Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2011

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

[Posted] Scores killed in inter-tribal fighting in Pibor, South Sudan

 * Support - increase in tensions.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - If it increases in tensions. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 01:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Shall we mention in the blurb who exactly is fighting? --Tone 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, posting with the proposed blurb now, feel free to modify. --Tone 19:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Really should have been paying attention to this one. Clashes between tribes, the Sudan PLA, rebels and other groups had killed at least 500 people since before South Sudan's declaration of independance. Keep the article posted, but I'll try to create a timeline of some sort. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 21:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Uprising Sticky
News stories for this keep getting shot down because people are dying there every day, so no story is special enough. Lets put a sticky to Syrian Uprising to cover it all. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of updates is the article getting? All I see in recent updates is in the casualty count, not about actual conflicts. Casualty counts are notable, but it is almost impossible to get anything encyclopaedic written about it, which means it is not Wikipedia's job to cover it. The problem, I think, is that we hadn't had anything nominated that can be considered a turning point or a single, influential event in the conflict. For example, we can nominate significant announcements or decisions by the Syrian opposition, the Syrian government, or other involved parties such as the Arab League and NATO. Those may be less concrete than the day-to-day fighting on the ground, but it is much easier to cover from an encyclopaedic/journalistic standpoint, and much easier to digest for readers.  JimSukwutput  07:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would normally agree to a sticky, but I can kind of see Jim's point. If the article isn't being updated with any content, there isn't really much point.  Night  w   08:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. How about the timeline then? The one for September–December has gotten updated every day. The one for the new year has just been started. So the sticky would be so: Syrian Uprising Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to disagree with Jim. Over hundred thousand people engaged in demonstrations throughout Syria last week that was triggered by the arrival of monitors from the Arab League. However, the Syrian Army continued to fire at protesters and former soldiers in the presence of these monitors. My second to last ITN request basically went stale in spite of support. I updated the article btw. I'm not so sure on a sticky. Wikifan Be nice  11:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't think it is a good idea. Most news from Syria are very dubious and disputed, like this story with observers. There are ketchup falsifications of killed persons for the news, like this, there are cases when alive people find themselves in the lists of killed, there are exaggerations and other kinds of informational war. Per Jim above, I suggest to nominate and report only important hard fact developments in the conflict, which are turning points or highly influential. Grey  Hood   Talk  12:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Ada Bridge

 * Support - seems interesting enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is in good shape. Interesting enough for an engineering feature. --Tone 16:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - a noteworthy engineering achievement. --German611 16:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, decent article, and it makes a nice change to have good, non-sporting news (as much as I like sport). —WFC— 17:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: before posting this we should probably wait for it to open, then update the article to remove the various 'under construction' mentions and put it on the list of longest cable-stayed bridges. Modest Genius talk 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have put it on the list. The bridge will be opened at midnight according to Central European Time. -- Bojan   Talk  18:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, according to that list there are several longer with just the one pylon (though the Zhivopisny Bridge does use an arch rather than a single pylon), including the New Taipei Bridge which looks like it does indeed only have one pylon. But we don't have an article on it, and all I can see about it is in Chinese so I can't read it. Is it possible that the Taipei bridge opened after the discovery article used to support the record in the Ada Bridge article was written? Is there a reliable source for the record somewhere? Modest Genius talk 21:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Looks like it is the longest bridge with a classic Λ-shaped one pylon, rather than the longest bridge with one pylon of any type. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw, Happy New Year to ITN regulars and all Wikipedians! Grey  Hood   Talk  21:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise!   Night  w   06:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did some copyediting and updated the article to reflect that the bridge is now open. I'll let others assess its readiness. Modest Genius talk 23:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait for confirmation that it is still the longest single-pylon cable-stayed bridge as the New Taipei Bridge does look like it is longer.  Mt  king  (edits)  23:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 01:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * please dont support/oppose without a meaningful comment. thanks -- Ashish-g55 02:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The claim is not verified by the source. Even if it is true, it is merely longest in a subcategory of subcategory of bridges. Also, article is in poor shape.  JimSukwutput  02:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is mentioning in Extreme Engineering good source? -- Bojan   Talk  06:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I mot sure anymore is it the largest or longest. I apologize for inconvenience. -- Bojan   Talk  07:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

More Syrian killings
– HonorTheKing (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we hear this every day, nothing major has happend to add it back on front page. Everyday the Syrian kill dozens.

Falklands
This is a bump - ITN has been so slow that there's a [Ready] story which dropped off into the December archives. The Falkland islands story is apparently good to go, and is dated 24 Dec, which would make it the fourth story on the template right now. I have no comment on the suitability of the item, but when there's a story from 11 days ago on the template we have a problem. Modest Genius talk 18:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose still because it's a largely symbolic. Uruguay has already stated it won't uphold the ban. If there is any news here at all it's that Brazil didn't oppose something which is in the interests of Argentina. What article was updated anyway? I can't find the details in Mercosur or Falkland Islands. --Stop China Now (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not to use a terrible pub........but that ship has sailed. It wasn't clear cut if the story should be posted in the first place and I'm sceptical about its ready status. In any case, it happened a long time ago, it's not clear cut what exactly has been agreed, and putting it on the ITN segment now would only act to make the segment rather out-of-date, inaccurate and misleading. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relax; it's the end of December, having a slow ITN is to be expected.  JimSukwutput  03:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not that bothered, it's usually me who ends up saying that a slow news day isn't an excuse for a sub-standard item :p. I just happened to see at [Ready] item in the archives and thought I should flag it up. Modest Genius</b> talk 17:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Jamaican general election

