Arctic & oil

ExxonMobil and OAO Rosneft reach a deal which may reach $500 billion in projects in the Arctic.

An article would be required. Significant development for the Arctic, I'd say. And we're running red with the timer. --Tone 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, large business deal. --Kslotte (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support pending a well-referenced article. Massive economic and environmental significance. Deterence ^Talk 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as there is nothing to support ! Mtking ^(edits) 22:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody would write an article I would support just to give us something to post. Three nominations in the last 4 days, and two of them don't even have articles... There must be something going on in the world! Modest Genius ^talk 00:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pretty quiet, now that I think of it. The Wikileaks ordeal and Libya is all I'm hearing as of lately. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How about these two? (Note Beagel (talk · contribs) also deserves credit on the East-Prinovozemelsky field one) Suggest a blurb of Rosneft and ExxonMobil establish a $3.2 billion joint venture to develop Arctic and Black Sea oil fields or something vaguely along those lines (I don't particularly like the way the links to the two field articles are linked behind entirely different words). The Arctic field article is better, so I bolded that one. I put together the Black Sea article in a hurry, but if someone expands it further they could both get bolded. C628 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jawad al-Sheikh

Nominator's comments: Here is a picture of his corpse (warning: graphic). I think his story is similar to Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Saeed and Hamza Al-Khateeb -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We have not posted any of the above. Besides, we even don't have an article. --Tone 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, We failed to do so due to the fact the articles were written after the window to post them passed. as for you other point, you did nominate "Arctic & oil" to be in ITN even tho it doesnt have an article. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral What is the notability of his death? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other who died in Bahrain, this one is well documented. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has it been confirmed that Mr. Al-Khateeb was actually murdered by the police? If so, please link to it. Here in Chile, there has been a lot of controversy whether a policeman killed or not a student protester called Manuel Gutiérrez; it was confirmed just yesterday by the Interior Ministry that a policeman whose Mapuche surname I can't recall killed him, so this may be the case too of the Bahraini guy?  Diego  talk  23:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its best to read the sources and decide for yourself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I don't see the significance (yet). JimSukwutput 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As tragic as that story is, it is just one unremarkable death among the countless thousands of innocent civilians who are killed by their own governments every year. Therefore, it is not sufficiently WP:Notable. Deterence ^Talk 04:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Tragic story, but doesn't meet our criteria for posting deaths. Swarm ^{u | t} 12:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False certificate for google.com

Nominator's comments: The digital certificate system is a cornerstone of Internet security. Digital certificates protect against man in the middle attacks when using https. In their infinite wisdom, the designers made it such that any certificate authority (CA) can make a certificate for any domain. So the fact that a CA has apparently been compromised, and an unknown number of false certificates created, has potential security implications for all websites using https, not just google. See also Comodo_Group#Iran_SSL_certificate_controversy, which was a similar incident 5 months ago, also involving Iran. This incident will further motivate the current effort to redesign the security of the Internet, probably using DANE+DNSSEC. I am not aware of any other incidents than this one and Comodo, so this incident should be unique enough to feature ITN. Thue : talk 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Thue. jorgenev 00:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a technophobe who is suffering under considerable ignorance about anything to do with computers, I am struggling to fully appreciate the significance of this story. Can we see some comment about the wider implications of a compromise in the integrity of a Certificate Authority? Deterence ^Talk 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not much of a wider implication. One of the many CAs' credibility has basically crumbled, but all major browsers have already taken necessary action to 'untrust' the company. Therefore the danger is passed. This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs, such as VeriSign, now owned by Symantec. The Comodo controversy was caused by a flaw in the company's security, which is probably the reason for this forgery as well... but again, it means nothing for other CAs. Oppose for that reason. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 05:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but you miss the point. The CA system is set up to be no more secure than the weakest CA. So it is irrelevant that "This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs". Thue | talk 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I'm talking about, though. The Comodo controversy was caused by the hacking of the administrative user accounts -- those that issue the actual certificates -- due to a flaw in the company's security; not in the CA system. That's how I understand it, anyway. The hacker gained access to the actual issuing process and issued valid certificates to fraudulent websites. That would mean that the company needs better security... because regardless of how secure certificates are, there will always have to be an administrator account issuing those certificates. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Trivial, techie story which has no major impact.  Diego  talk  01:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Iran has hacked the main Dutch authority provider 2) Iran has been impersonating Google 3) This will be a major motivation to redesign a fundamental part of Internet security. This is not trivial. Thue | talk 08:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to [2], "this is the first time that a fake certificate is known to have been successfully used in the wild". Thue | talk 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose singificant tech news, but not of public intrest. --Kslotte (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can certainly agree that most people don't get up in the morning and think about the current problems in computer authentication. But on the other hand, everybody is dependent on the CA system, for example when they check their web-based email. So I would argue that "the public is not interested", not "not of public intrest". IMO the ITN should be whether something is significant, not whether people are generally aware of it. Thue | talk 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Thue and the glaringly red timer. C628 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I wouldn't normally have a strong opinion either way on this, but due to the standstill ITN is currently experiencing I'm going to go with Thue on this one and support. FTR, I've also marked this as a minority topic as it's obviously a tech-related story. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a minority topic and a cure to the no new news for two days blues. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a poet who didn't know it. Deterence ^Talk 10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As an administrator, I wouldn't post this no matter what support it had, in the state the article is in. The topic is certainly worthwhile, and newsworthy, and ITN-worthy, but folks, look at the article. It's an article about a company which says nothing about the company. Its a big, disgusting, textbook case of WP:COATRACK. If there were a three- or four-fold increase in the text of the article dealing with the company in question, which was not about this one scandal, then we may have something postable. But we simply cannot put this substandard tripe on the mainpage for the world to see. Please. Again, ITN-worthy topic, but definately NOT an ITN-worthy ARTICLE. Someone please fix it, and I will post it. --Jayron32 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks unredacted cables leaked

Nominator's comments: As the Ars Technica article says, " these cables are raw and unredacted, and contain the names of informants and suspected intelligence agents that were blacked out of the official releases. Der Freitag said the documents include the names of suspected agents in Israel, Jordan, Iran and Afghanistan, and noted that interested parties—such as the Iranian government or intelligence agencies—could have already discovered and decrypted the file to uncover the names of informants." The article needs to be updated. Thue

• I'd support this if it were confirmed, but Wikileaks has denied it ("There has been no leak at Wikileaks"), and reliable sources are so far only saying there there's a "possible leak" or that the cables are ""apparently online". Any confirmation? JimSukwutput 22:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks has only denied that they leaked the file, not that the file is on the Internet. Other organizations, such as The Guardian, had access to the file. Thue | talk 06:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a delicate situation. The U.S. government is certainly not going to confirm the legitimacy of the information found in this leak, and as pointed out above, neither is Wikileaks. Until the situation changes and the info can be verified by a primary source, oppose simply in the interests of verifiability.--WaltCip (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not enough to post without more information and verifiable sources. Some sources say the release was the result of a conflict between the leaders of Wikileaks. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Some insight: Wikileaks released an "insurance file" last year totalling 1.4GB. It was 256-AES encrypted and thus impossible to crack without knowing the really encryption key. These reports of a "leak" are indicating that access to the file has been achieved and thus the contents are now visible. The problem is that we can't really confirm this story without knowing the key ourselves... and you can rest assured that if it had been leaked, we would know about it by now (the story is seven hours old). So right now it looks like Wikileaks might be telling the truth when they say that there is no leak (they've posted on their Twitter that "All press are currently misreporting. There is an issue, but not that issue." and that "The issue relates to a mainstream media partner and a malicious individual.") So, as it stands, oppose. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, I am getting varied stories on all the news outlets I check. I do notice a interesting correlation between anti-Wikileaks and Pro-Wikileaks editorial stance and how they write the story. Let us wait and see what else develops out of this. If the story pans out the way some are reporting it... this is BIG. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Der Spiegel is acknowledging the existence of the cracked file, so that's a start. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is a distinct lack of verification and all the parties allegedly involved are refusing to admit that the event occurred. Further more, over recent months, we've all learned to become very wary of this kind of sensationalist "Wikileaks are endangering lives" allegation. Deterence ^Talk 00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikileaks is tweeting people to torrent a file, adding that an encryption key will be released afterwords... not sure if this is related. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above is not related. However, Wikileaks is admitting that a Guardian's editor, David Leigh, divulged "top secret decryption passwords". Apparently, Leigh published a book about his experience with Wikileaks a few months ago. Around page 130, he published a password giving access to an encrypted and hidden Bittorrent file somewhere on the internet. No big deal, it was looked over. But Daniel Domscheit-Berg, former Wikileaks spokeperson (now rogue with his new "Openleaks") knew the location to this hidden torrent, but didn't know the password. And that's how it leaked. Now DDB is, quote, "'giving' the cables [...] in exchange for alliances and positive spin culminating with the now infamous Der Freitag [...] and now the thing is fucking everywhere" [3] That's what's going on... now we need that story in a secondary source. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press is summarising the above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is now reporting that the unredacted cables have been released. Modest Genius ^talk 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In light of the WP:RS supplied by ModestGenius I now support this nomination. That said, I would be more comfortable with a few more reliable sources - The Guardian has long taken a hostile stance regarding Wikileaks. Deterence ^Talk 14:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now a separate issue. The cables have now been officially released by Wikileaks, unredacted, which is sure to cause more controversy (and have significant RS coverage). The original reported leaks were a relatively minor issue. I think this would benefit from a fresh (re)nomination to reflect the developments. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have posted my support in the new nomination. Deterence ^Talk 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already responded to this issue in a more recent nomination made along the same lines. With the addition of this new information, this older nomination should either be closed or merged.--WaltCip (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Prime Minister of Japan

