achievements which could have even been ITN items in themselves. An ITN item for the closing seems appropriate. (Would support adding this to ITN/R for what it's worth). LukeSurl t c 22:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - as noted above, opening and closing ceremonies of Olympics were posted, I don't see why this shouldn't be posted as well. It's a significant international event watched by millions. --Activism1234 01:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was kind of neutral until I've opened the ceremony article. If it is in such a poor state I highly doubt that the ceremony itself is that notable. Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I can tell, the Paralympics don't garner the level of attention, coverage, and national comradry all around the world that the Olympics do. The Opening Ceremony was rightfully posted, but I don't think it's necessary to do the same for the closing, even if that's what we do for the Olympics. But perhaps this is something that should be decided upon after the ceremony; even if the games themselves aren't watched religiously, maybe the closing will be covered extensively. -- tariqabjotu 01:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is in poor shape, I saw no coverage of the Paralympics while it was going on, and see little coverage of the closing ceremonies now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • You comment suggest your in America(that had little coverage) and not representative of a WP:WORLDVIEW. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 11:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I see no evidence that it received world-wide coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support We posted the opening ceremony, it seems reasonable to post the closing ceromony too. ITNR does not serve to limit what can be posting, only clarify what should be posted Quantumsilverfish (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, the London Olympics' opening and closing ceremonies were posted, but I believe this should be treated case-by-case. The closing ceremony did not receive a lot of coverage, so I don't think it should be posted. ComputerJA (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The closing ceremony hasn't actually happened yet, it is premature to judge how much coverage it will receive using the past tense. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Ditto, the news is already on al jazeera, btw and in the next 12 hours will likely be higher, but well see.
  • Oppose: although there has been blanket coverage of any event in which UK athletes have had a chance here, global profile is many notches lower than that of the Olympics, and arguments based on equal rights or the notion that posting the opening ceremony demands posting the closing ceremony are validated by neither practice on ITN nor purpose of the template. The 2012 Paralympics article has had only minor tweaking since we featured it 11 days ago, with the medal table and the controversiesLihaas (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC) section as the only substantive additions. If posted: The "chronological summary" linked under the Easter Egg of after 11 days (which, if retained, needs to be expanded: what 11 days?) is by no means a chronological summary: it is simply a list of gold medallists, with virtually no prose. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well its th e same title as the 2012 games that you updated but never had objection too. Format is the same tooLihaas (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The format is (or was) the same, but the total lack of prose content means that it can't be described as a chronological summary. Kevin McE (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Unfortunately, this didn't receive very much press coverage or public interest in the UK. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    This being what? The Paralympics or the Closing Ceremony? Because that latter has not yet happened. -- tariqabjotu 12:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Considering I am watching it right now, I think you know the answer. Also, nice to see you still stalking me. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      Responding to your post is not stalking.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not much press coverage or public interest in the UK? Do you live in a shed or something? Here are the UK front pages the day after the opening ceremony. As you can see, it takes up the whole of the front page of the Mail, Mirror, Evening Standard, i, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Sun and Times. You can also flick through the site, and you'll see that the paralympics have received wall-to-wall front page coverage in the UK throughout the time they have been happenning.
    • Yeah, the coverage in the UK has been very high across TV and press. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 11:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It's fair to say that other countries have not matched the extent of the this coverage but, looking at today's papers, you can see that the Paralympics make the front page of both main Irish newspapers [39], around half of the South African newspapers