Nominator's comments: Or something to that effect. --Dorsal Axe 17:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we update and bump the current blurb to reflect this news. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we wait until he is officially confirmed by the Diet? --Tone 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think notability is pretty common sense here and has already been established in the previous nomination. As for when we should post this, I don't think we need to wait for a confirmation by the Diet. In a political system like Japan's, there's very unlikely to be any surprises from the legislature. JimSukwutput 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comfired by the Diet already--1j1z2 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a bump/replacement of the existing Kan item. Modest Genius ^talk 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a good idea have a link to Democratic Party (Japan) leadership election, 2011, but not the bolded one as there not enough updates there yet. –HTD 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tripoli is over

Nominator's comments: While the last bullet probably hasn't been fired, major fighting seems to be over, and the result is clear. Thue

• The article could do with a bit more of an update, but beyond that, I think this should probably go up since this is probably the biggest defeat for Gaddafi yet. Nightw 16:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose That is a very definite assertion for a volatile situation. The emphasis of the source you cite is not on the fighting and even it notes that hostilities are still continuing to a more limited extent. Calling it now strikes me as reminiscent of Dubya's infamous mission accomplished speech concerning Iraq. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

While there may be some kind of loyalist guerrilla resistance in the future, it seems pretty clear that for now the rebels have won the conventional fight, and are apparently in control. Even if we can't rule out guerrilla resistance in the future, the apparent conventional control is newsworthy in itself. Thue | talk 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In part because I agree with Crispmuncher's assessment above, and in part because I think this is to a large extent a repetition of the item we posted previously. JimSukwutput 20:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There will always be a grey area between on-going battle and complete victory while mopping-up operations continue, but we're still in the holding our breath stage as the world waits to see how events play-out over the next few days. It is most certainly not outside the realms of possibility that Gaddafi loyalists will launch a counter-attack around Tripoli. Deterence ^Talk 00:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's not over until the fat lady sings. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...or he's hung from a lamp-post using piano wire. Deterence ^Talk 08:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make a comment about his wife, but that'll do. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene update

Per BBC, Irene has made landfall in New York City at 1300 GMT as a tropical storm. Should we update the blurb? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb definitely needs an update. How about: Tropical Storm Irene makes landfall in New York City and leaves 4 million people without power. ? Swarm ^{u | t} 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this blurb. We shouldn't be doing hour-by-hour reports. Use something very general so that it represents the entire notability of the event and doesn't need to be updated every day. JimSukwutput 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene leaves millions without power along the United States' East Coast. We may also consider including early damage estimates, which currently top $1 billion.[4] Swarm ^{u | t} 15:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that Irene is no longer even in the United States (or soon not to be) an update seems somewhat pointless. --PlasmaTwa2 22:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Nanmadol (2011)

Noticed this on errors page... Cat-3 Typhoon Nanmadol hits Philippines and threatens Taiwan. -- Ashish-g55 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - normally I would support, but right now I don't think this is significant enough to post a second storm. If that changes, I'll re-evaluate my position. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I have a problem with some of these "natural disasters" items - multiple earthquakes and weather storms hit the world every single day. So far this week, we've had a couple of U.S. In the News articles about an earthquake that was so insignificant (no one even died) that Californians wouldn't have even gotten out of bed for it and a hurricane off America's east coast that is no more remarkable than the storms that routinely hit some part of the world a few times every week, such as Typhoon Nanmadol. We need a bit of consistency here. Deterence ^Talk 15:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are fairly consistent in posting most natural disaster items. Unless they're excessively severe or something though, posting two is a bit overkill. Swarm ^{u | t} 15:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 Virginia earthquake made it onto the Main Page, (despite a mountain of protests), and that was only a 5.8 and didn't have any fatalities or do any significant damage. If we were truly consistent, and included every earthquake as trivial as that one, then the main page would have DOZENS of earthquakes linked every week. We are not being consistent. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Deterence ^Talk 08:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post these things by a statistical threshold— be it cost in damages, death toll, or magnitude— we have to consider the significance, individually, on a case-by-case basis. Swarm ^{u | t} 03:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - As per above and Philippines receives a fair amount of typhoon battering every year with some unfortunate loss of life. A typhoon like this is probable and expected; impact and damage done seems to be minimal. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending landfall. Seems to be a significant storm with a potential for serious damage to populated areas. --Jayron32 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

al-Qaeda second in command is killed

Nominator's comments: U.S. is bleeding al-Qaeda to death. Marcus Qwertyus 20:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - major blow to al-Qaeda ("...al-Rahman was regarded as an instrumental figure...") during what is already a critical time for the organization ("[According to the Obama administration] al-Qaida is on the ropes, its leadership in disarray.") Swarm ^{u | t} 22:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose posting anything at the moment. There is no confirmation that he is actually dead; we can't base an entire ITN item on "anonymous reports by a senior Obama administration official". Leaders of terrorist organizations tend to get "reportedly killed" an average of 2-3 times before they are actually confirmed dead. Besides, there's a reason why the reports are anonymous. Either the death is not confirmed, or the Obama administration is going to make a public announcement soon (and some official was ordered to do a leak/wanted to do a favor for the media). In either case, it makes sense to wait. Finally, designations like "second-in-command" tend to get thrown around a lot, but they are mostly based on intelligence analysis and should not be taken as factual positions, as for instance "the Vice President of the U.S." is. So, even if it turns out that he did get killed, I'd strongly suggest replacing "second-in-command" with some more reliable description. JimSukwutput 22:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reasons as Jim Sukwutput highlights above, plus lack of demonstrated significance in this (if it is indeed confirmed) death. Mtking ^(edits) 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• American and Pakistani officials have confirmed the death.
• "The officials who confirmed the death Saturday said it represented the consensus opinion of the U.S. government."
• Officials speak anonymously simply because they're not authorized to make announcements to the press.
• "Reportedly killed" scenarios generally don't get confirmed by multiple officials, even by mistake.
• The significance is obvious if al-Qaeda is close to defeat (as the U.S. government claims).
• "Senior al-Qaeda member" or "al-Qaeda leader" are reasonable alternatives to "No. 2". Swarm ^{u | t} 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence, except some hyperbole from the American State Department, that al-Qaeda "is close to defeat"? They don't exactly have a branch on every high street! No comment on the nom itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually reported to be a widespread opinion among the CIA and other government departments. If you want to have this discussion on a talk page, let me know, but it's kind of beside the point here. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This reminds me of Al qaeda number three, see copy at http://mirror.uncyc.org/wiki/Al_qaeda_number_three. I guess bin Laden's demise has promoted other reportedly killed terrorists to al-Qaeda number two. Three hours before the nomination we didn't call him second in command but we said he was killed in 2010: [6]. The article was edited a total of 10 times in the previous 10 months. You would think al-Qaeda's number two got more attention. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think ITNC community needs to really take a moment and think about this. We can't keep posting their replacements forever. I mean really 10 or even 5 years ago this would been a significant blow. Now? Al-queda is shadow of it's former self, Ayman al-Zawahiri really the only one left worth posting on ITNC. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He's not some "replacement"— he originally joined bin Laden to "fight the Soviets". He was an "instrumental figure" who "[oversaw] al-Qaida's daily operations" (AP). Just saying. Swarm ^{u | t} 14:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Anna Hazare agrees to end fast after Indian parliament passes resolution on Jan Lokpal

Nominator's comments: Probably not right away, but its big (really big) news in India. News of his arrest was also posted. Lynch7 17:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes big news indeed but let him end the fast tomorrow before posting. -- Ashish-g55 17:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Very regional event. Already what, 3 posted stories on this? Enough. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

regional?... not a good reason lol (trust me) -- Ashish-g55 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over-saturated? Three postings in the last week for what is arguably a very minor event as far as the rest of the world is concerned? I don't see the story heavily covered in mainstream media. The original postings were almost totally reliant on Hindu-based sources. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, its on almost every single major news site... on main page (including cnn). but that should not be the reason to post it by any means. over 1 billion people directly care about this event and Anna Hazare is a name that pretty much entire world knows right now. Ending a highly influential 12 day hunger strike in modern day to change a law of the biggest democratic country is no minor event. -- Ashish-g55 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikifan: That comment is immensely hypocritical considering that you previously accused others of "bigotry" for criticizing this article's reliance on Israeli sources. And it is also plainly wrong: Reuters NYTimes CTV CA CNN Time Magazine. JimSukwutput 22:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said it was bigoted for editors to dismiss entire article simply because they contain sources (reliable) from a specific country other than America/Europe. The India-related articles that were posted in the past relied on a majority of India-based news and no one objected. Many of of the sources in those articles are unreliable and unconfirmed. IMO This isn't front page news. The story has already received more than enough representation. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're opposing this as revenge for the fact that some other users previously opposed a nomination you supported? How the hell is that a valid reason? JimSukwutput 22:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge? What? No, it is dubious to oppose one article based on x standards but support another article based on those same exact standards. It is really about policy or the article? I don't think my oppose is as outrageous as you infer it is. This Anna person has been featured for over a week on the main page, while many other stories have been ignored in spite of support. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You previously called the kind of argument "bigotry", then here you proceed to use the same argument to oppose this article, all in order to prove what you perceive as double standards from the ITN community. That is exactly the definition of WP:POINT. JimSukwutput 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think it's pretty obvious that this is much more notable than the two previous items about this topic that we've posted. JimSukwutput 22:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - due to the results of his actions. I get where Wikifan is coming from, but this is indeed more notable than the previous items. I don't think this is a minority topic, though. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the nominator simply forgot to blank the tags. JimSukwutput 22:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. His protest worked and his demands for fighting corruption have been met. What more can I say? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We've given this a lot of coverage, our readers have had plenty of opportunity to read about it. ITN is not a news service. RxS (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. But the bolded blurb should be the Lokpal Bill and not his fast. Further, as I understand, the only two criteria for ITN are (1) notability and (2) updates/quality of article. Would request all to limit their arguments along these lines. This is clearly notable and has been covered throughout international media and the necessary updates have also been made. Also perplexed by what Wikifan refers to when he mentions "Hindu-based sources". Indian =/= Hindu. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. unprecedented ( in last 50 years) use of Gandhian methods to peacefully effect change. surely this is of interest to entire civilized world.--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support : The fast has already ended after 288 hours . Besides the bill is not passed yet. Only the government agreed to his key demands to be incorporated in the bill. Can the nominator / someone else change the blurb to reflect those ? I will then add it to ITN -- Tinu Cherian - 10:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be more appropriate to formulate the blurb as: Indian government passes a bill after the strike by Anna Hazare. --Tone 11:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated blurb, bolded Lokpal bill. @Tone, the bill isn't passed yet. Lynch7 11:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted a resolution ( NYT ) or backed (Reuters), which of these is the correct phrase to use ? -- Tinu Cherian - 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offline discussion with several other Wikipedians, suggested that "adopt" is the better word to use here. I am moving the blurb to the ITN section -- Tinu Cherian - 12:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, why the hell are you choosing an outside forum for a hidden discussion about this (or any) Wikipedia issue? That reeks of the sort of sausage puppetry that has given Wikipedia's administrators such a bad reputation! Deterence ^Talk 15:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people have a tendency to really like this website, but some of us have lives outside of the site. And friends. Conversations are imminent with these friends, you know? If Tinu wishes to talk to a friend about an issue we're having, can he not? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I'm possibly a little more sensitive to signs of meat puppetry in Wikipedia. I'm from New Zealand, and all the New Zealand Wikipedia articles are ruthlessly controlled by a small handful of friends (including admins) who work together (meat puppets) to control all content about articles related to New Zealand. Deterence ^Talk 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur the same, Eric... @Deterence, the intention to quickly consult with a few Wikipedians (whom I could find online) was to double check the "accuracy" of the already stated blurb, before putting up on a highly visible page. Don't you think, it is fair at the bare minimum? -- Tinu Cherian - 22:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you concur with Eric. My comment was aimed directly at YOU. Deterence ^Talk 23:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And he responded to you, which you blatantly ignored with WP:SHOUTing. Quit criticising this extremely trivial issue with a petty excuse for an accusation, and perhaps make an effort to actually contribute to the discussion. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In recent days, multiple editors have expressed concern that Wikipedia's Main Page ITN items are being used as a political football in India's Politics. In light of this, I am very concerned (albeit, not the least bit surprised) that an experienced WP editor considers apparent meat puppetry to be an "extremely trivial issue". As a side note, you need to relax. Deterence ^Talk 09:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] -- Tinu Cherian - 12:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In future, if you've supported an ITN candidate, please don't be the posting admin for the item. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether it is inappropriate unless there is no clear consensus or the admin is the nominator of ITN/creator of the article. Nevertheless, your opinion is noted. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 13:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be a formal rewrite about the process in which stories are posted because it appears the system is very mob-based. No accountability, dubious double standards for specific incidents, and admins with vested interests posting stories they support? COI much? ITN is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia yet it is practiced in a very sloppy fashion. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong the current system of discussing a topic and having an uninvolved administrator analyze the consensus. This is how things work everywhere on Wikipedia. WP:INVOLVED details the practices regarding administrators with a conflict of interest. Second, ITN is absolutely not one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia— our standards are pretty low and I would be concerned about anyone working here with that mindset. Swarm ^{u | t} 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit standards are pretty low? This is the first page readers see when they go to Wikipedia english. Millions of potential readers. I'm sure many are puzzled why this India story has gotten more attention than all other featured stories combined this week. A small group of editors get to decide what is "news" and what isn't news. IMO the whole vote system should be done away with it in favor of simple comments. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that the system needs to change, but you make a fair point. Swarm ^{u | t} 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikifan, I respect your view but not the "I didn't know, So not important" attitude. Also what more can I say of the so limited "Indian == Hindu" knowledge. As far as I see, except me and the nominator , who supported this ITN news, aren't even from this part of the world. It was even an unrelated and non-Indian admin, who added the image of Anna Hazare. Meanwhile just a Google News search on "Anna Hazare" will show how much the news is relevant and important currently. Just compare this with other current ITN news stories. Hope that clarifies -- Tinu Cherian - 22:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no meaning getting into a debate with Wikifan12345 over this. As he has said so himself, he joined the discussion to prove a point about alleged "double standards" on ITN and has little to say about this particular news item. This discussion should be in the talk page. JimSukwutput 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazian presidential election

Nominator's comments: Possibly the least predictable presidential election in the Caucasus, ever, and a second round had been predicted by most, which would have been a first for the region. Follows the sudden death of previous President Sergei Bagapsh, also featured on ITN. Preliminary results have been released, and opposition candidate Khajimba has already congratulated Ankvab - final results should follow soon. For those wondering whether we should somehow hedge the status of Abkhazia in there: past consensus for news blurbs related to elections/Presidents of Abkhazia or e.g. Kosovo seems to have been not to add any qualifyers, since the relevant articles already explain the situation in sufficient detail. sephia karta

Note:, WP:ITNR says that elections in disputed states (such as Abkhazia) do not automatically qualify but should be discussed on their own merits. Personally I weakly oppose this because I can't see any major impact outside Abkhazia. Modest Genius ^talk 16:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I Oppose this as well. Very small and mostly unrecognized government. Article needs an update too. JimSukwutput 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very important region, which has all the necessary economic (abundance of natural resources) and geographical (famous tourist resorts, strategic location on the Black Sea Coast) preconditions to be become a successful independent state. The Presidential election will very much determine the future direction of this country. Nanobear (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Modest and Jim. No major significance or wide interest. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The results (especially the surprising results) of Presidential elections and the elections for national Legislatures should be routinely included In the News. If nothing else, such links provide the perfect opportunity to inform people about those corners of the world that they would otherwise never hear about. Deterence ^Talk 15:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They already are, for actual independent recognised countries. Abkhazia is neither independent nor recognised by the majority of other countries. Modest Genius ^talk 16:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with contested political status' warrant more popular attention, not less. Deterence ^Talk 08:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, mostly unrecognized state. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Singapore presidential election

Nominator's comments: This is the first contested presidential election in Singapore since 1993, right on the heels of the May general election which resulted in the ruling People's Action Party's stunning drop in popular support. Polls opened at 00:00 UTC and will close at 12:00 UTC, and results will be announced a few hours later. Nominated in advance of events; blurb to be updated. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Elections for heads of states are recurring items, but there are several reasons I'm hesitant about this one:

1. Whether it qualifies as an election is quite in dispute. Like Iran, there are numerous barriers to entry and only highly established politicians have a chance of running. Hence why three of the four candidates are from the same party (nominally non-partisan) and all four of them are Hoklos with the same surname.
2. The result is not in doubt - Tony Tan is going to win, by a huge margin. While there is one opposition candidate, keep in mind that he didn't even manage to win a seat in the general election, while PAP still enjoys the support of around 60% of the electorate. Even the Tan Clan Associations have decided to endorse Tony, in a race where all four of the candidates are Tans.
3. The head of state in Singapore is completely ceremonial. While this is also somewhat true in countries like UK/Canada, I don't think there's another country where the position is as weak as Singapore's. All three of the PAP-affiliated candidates, one of whom will win, agree that the president has no power and listens to the government on all matters. Only the opposition candidate thinks otherwise (of course), but he has 0% chance of winning. JimSukwutput 10:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential candidates have no affiliation. They must resign their party positions before becoming eligible for the office. A comparison to Iran is inaccurate as Singapore directly elects its head of state; the fact that it's an election is not a dispute. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 10:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, any new head of state is ITNR, not only in situations where the head of state is elected. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Tan Cheng Bock is actually neck-to-neck with Tony Tan now. I don't think anybody expected this (though as expected the only non-PAP-affiliated candidate Tan Jee Say is trailing by a huge margin). Not too late for a switch to Support. JimSukwutput 17:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as this has the potential to be the closest direct presidential election in Asian history -- the elections department even ordered a recount. –HTD 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Tony Tan won by 0.34%. JimSukwutput 22:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a pretty tight margin! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support however think the blurb should indicate the very close nature of the election; perhaps

Tony Tan Keng Yam defeats Tan Cheng Bock by 0.34 per cent and is elected President of Singapore

Mtking ^(edits) 01:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is ready to go. The blurb proposed in the template is fine. 07:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The 'Results' section in the bold article has no references. Removing the [Ready], feel free to add it back once there are suitable references. (also, this should certainly go up per ITNR and the very close result) Modest Genius ^talk 13:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is obviously a notable event. Deterence ^Talk 15:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to support, this is a WP:ITNR item. Modest Genius ^talk 16:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, this is updated and referenced. If someone else can assess its readiness, please do so. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 21:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Abuja United Nations bombing

A suicide car bombing at the UN headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria, kills 18 and injures dozens more. (BBC). Death toll is relatively low in comparison to other terrorist attacks in the recent past, but attacks on the UN and in Nigeria are not that common, and Nigeria doesn't seem to get that much coverage on ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Death toll isn't relevant. Weak support considering the current state of the article. I'll go add a conflict template. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per HJ. It's a brand new article, but assuming it gets developed further, it seems like a significant attack. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is an attack on UN, on humanitarian workers, therefore should be considered important. The fact that there have been other, more deadly, terrorist attacks in the recent past is not a valid argument - we should never consider terrorist attacks as something routine!Olegwiki (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A significant attack. An attack against the UN could, in a way, be understood as an attack against many countries. Nanobear (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Also, Boko Haram has claimed responsibility, and the death toll is now 21. JimSukwutput 08:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza River

Pretty big geography discovery. 18.111.35.209 (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. But... From the article: "Scientist have explained that the research results are preliminary, and that the definite scientific validation of the existence of the river is to be expected in a few years.". Shouldn't we wait until the result is validated before reporting it? 95.166.216.227 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's not going to be a point where it's all of a sudden "validated". Scientific validation is a long, multi-stage process, and even discoveries that have been "definitely" validated can turn out to be wrong. It's usually best to report discoveries at their "preliminary" stage, as long as the discoverers are credible scientists, which seems to be true in this case. JimSukwutput 12:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but there's real issues in the article. Starting with the first sentence ( is, or seems to be). Needs more content. But it's a really interesting topic. RxS (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very interesting, but the article needs some more content. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anything in particular that's missing (that would prevent this being posted)? And would anybody care to propose a blurb? I'm not posting just yet, but the nom's over a day old, so if it's going up, it would be nice to get it up relatively soon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose based on this BBC article, which includes statements like 'Professor Hamza told BBC News that it was not a river in the conventional sense.', 'water was moving through porous rock at speeds measured in cm, or inches, per year - not flowing.', 'the speed of movement is even slower than glaciers usually display, never mind rivers.', 'Press reports suggested Professor Hamza was optimistic about confirming his results over the next few years using more direct methods. But, he said, this was not the case.', and the real killer 'not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.' Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Japanese PM resigns

 04:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. PM of the third largest economy goes. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Isn't this a recurring item? JimSukwutput 10:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Technically, it's not ITNR, as its not a head of state; though I think common sense applies here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to post when a couple of sentences more are added. What was the reason he resigned, what are the reactions, etc. --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Japanese prime ministers are very prone to resignation. Since Junichiro Koizumi (2006), no PM has kept his job for over a year (except for Kan, who lasted 450 days). In fact, Abe (2007), Fukuda (2008), and Hatoyama (2010) have all resigned from the position, so Kan would be the fourth in five years. That's not to say that his resignation is not notable, but in a sense, it was kind of expected. So that's a weak support from me. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait till the new prime minister is announced next week then combine the two eg "Xyz appointed new Prime Minister of Japan following the retirement of Naoto Kan". Mtking ^(edits) 16:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Mtking and Eric. Let's just post this with the new Prime Minister. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, notwithstanding the recent high turnover in the office. Head of government of a powerful state. Whether we post now and update when the successor is determined, or wait and post them together, I'm agnostic on. Modest Genius ^talk 16:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are several !votes above without any reason attached, contrary to the 'please do not' section at the top of this page. Modest Genius ^talk 16:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very important.Olegwiki (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Monterrey casino attack

Moved from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than 50 people killed in a terrorist act at the city of Monterrey, Mexico, it was an attack of the organised crime (Drug dealers), I think it is a very important new that should be at the section "In the news", I repeat more than 50 innocent people died.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/mexican-casino-attack-40-dead_n_937411.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefairh (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I thought of nominating this myself but then I figured this is in an area where organised crime is rife anyway. But now I think of it again that doesn't make it any less significant - 50 deaths in a single criminal act is still hugely notable no matter where it occurs. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

We would need an article on this :-( Petri Krohn (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose drug dealers killing dozens of innocents in Mexico is unfortunately not major or unexpected news, hardly a fortnight goes by without the discovery of mass graves. It's as ordinary as Middle Eastern dictators slaughtering equal numbers of their citizens, which unless it seems likely to topple a dictator seems to be non-newsy round here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nominator major event during Drug War. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I urge caution at what we include in the blurb. It's not clear that the attack is from organized crime, and it's not clear what the motivations are. We're not even sure all the victims were innocent bystanders (keep in mind that these casinos tend to be run by rival drug gangs). JimSukwutput 09:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I second JimSukwutput's caution. Still, 50 killed in a crime is a lot whether they were innocent bystanders or not.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more prose but support in principle. It's been a while since we've had a story about drug war in Mexico and this event was huge on the general scale. --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As a person living in the city where the attacks happened I can tell you totally that this is a major event not only for Monterrey, but for all Mexico, we've never had such a thing, the people killed where just plain customers, the relatives where in the news, they were innocent bystanders, the number of victims totals 53 deaths and 10 injuries. Lefairh (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Death toll was lowered to 52. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Certainly, but the article needs plenty of work yet. RxS (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is an attack occurring in a major city about the size of Washington, D.C., not the discovery of a mass grave site weeks after a massacre. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is more of a terrorist attack than the usual examples of drug war-related violence. It wasn't an attack on police/rival cartel, but apparently innocent people. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. President Felipe Calderón declared 3 days of national mourning after the attack. [9] - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb: A fire attack at a casino in Monterrey, Mexico kills 52 people. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things. First, what on Earth is a "fire attack"? Second, The article really does need to be expanded. It's basically one big headline at the minute. I'd like to post it, given the state of the timer, but I really think we should aim to have something resembling a structured article before it reaches the Main Page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with HJ Mitchell. I was ready to post this based on the support, but right now the article is way to stubby. It would be nice to see it expanded. --Jayron32 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Data from Japanese space probe that returned dust from Itokawa asteroid reveals origin of meteorites

 03:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The blurb's a bit long. My suggestion is Findings from the asteroid 25143 Itokawa by the Hayabusa space probe finds that meteorites found on Earth originated from S-type asteroids.. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice story. The article section needs some more prose but then I'll support. --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support new blurb. Significant scientific discovery. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think the blurb should reflect that this discovery proves what was apparently a long-held theory. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, significant result from one of the first sample return missions, but agree that the blurb is a bit of a mess. How about:

• Scientists announce that samples of asteroid 25143 Itokawa retrieved by the Hayabusa probe confirm that most meteorites originate from S-type asteroids

and only bold one of those links (whichever has the better update). Modest Genius ^talk 16:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update in the Hayabusa article looks good, marking [Ready] Modest Genius ^talk 12:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for all the improvements, especially the better blurb. Sharktopus ^talk 15:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planet composed of diamond discovered

Nominator's comments: Its popularity is trending on Yahoo! news, and it is big-enough news in the exoplanet community to warrant many, many online newspaper articles. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 06:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Interesting discovery and very nice article. JimSukwutput 09:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I cant believe it has not been posted yet. What are we waiting for? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I removed User:Eugen_Simion_14's duplicate nomination above. I suppose we can count that as another support here. JimSukwutput 10:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not really notable - it's not the first such planet found: see WASP-12b, BPM 37093 and others. Not newsworthy as it's not the first of its kind.81.129.134.82 (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose (and minority topic de-asserted) The diamond analogy is basically to capture the interest of the mainstream media rather than a genuine attempt at scientific description. For a start it is also oxygen rich (a diamond isn't) and crystalline carbon does not inevitably equate to diamond in any case - graphite or even coal are equally crystalline carbon. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose cool but not sufficiently notable for mainpage. Bizarre astronomic phenomena and objects are discovered all the time. jorgenev 18:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per Jim. Based on what I've read, Crispmuncher's comments are incorrect. It's not some made up analogy for "crystalline carbon" to get the media's attention, it's actually suspected to be diamond. Furthermore, it's not "oxygen rich", it's "likely to contain oxygen, which may be more prevalent at the surface and is probably increasingly rare [at the center]." Interesting story. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is partly further confirmation of something astronomers have sort of known for ages, partly a very big inference from not particularly strong evidence, and partly a dressed-up press release. And yes there have been other claimed discoveries of this in the past. It means virtually nothing new for astronomy. 'Star is probably made from what we already thought anyway, but we're not particularly sure' isn't exactly a big story. Modest Genius ^talk 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] Yankees hit 3 grand slams

 Withdrawn. Fun to think about anyway. SusanLesch (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Unprecedented achievement for a team, and significant event for baseball in general. Of very wide interest as well. Swarm ^{u | t} 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose -- sorry, but I do not see the wider significance of this. The fact they did something unprecedented does not make it inherently worth posting; plenty of unprecedented things needn't be posted on ITN. Halladay's no-hitter wasn't posted, despite being the first person to have a perfect game and no-hitter in the same season, for example. This has absolutely no wider impact upon the game, the results or the league, beyond a note to be added to the statistical record books. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this exceptional, unprecedented occurrence (and I'm not even a Yankees fan). I would also be tempted to say that this, while it is sports, might just be valid for minority topic since it's quite rare that we post sports items unrelated to championships (at least so far as I can recall). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is sports stat trivia that ultimately has no impact beyond the individual game it occurred in. We don't post things simply because they are unprecedented: if we did we would post nothing else. Therefore there has to be a broader claim to notability and I simply don't see it here. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose It is unprecedented, but ultimately it is just a sports record, and one of many dozens that are in Major League Baseball alone. And no, this is not a minority topic. Minority topics were pre-decided by the community. You can't just see a nomination and say "Oh I think this ought to have been a minority topic." JimSukwutput 02:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

does this even qualify as a record?... -- Ashish-g55 02:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, a highly laudable achievement but simply not important for ITN. This won't get a single mention outside the sports pages in probably the northeast U.S.. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose lacks an article of it's own. Really cool but Trivia ultimately The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Fancruft trivia with no real significance. Mtking ^(edits) 02:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't support this but we have posted statistical achievements in cricket.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC we have posted the major career-defining statistical achievements in cricket and baseball, most runs/home runs in a career come to mind, rather than unusual match occurrences like this. Is 'most grand slams in a match' a record that people really pay attention to until it is broken? 137.222.187.124 (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not really something that get's long term attention.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one you are referring to is most runs in a single game by sachin Tendulkar. That as IP mentioned is one of the major statistics that people follow in cricket. and that score happens to be so high that its was last broken like 13+ years ago. -- Ashish-g55 11:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Hurricane Irene

Nominator's comments: I know it is ITN practice to wait until after the damage has taken place before posting an item. However, in this case, millions of people in one of the developed world's most-densely populated areas will be looking for information on the story, and it has already done damage in the Bahamas. Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget the Antilles - after all Richard Bransons house was destroyed to much laughter by Irene.Jason Rees (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant, event for the Bahamas and the Antilles especially with their Tourism Industries. Let's wait till the storm gets closer for the Eastern Seaboard part of the blurb. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The significance of internationally destructive hurricanes pretty much speaks for itself. By the look of things, this could be devastating to much of the US East Coast as well, which is a rarity in itself. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Swarm, but I would prefer post when it gets within about 50–100 miles (80–161 km) of Cape Hatteras. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But sorry ITN is not a meteorological service for US... It should be posted now since it's already a hurricane and already did damage in Bahamas. Update it later when it gets to US. Also blurb should focus on damage already done and not be a side note to a weather warning... -- Ashish-g55 01:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait at least until Saturday. I see no reason why we have to post 2-3 days before any significant damage is done in the U.S. ITN is not a meteorological service, as Ashish said. We should not be posting based on predictions of significance. JimSukwutput 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in current form but support per Ashishg55. The focus should not be "omg this could hit the US", because that's not really noteworthy. More important is the damage it's done elsewhere. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Oppose the current blurb - would support Hurricane Irene after causing significant damage in the Bahamas heads for the United States as at the moment it has not reached the US. Mtking ^(edits) 02:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait As per Jim Sukwutput. Has this storm done anything yet except raise the ratings of people who get paid to try to make weather sound dangerous? Sharktopus ^talk 02:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes this storm has caused significant damage to several islands in the Caribbean including the Bahamas, Puerto Rico and the Antilles.Jason Rees (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see this repeated several times, but it is simply not true that it has caused "significant" damage to Bahamas and elsewhere. It has caused 4 deaths, which is nothing spectacular for a hurricane. Compare with this. We're only giving it so much attention because what might happen in the US. But that's in the future. JimSukwutput 03:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • $3.1 billion in damage in the Caribbean is significant damage. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when it actually hits and goes on its rampage. I expect some moderate damage though before we post; what passed through the Caribbean is no different than any other hurricane. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I suspect there will be some postable developments such as evacuations even before it hits. Marcus Qwertyus 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --Jayron32 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at least in current form. 'Prepares for' is not news, and nothing has actually happened yet. The existing damage is pretty minor. If this does do some serious damage, then it will be suitable. At present it is not. Modest Genius ^talk 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the blurb is not appropriate. The news here is the damage made over the Caribbean islands that were already hit. My suggestion is re-wording to something like The hurricane Irene hits the Caribbean islands causing damage and global warning., or if we really need to mention the United States, than let's wait what will happen and pull the blurb in current form out.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above two comments, blurb has been tweaked. --Jayron32 14:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now the lamest blurb in ITN history. -- tariqabjotu 14:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as is. The blurb has relevant information people are looking for on an encyclopedic topic. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the current blurb is rather lame. I suggest something like, Hurricane Irene causes significant damage in the Bahamas, Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, and triggers hurricane warnings through the East Coast of the United States. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your blurb is a bit long. I will note that this once mentioned the United States, and was therefore a longer blurb, but there was vehement opposition to mentioning the U.S. within seconds of its posting. --Jayron32 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and there is a good reason for that. mentioning a country before it gets hit makes it a forecast. as said above thats the job of a meteorological service which ITN is not. The only instance of posting something before it happens that i remember was the longest solar eclipse since it was guaranteed to take place. We dont know in this case if this thing will do any damage to the US... forecasting is very similar to crystal balling. Having said that, the current blurb sort of sucks lol. Perhaps mention the islands effected. -- Ashish-g55 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about just Hurricane Irene does damage.? -- tariqabjotu 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it the overtly informal "does damage". Please change to something less informal such as "Hurricane Irene tracks through several Caribbean Islands, resulting in significant damage". ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 18:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tariq was being somewhat sarcastic. ;) Swarm ^{u | t} 01:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to shift the focus a little I think: Hurricane Irene forces mandatory evacuations along the East Coast of the United States after causing significant damage in the Bahamas . Something like that...RxS (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene is only a category 1 at this point, and it's potential damage dealt to the United States East Coast has been grossly overestimated. Change the blurb or pull this story.--WaltCip (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six are already dead, hundreds of thousands are without power and millions have been forced to evacuate. New Jersey, Philadelphia and New York City have yet to be hit by the storm. Your argument is invalid. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Mass Chilean protests

Nominator's comments: It seems to be covered worldwide and I'd say it's a huge event.  Diego  talk  22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, oppose since all I can find on the protests with a quick Google is from earlier this month. — Joseph Fox 23:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should do your research a bit better  Diego  talk  23:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those seem to be ... well, from Chile. — Joseph Fox 23:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

euronews, Honduras Weekly, Radio Cadena Agramonet, Miami Herald... these are not Chilean. There may be lots of other sources; if I wanted to look up for Chilean sources, I would have used the local version.  Diego  talk  23:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not a lot of those listed being anywhere near notable enough to be worth talking about, I'll support based on Jenks below. — Joseph Fox 00:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Is a huge event (millions striking), has received coverage in the press worldwide. Also, apparently six police officers wounded, hundreds arrested. Coverage from BBC, Bloomberg, NYT/Reuters, UPI, Guardian, Al Jazeera, etc. Jenks24 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Article updated. C628 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This seems to me an inaccurate synthesis of a few different events. The recent march was led by unions to protest against the government in general. The previous matches were led by students for education reform. Why are they put in the same article about "student protests"? JimSukwutput 02:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't. C628 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, you moved it a few minutes after I read it. But my point about synthesis still remains. I can't see an obvious connection between the latest union protests and the previous student protests. Is there one? JimSukwutput 09:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Huge news and the article seems good to me -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Despite the relatively few comments, there has been no dissent, nobody has contested the "[Ready]" marker, and the article is in good shape. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Steve Jobs

Nominator's comments: High profile founder of the largest company in the U.S. and the most valuable consumer-facing brand in the world RxS (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I just saw this on the news and it seems notable enough given Apple's prominence. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he went from CEO to chairman. i dont think thats really ITN material, No matter how prominent he simply changed job title... -- Ashish-g55

That's a fair point, but I still feel that his resignation as CEO is notable enough for ITN regardless of what new job he takes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed User:Yong's duplicate nomination above. He nominated it two minutes after this nomination, at the bottom of this section, then decided to move his nomination on top afterwards. Not sure why he would do that, but I'll assume it's a good-faith mistake. It's probably also fair to assume that he'd support this nomination. JimSukwutput 00:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a simple good-faith mistake. I thought there was a glitch that caused me to make repeated nomination so I tried to fix it, but in reality it was nominated by another person 2 min. ago. Thanks for helping cleaning the entry and I do support this nomination. --Yong (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's currently the front page story on nearly every major news outlet. GregChant (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, he's changed his job title, that's it. Was long-coming, anyway, with his ill health. — Joseph Fox 00:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hyperbolic Breaking New Headlines get it wrong again. Just normal organizational reshuffling. Lets not post this and be the one rational news source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Clearly significant, and think his mug shot should replace that of DSK's Mtking ^(edits) 00:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This isn't a mere change in job title but a substantive change in role. There are a few issues in the nomination statement I would take issue with - he was Apple co-founder and "the most valuable consumer-facing brand in the world" is both vague and arguably wrong. However you only need to look at the doldrums Apple was in during the Gil Amelio days to see this is one executive appointment that really did turn a company around. As noted Apple is a very high profile company and as such I think that is worthy of our support. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose current blurb - Misleading headline is misleading. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the top of many major news outlets, massive company, iconic figure, of interest to readers... clearly ITN material. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Had he resigned outright from the company or took a lesser role than chairman, this would be a much different story. But I don't see this as being an important development. Symbolic, perhaps. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is significant move. Some of the comments above betray a lack of understanding of corporate governance: A CEO runs all aspects of a company, a Chairman chairs the board of directors, is the company's outward face, but is usually otherwise remote from the running of a company. Enough about that, though. Jobs isn't a person, he's a god and the world's only true visionary. It's equally important fact that a worthy successor as head of the world's most iconic and valuable consumer products company has been found. Suggested new blurb: Current Apple Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook replaces Steve Jobs as CEO.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually while I like the content of the blurb I can see how someone reading it at first sight might erronously assume that he was replaced unwillingly, versus resigned willingly. Is there any wording that might fix that? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steve Jobs steps down from his position as chief executive officer of Apple and is replaced by Tim Cook. ? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • • 'from his position' is redundant. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works for me....RxS (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it really have to be explicit? Many people already know Jobs isn't in the best of health. We actually want the readers to read the article(s); a little bit of mystique is like good lingerie – nice packaging that leaves you wanting more. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - normally for most companies a change in leadership only generate news in business section. Steve Jobs and Apple Inc have a higher level of awareness amongst the public and large community of users and followers of the tech industry. Its a significant event which is covered by major newspapers. Steve Jobs is synonymous with Apple Inc, cultural icon. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 03:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--2nd story at BBC and would be top if it weren't for the Libya story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Quite a significant shakeup. This is the corporate equivalent of the U.S. getting a new president. Marcus Qwertyus 03:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Steve Jobs resigned as CEO, but he is still a part of Apple leadership. It was bound to happen eventually and Cook had already acted as de-facto CEO during Jobs' absence. Now if he died that would be a different issue. The blurb is dubious because it infers Jobs' has left Apple, he was immediately elected to the board of the directors the moment he resigned. People will read it as "Jobs has left Apple." Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see how anything is inferred one way or another about Jobs' departure from Apple. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I certainly can. The blurb should mention his new position. Swarm ^{u | t} 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, when Bill Gates - the world's richest man resigned as CEO of Microsoft it didn't even make Wikinews candidacy. In 2008 Bill Gates definitely had more influential power than Steve Jobs at that time. It's not that significant, you will still get someone in a turtleneck performing press conferences.YuMaNuMa (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Since Gates resigned there's been a push to get more business stories in. In fact, as this is a Minority_topic, I will mark it so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is updated; minority topic; plenty of supports--I'm marking it READY.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. How is this a minority topic? Didn't we have an Apple story on ITN just a few weeks ago? Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also just had a business story last week with a Apple patent story shortly before that. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the end of an era. Nsk92 (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• posted --Jayron32 14:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought we were agreed on a later blurb... Steve Jobs steps down as chief executive officer of Apple and is replaced by Tim Cook.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fixed. --Jayron32 14:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one updated the blurb nomination template. Also the article isn't in good shape. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after the fact. Thank you for posting this. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment shouldn't we at least mention that he remains Chairman of the Board? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. The blurb is misleading and some news sources are even omitting it completely. He's not out of the company. He's still retaining a very important role. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree as well. This is an "OMFG CLICK ME" headline. Swarm ^{u | t} 20:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support iconic business decision. Gates' standing down should clearly have been posted. Given Apple is more profitable and more valuable than Microsoft Jobs is definitely a peer of Gates. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry not Gates. A comment from Reuters compared Steve Jobs not to Bill Gates but to Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Walt Disney, Michael Jordan, and Jesus. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what Reuters says? Gates was the pioneer of modern computing. It's almost solely because of his work (and with the initial boost of IBM, of course) that computers, and technology as a whole, became so accessible to the public, during a time when technological advancements were not embraced as much as they are today. Microsoft, Nokia, and RIM were pioneers; Apple built upon this to create their success. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way. I replied at Wikipedia talk:In the news. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix Misleading Blurb please. Right now it makes it seems like he quit apple altogether. He was appointed chairman of the company. That is one of the biggest reasons the stock is still up for apple. If you are going to post him leaving CEO then you must also post him becoming chairman. Very misleading... please fix. -- Ashish-g55 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, blurb to be fixed: Its important to indicate that he remains with Apple as chairman. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Progress launch failure

Nominator's comments: Failure of an unmanned mission to the ISS. Additionally, this is the first time the launch of a resupply mission has ever failed. GW… 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No dangerous consequences for the space station crew - they have enough supplies to last until the next scheduled resupply flight at minimum. The loss of one supply ship is within the safety margin. Progress launches are very much routine, and the space station program is designed to survive situations like this. I think ITN puts too much weight on routine space launches. A failure doesn't make a launch notable; for example, the Chinese Long March 2C also failed recently but was not covered. Nanobear (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is very short, basically a stub, and there is not much that can be added to it. There is next to no information about the resupply flight itself - I can imagine the article, if expanded, will only consist 95% of info about the accident. Nanobear (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maybe i dont know but loss of anything should not be within safety margin... -- Ashish-g55 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobear, regardless of the merit of your comments, this is pre-approved for listing. I would suggest taking your argument to WT:ITNR. Swarm ^{u | t} 01:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This will have consequences for crew resupply and possibly crew rotation. This failure comes soon after the shuttle retirement which will cause all sorts of interest considering this (Soyuz-U Progress and Soyuz-FG Soyuz) are the only way up for a while. The next resupply (Soyuz TMA-22) looks like it will be delayed. The IIS at current crew level has 40 to 50 days until some of them have to come back or a mission flys. Once the article is updated, this a good topic. People will be interested in it, it's a very topical event. Bad time for a failure. RxS (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, generally agree with RxS. "first time the launch of a resupply mission has ever failed" seems pretty notable/interesting/newsworthy to me and there is clearly coverage in big-name sources around the globe. That all said, the article definitely needs to be expanded. Jenks24 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to GWS's work, I now think that the article has been expanded enough to be main page-ready. Jenks24 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ITNR is IMHO overly favourable to space-related items but here I would contend the launch failure is much more notable than the success of many missions that get posted. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Support. A failure for the Soyuz-U (which has a failure rate of 2.8%) is fairly rare, and since it occurred while on a resupply mission, it only gets more notable. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nanobear. JimSukwutput 09:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable accident per above. It's a start article in my opinion.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support spaceships going bang. Space is still non-routine enough that we can report every failure. Thue | talk 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nanobear. This is a routine launch and not an important mission. GreyHood ^Talk 16:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article is updated and ready to go up. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Dammit! Steve Jobs goes to the bathroom and this news item gets overlooked. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 06:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UN launches inquiry into Syrian uprising

m.o.p 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is more of a tentative suggestion to see if people think this is noteworthy. The death toll was around a hundred in March. I'm just not sure how to go about updating, so I thought I'd just bring it up and see where that takes us. m.o.p 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless they take some important decision. GreyHood ^Talk 06:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, these conventions usually do little to nothing to ease matters. Doubt that the people of Syria will stop the uprising or the Syrian government will change the regimes or stop opposing the protesters due to these talk. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per GreyHood. I don't see any reason to post this, if there is no exact outcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: they've launched an inquiry now. Is that outcome exact enough? m.o.p 18:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we should wait for the outcome of the inquiry ;) GreyHood ^Talk 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Virginia Earthquake

Support Little or no death or damage but a rare event widely experienced. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Capitol and Pentagon were evacuated. If this is rated higher than 5.8 (some reports have said 6.2) it will be the biggest in VA in recorded history. See http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1897_05_31.php μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very prude of us to put this in with the goings-on in Libya, but support, seems notable enough in that it's a rare event and is (starting to) get coverage. — Joseph Fox 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No real development on this, so looks like it's just a passing thing. Probably going to oppose for the time being. — Joseph Fox 21:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose unless there is atleast some damage. at the moment its more a novelty item... ooh we felt an earthquake...rare or not 5.8 isnt big enough -- Ashish-g55 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in 2 hours after it stops being crazy --Guerillero | My Talk 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose It's worth noting that it was felt in Eastern Canada as well. Evacuations were ordered as far as Fredericton. [19] I have no particular position on posting this though, as it is relatively minor. I've changed my position... this is a pretty rare event but that's all it has going for it; there is no actual implication other than its rarity. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Highly notable in its field. But hold for the moment. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone's saying it's a national crisis or disaster in the US or anything, it's notable in the field of earthquakes because it is very rare to have ones of such strength in that part of the world. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is definitely the biggest on the eastern shoreboard since the 1897 Virginia 5.9 quake, if not the 1886 South Carolina 7.3. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support if the article is suitably expanded. GreyHood ^Talk 19:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has 11 sentences and 17 refs at about 6000 bytes. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a non-event. Its only newsworthy component is that it has frightened earthquake ignorant people. --TruckOttr (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see your opposition is based not on newsworthiness, but your personal attack. We'll have to give it extra weight. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. News coverage thus far seems to have focused more on precautionary reactions to the quake (the evacuations) rather than the quake itself, and that it not something I'd consider particularly notable. Damage does not appear particularly widespread (nor should it - ~6 is fairly tame) but if significant details emerge I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose Notable for its rarity, but its not really a news event; there hasn't appeared to be significant damages as a result. I would suggest adding it to the 'did you know' section instead. Seleucus (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose if a burst water pipe is all that resulted then no ITN--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is really notable for its rarity, but not just that but because it was felt from South Carolina to Toronto, Canada, including Ohio. It also prompted evacuations of the Pentagon, Monuments in Washington D.C it also prompted evacuations of the Capital Building. So, I consider that notable enough. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Absolutely notable earthquake. Swarm ^{u | t} 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This event has international impact, is an historical event more rare than tropical cyclones hitting Europe, and has nothing to do with people being scared but with being a rare geological event. The article is well more than updated, has no tags, and is ready to post if someone will mark it so. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what international impact? rain does more damage than this lol. Just being in an area where normally there arent many doesnt make it that notable. That happens every single day in other parts of the world. If it did any damage then i would have no problem with it but this did nothing. -- Ashish-g55 21:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made your scorn evident above. Unfortunately its not a wikipedia criterion. If you have anything more helpful than to imply that Canada is not an independent nation or that this isn't the biggest in a hundred years of its type of event, please make your point. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am quite aware of wikipeida criterions. And i dont really understand how you got "imply that Canada is not an independent nation" out of my comment. I'm in toronto so i find that really dumb. I think i made my point quite clearly... stop trying to take out random implications from it and lashing out at people who oppose. You did it above too... twice is enough now -- Ashish-g55 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to ask "what international impact?" I find it hard to believe that you even know enough about the subject to comment on it. Swarm ^{u | t} 00:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i asked a question and instead of a decent answer got 2 random sarcastic comments that make no sense. The only reason to post this would be the rarity of it. Dont kid yourself by thinking their was some international impact unless the meaning of impact has changed. dont know enough about subject matter lol... i mean come on jeez. if you dont have an answer dont reply. -- Ashish-g55 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've never seen the word "impact" defined as "impinging" but that's not really my problem. Swarm ^{u | t} 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on rarity and impact. Loss of life does not have to be sole measure of impact. Geez. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Notable enough to have an article, but I don't feel it's ITN worthy (I suggest nominating at DYK if this does not get posted). All coverage seems pretty US/Canada-centric and it doesn't appear to have add any serious impact (deaths, damage, etc.). Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Kindly do everyone a favour and avoid pointing at US-centrism. — Joseph Fox 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you care to explain how coverage of an event that occurred in the United States and Canada could be anything other than "US/Canada-centric"? —David Levy 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not an ITN regular, so I didn't realise the negative connotations that came by using US and centric in the same sentence. I was not trying to say that those supporting were being US-centric, merely trying to note that all news coverage I could find (either in the article or google news) was from US or Canadian news agencies and there was minimal, if any, coverage in by the BBC, Reuters, AFP, Al Jazeera, Xinhua, etc. Although saying something is only of local importance is apparently not a valid oppose rationale, I have seen quite a few natural disasters that do not get posted because there were only a few deaths or there was only limited coverage outside the country(ies) involved. I still fail to see the significance of this event, but I look forward to seeing everyone who supported here supporting natural disasters of equal importance in the future. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't interpret your comment as an assertion that "those supporting were being US-centric"; I interpreted it to mean that coverage focused primarily on the U.S. and Canada.
  Regarding your argument's clarified meaning, I'll note that I see numerous news reports originating from other countries, including coverage from all of the sources that you mention above (the BBC and AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Xinhua). I don't know how many predate your original message.
  Indeed, we do sometimes reject items on the basis that relatively few fatalities and little property/infrastructure damage occurred, but death and destruction aren't the only possible measures of notability. In this instance, the earthquake is noteworthy because if its extreme rarity in the region in which it occurred and the massive public response — justified or not — that followed as a result.
  When a comparable (nonfatal and largely nondestructive, but nonetheless highly disruptive) event occurs elsewhere in the world, please point me to the discussion on this page. —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, even as I was clarifying my argument, I realised how weak it had become, but I can assure that at the time I opposed I could not easily find coverage of this earthquake in the sources I mentioned. I agree with you that death and destruction aren't the only measuring sticks for ITN and if the discussion here had continued there is a good chance that if people had provided the sources you just did, that I would have switched to support. I do stand by my original oppose at the time, though I will refrain from referring to US/Canadian-centrism. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I find it disappointing that some regard an earthquake as sufficiently noteworthy only if it results in death and destruction. This one was the region's strongest since the 19th century, directly affecting millions of people along North America's Atlantic Coast, in both the U.S. and Canada (myself included, for the record). How, by any sensible measure, does this fall below the inclusion threshold of a section that often contains items about sport championships?
  I realize that earthquakes of this magnitude are common, but not in the area in which this one occurred. I'm sure that people in earthquake-prone areas are laughing about our "overreaction," but that doesn't negate the impact experienced here. —David Levy 23:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per Clarkcj12 and David Levy. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There clearly isn't no damage, as the area immediately near the epicenter and the National Cathedral have sustained damage, and the historical rarity of such an earthquake in this area of the world make a blurb being added appropriate. Hello32020 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only opposes we have are based on claims of US-centrism, odd, as David Levy, points out, or complaints that not enough people were killed, or that Earthquakes are common elsewhere. But the point has been from the beginning that this is a very rare event where it did occur which is of great interest to readers. Are there any valid structural complaints against this being posted? Do we lack enough of an update or reliable sources? Comments would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While a 5.8 is not uncommon, it is in this area and was felt up and down the East Coast. There was a lot of talk about it and 2012 nonsense. Also, there was a communications disruption, flight delays, etc. Its no different than a blizzard would be in LA or Florida. Metallurgist (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Manila or Darwin.

Oppose Absolutely not significant on a global scale. It really does look like US-centrism. That it was widely reported is simply because of where it happened being the home of a lot of news sources, not the real, historical significance of the event. There will be none. This is a classic example of a proposed addition where the locations of those supporting should be posted. (I'm Australian, btw, and happy to stand by my uninvolved view from far away.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not US-centrism -- the East Coast happens to bear a large portion of the developed world, and one unused to earthquakes. Analogously, think of news coverage of an incident involving several dozen protesters in the People's Republic of China -- absolutely insignificant for most democratic countries, but quite significant in repressed ones. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) HiLo, I think you should refrain from commenting on these discussions. Too many of your contributions to this section reek of WP:POINT, and frankly, you're obviously just trying to provoke American editors. It's really disruptive and completely unnecessary. I'd also like to cite the top of this section, which reads, "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should ease up on the paranoia and personal attacks, and read my post properly and fully. What impact will this still be having tomorrow? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll read it again. You accuse us of US-centrism, you claim that the media attention is because most of the media is stationed in the area, and then state a bit on how it's not historically significant on a global scale. My point still remains that you are provoking editors here with your constant ad hominem arguments and it's not helping the discussion. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This quake is significant given the rarity for the location. It would be just as significant had it occured in Liverpool. And it wouldn't have been mentioned had it occurred in California. As for historical significance, like what? The latest cricket playoffs or protest march in Minnesota? μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support For starters, significance on a global scale is not an ITN criteria. This isn't a huge deal but it's of interest to a large segment of our readers. The articles in good shape. It's a novel story that people will read about. RxS (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A lot of our readers felt it and will be looking for information on it. This is what ITN is for -- not deciding what's important on a global scale. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a marginal consensus to post here, so marking [Ready?] for an uninvolved admin to take a look. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Oppose per reasons given by several users above, in particular Crispmuncher. I would have elaborated more, but then I might be accused of anti-Americanism and the other insults that tend to get thrown around in discussions like this. I think I'll stay out of it. JimSukwutput 02:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --Jayron32 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Seriously stop accusing those who oppose of being US-Centric or vice-versa for supports. There were 2 points here rarity of event and no damage done. Deal with those. Cant even have a decent conversation without people finding hidden implied US-Centrism out of the comments. Others dont even want to get involved due to it. Its very annoying and disruptive. I will be taking this to admins and repeated cases need to be dealt with. Happening way too often. -- Ashish-g55 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. We really do need to raise the standard of discussion here. The key elements of my post were ignored while I was again accused of provoking Americans. If some Americans (or people from anywhere) post rubbish, they should be called on it. If those Americans happen to be more sensitive than others, that's their problem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the most blatantly hypocritical post I've seen. You yourself made the accusation of US-centrism! You have no logical basis to be defensive. Swarm ^{u | t} 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an important distinction that needs to be understood. "US-centrism" is a description of the content of the nomination. It may be a legitimate criticism. You may disagree with it and respond to such accusations by stating why you think it's not US-centric; however, too many users instead respond to such comments by directing attacks against the user, accusing him of being anti-American or so on. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion and unhelpful.

That said, the argument applies both ways and I do agree that HiLo48 is unnecessarily provocative here by commenting on the location of supporters rather than sticking with the content of the nomination. JimSukwutput 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is again about the location of supporters. Maybe, before posting, topics like this should have to wait for the residents of the area involved to be asleep, so that the views of the rest of the world can be ascertained. This topic got a high number of posts, far more than equivalent events elsewhere in the world. One can only guess that the reason was that many of those who actually felt the earthquake posted. Surely it's up to those who didn't feel it to really judge the significance of the event. I still note that absolutely nobody has responded to the real point of my post - that the ongoing impact of this event, starting tomorrow, will be zero. I submit that WP:Recentism AND local centrism contributed to this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, HiLo48, but the location of the supporters is nothing except an irrelevent ad hominem point. It has nothing to do with why something may or may not be appropriate for ITN. --Jayron32 03:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, I've supported items pertaining to events whose significance was unclear to me (due to geographic/cultural separation), specifically because editors from the countries in which they occurred attested to their impact there. I wouldn't accuse you of "Australia-centrism" for attempting to provide such an explanation, and I strongly oppose the idea of shutting out the users most familiar with a subject.

Perhaps you overlooked the 2:44 (UTC) message by Medeis (pointing out that we routinely post ITN items pertaining to events with little "ongoing impact"). —David Levy 04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us how many Support posts came from non-Americans, and I will perhaps change my view. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I neither know the answer nor see how it's relevant to what I wrote above.

Assuming that the split occurred along national lines, one could argue that Americans supported the item due to bias or that non-Americans opposed it due to bias (or both). I assert neither, as I don't fancy myself a mindreader or an impartial arbiter. —David Levy 08:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I must say for the record that the first time I was made aware of the earthquake was when I was walking through a market last night and saw that the show on television was interrupted with a small banner at the bottom that had the breaking news that there was an earthquake on the East Coast of the U.S. The show and the banner was in Arabic, and I was in Syria. I don't think Syrian media has any bias toward the U.S. -- tariqabjotu 08:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood my point about news sources. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A crime against English Can someone please rework the current blurb? I haven't checked who the posting admin was but they deserve a good battering with each volume of the OED and in numerical order. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  What wording do you suggest? —David Levy 08:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  A magnitude 5.8 intraplate earthquake, the largest in the eastern United States and Canada since 1897, was centered near Mineral, Virginia. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The section is written in the present tense. —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-Posting Oppose, like Crispmuncher, HiLo48, Jim Sukwutput and others, I fail to see the significance in this event, I also don't see that there was a clear consensus to post this, there was not much more than a majority. Even if it is not pulled, the blurb needs changing to something resembling proper English such as A magnitude 5.8 intraplate earthquake shakes the eastern United States, centred near Mineral, Virginia, it is the region's strongest since 1897.Mtking ^(edits) 08:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Consensus isn't determined via a simple vote count.
  2. A run-on sentence isn't "proper English." —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Battle of Tripoli update

 The compound was Gaddafi's headquarters, and one of the final areas under pro-Gaddafi control. Swarm ^{u - t} 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If there is no Gaddafi inside this is vain news, so we need to wait for more substantial and conclusive reports. Also, I'd suggest not posting any developing events of this conflict at all, only 100% sure events that had already happened and were confirmed by all kind of sources (either both sides of the conflict or by many independent sources). Remember that BBC, CNN, France Press, Al Jazeera and other coalition media are on one side in this war. GreyHood ^Talk 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper fire is still being reported and rebels and journalists continue to claim that there are still pockets of loyalists. It's not captured. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's not captured? Hm. I better call the BBC and Reuters to let them know. Swarm ^{u | t} 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better reports say it is fully captured now. They're also entering Gaddafi's house now. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support We might as well make sure that the blurb ITN reflects the latest development. Capturing Gaddafi's headquarters is a very symbolic event. And it seems to be confirmed now. Thue | talk 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I expect more people will call my comments nonsense.. But this is really LOL facts and I can't resist posting it here. Russian Channel One (one of the two main TV channels in Russia) questions Al Jazeera reports of the recent developments in Tripoli. Basically they say that the west of Lybia is still in the control of Gaddafi (the first journalist speaking after presenter, from Lybia). The LOL thing they say that according to many bloggers and independent journalists Lybian rebels might never ever reached the Green Square, Tripoli. All those TV reports were just fakes, filmed in a set of decorations imitating the Green Square, built in Qatar. The huge Potemkin village, hehe. According to a journalist (speaking in grey coat from around 4:30) who recently have returned from Tripoli (a week before the ongoing battle) palms and streetlamps are in the wrong places on Al Jazeera videos, and also there are no pitholes and constructions that were recently made on the real square. Russian TV report concludes with the statement that a massive information war is going on, and that the videos of rebels in Gaddafi's headquarters are not conclusive and need further confirmations. GreyHood ^Talk 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that says more about Channel One and Russian journalism than it does about what is going on in Libya... Thue | talk 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exact answer I've expected, almost word to word ;) GreyHood ^Talk 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nice part about Channel One's claim is that it is verifiable. If the compound was never taken, then we will hear about it later. Which in an ideal world would mean that people will take Channel One much less seriously in the future. Thue | talk 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The channel doesn't claim the compound wasn't taken. It just says that given all the previous misinformation and certain strange facts about the square videos the situation needs more confirmations. As for the taking news seriously, I wonder why everybody still takes Al Jazeera so seriously despite several notorious cases of misinformation. GreyHood ^Talk 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Channel One should not be passing on conspiracy theories unless they had very strong indications that they were true. Thue | talk 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I don't exactly think that Channel One, owned by the Russian government (who, in turn, had strong ties with the Libyan government and was expected to veto Resolution 1973, if not for the fact that it wanted to protect civilians above all else), is in a position to make these claims. Especially considering that they've had their bouts of controversy already -- editing the Belarusian president's speech to warp what he said. I think that, considering the fact that AJ is on the ground, along with AFP and BBC, we should rest assured that our info is okay. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian government has much less interest in this conflict than NATO governments, some of which by the way established quite close relationships with Gaddafi in the recent years. And by the way other Russian state channels are more in line with AJ, BBC and others. Nevertheless, such reports as the cited one from Channel One reflect the level of distrust to the western media which was developed during the recent years in many countries of the world. GreyHood ^Talk 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Having contributed quite a bit to the Tripoli article, this is well-documented and reported (live footage can easily see the rebel flag flying above the Gaddafi house within Bab al-Aziziya now), and Bab al-Aziziya is essentially the defining structure of Tripoli, akin to the White House in Washington, or the Reichstag in Berlin (well, if those doubled as fortresses.) The current blurb does not seem to be accurate given the situation - fighting is still heavy, yes, but it's not significantly more than the level of fighting in the civil war before the battle began. Seleucus (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, whatever with the footage, there was no Gaddafi nor anyone significant in that residency. GreyHood ^Talk 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reply It's a symbolic moment that sums up the situation in the city at the moment. Like the burning of the White House in the war of 1812 (though of course the president had fled beforehand.) It was a major regime symbol, and now it's fallen. If this was an isolated event, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but this sums up the various advances the rebels have been making through Libya, which by themselves have been too small to report on the main page. Militarily, it is also quite a big deal, as Bab Al Aziziya was one of the main remaining loyalist strongholds in the city. Seleucus (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support If the story is worth keeping on the front page it's worth keeping updated. RxS (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I like the way Seleucus put it. Even PBS reporters are saying much of the gunfire is merely the rebels' precautionary fire when entering areas, as opposed to actual fighting. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Per RxS -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE NEEDED – It seems the the Libyan Army has retaken control of Bab al-Azizia on Thursday. My only reliable source so far is this video report by Euronews correspondent Mustafa Bag. The associated voice over is extremely censored, so you will have to "read between the lines" to understand what's going on.

• "Pockets of resistance in Tripoli as hunt for Gaddafi goes on". Euronews. 2011-08-25.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source for the battle:

• "Gaddafi tells troops to kill 'rats'". Daily Mirror. 2011-08-26.

Quote: Snipers loyal to Gaddafi were involved in the bloodiest battles in Tripoli's Abu Salim area, near the ruler's former compound in Bab al-Aziziya which was overrun earlier this week.

British war censorship again prevents the journal from telling who won the battle. The Euronews video however shows the aftermath; the the rebel camp abandoned and the Libyan Army firmly in control with civilian traffic flowing past. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to specify where you see this censorship and where you get this proof that Bab al-Aziziya is in the hands of loyalists, because I'm not seeing it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey-Kurdish war

 Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sounds like an important military action across international borders. But how is this a minority topic? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just pasted the basic ITN template. First time nominator. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Taking the liberty of removing that and the ITNR tag (This is definitely not a recurring item either) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created an article for ITN. Note the similarities between this conflict and the recent war between Gaza and Israel. Turkey's raids were in response to a surge in Kurdish violence, some say a very unique escalation. Although the Turkish offensive has killed many more people than Israel's response to similar violence. While Turkey does not have a "de-facto" truce with the PKK, it does have relations with Kurdish governments in Iraq and they say this raid was contrary to international norms. So? Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]