 * Support - changes in governments are important.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - article needs copyedit and sources. Will support if it's tuned up. --Stop China Now (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Plus, I would use the picture of Portia Simpson-Miller on the main page. Scanlan (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment At least one more reference and a couple of sentences more would be nice. Ready to post then. --Tone 14:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support General elections (and changes of government) are ITN/R, and even if they're not, the result of this election makes it a certainty for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if changes in governments are important -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 02:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The results are posted, but the article looks a pit thin.  Night  w   04:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have expanded it a little, no time to do much more at the moment. It looks just enough to creep through on article length.  I'd post it but I never feel right posting things I have worked on myself - Dumelow (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Posting. --Tone 11:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Guinea Bissau Coup attempt

 * The update needs sources.  JimSukwutput  21:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a minority topic. Hot Stop UTC  12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if article gets more attention, I added 3 sources and put names in the article, but it needs work. The events leading up to the coup need claification. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Samoa time change

 * Nice, that's some advance! What's the best article here, date line maybe? --Tone 15:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support nation's choice. Yes, International Date Line mentions Samoa now three or four times. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - novel item, globally significant (in that globes will need to be redrawn) and interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support, the kind of stuff ITN is best at. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support though the blurb could be improved to be less wordy. Hot Stop UTC 16:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Sorry, I edited the blurb for tense.  Night  w   17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this is best suited to be posted tomorrow, the orange tag regarding the references can be addressed before. Then it's good to go. --Tone 17:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Interesting piece of news that merits to go on ITN.  Lynch 7  18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. It's very important to skip a whole calendar day.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the blurb would be clearer if written as ".....thereby skipping 30 December entirely."  18:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. WOW, amazing. Luckey for them its Dec 30 so they can still celebrates New Years Eve. lol
 * Support - Interesting news, and it's not often that two countries skip an entire day. Scanlan (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the calendar, but not in reality. I think we ought to make that clear.  JimSukwutput  23:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Speedy" support. Don't see any reason for further delay. —WFC— 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Supreme Leader of North Korea

 * Support when the article is updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support when the article is updated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * could mention himbeing the youngers head of state/govt in th e world. no source, but we can jut link to the list of heads of state that has all of themLihaas (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Suggest amending blurb with, declared by "blah blah." North Korean government is the only sovereign state that uses the term "Supreme Leader." Wikifan Be nice  12:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is updated in hours. Katarighe  ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This is an important confirmation of what most already assumed. A new head of government and de facto head of state has been appointed. Important stuff. --109.155.74.208 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Marking [Ready]. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest to use simply Kim Jong-un is officially declared the new Supreme Leader of North Korea. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated the blurb per your request. German611 21:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no "post" of "Supreme Leader of North Korea" so it's impossible for him to have been "officially declared" to that "position". This needs to be reworded. --Jiang (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To what? Surely dictatorships can do what they like. If they say there is a Supreme Leader, there is. We don't have to like it, or endorse their behaviour, but those in charge do make the rules. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they didn't. North Korea is not treating "Supreme Leader" as any specific title. We could have easily translated the Korean to "Highest Leader" - would you be treating this as a office/title if we did that?--Jiang (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This has become confusing. Let's go back a bit and simplify. You said "This needs to be reworded." I asked "To what?" Your turn now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Jiang (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Death of Cheeta

 * I am actually in a mood that I'd happily support this one if there was a decent article on the ape in question. Not just the one about the movie character. --Tone 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, perhaps the most notable animal actor of all time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weren't there multiple Cheeta's? When one of them celebrated his 75th birthday he watched a video with a "grandson", yet the article says Cheeta never had any offspring. And it is known more then one monkey was used for those films. The article is pretty unclear - which Cheetah is which, and which one died yesterday? If you manage to clearify these inconsistencies, you have my full support. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would support due to the exceptional age of the animal (if there were more than one, this one was 80). --Stop China Now (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - movie icon, much more famous than some of the human apes that we put up here. Even without a separate article, because besides being in movies watched by billions, I'm not sure she has done anything else notable in her life, such as publish an autobiography, or divorce 6 times... Crnorizec (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot realize what is the importance of this news. Popular chimpanzee in the 1930s dies in 2011 whose significance is staled almost 80 years after. If we have to post deaths of important animals, we should have posted the death of octopus Paul that was an animal watched by billions of people in more recent time.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: Wasn't there a bear or something that was nominated a few months ago? Or that prophetic octopus dying? Is there precedent for posting?  Night  w   04:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is a curiosity but not a front page news story. Seems a bit cheapening if it is posted doktorb wordsdeeds 07:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Animal story = slow news day.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - quite trivial, and the information on the purported age of the purported "star" is in any case unverified and highly dubious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Many news sites, such as those who first published his death now says that Cheeta died 30 years ago and it was not him who died, according to them, a monkey can't pass the age of 60 so can't be him.

New Bosnian Government

 * Can you update the article?  Night  w   04:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's wait until the government is complete, with the PM known. Shouldn't take too long. Support then. --Tone 11:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * theres not mention of the croat PM (i forget his name) which needs addition and sourcingLihaas (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Strait of Hormuz

 * Oppose: Iran has been threatening to cut off the Strait of Hormuz since at least 1980 during the Iran–Iraq War. To date they have made only limited efforts to carry out this threat.  If Iran was to seriously attempt to block the strait then it would be ITN worthy but repetition of old threats is not. --Allen3 talk 23:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Cutting off oil supply from the Strait of Hormuz" has been a national slogan of Iran since 1980.  JimSukwutput  23:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stick a fork in it it's done. Talk is cheap, no support. If they actually attempt to close the strait, then strong support. --Stop China Now (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has cancer
my first ever proposal, sorry for mistakes--Feroang (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * goverment official comunication in spanish
 * Wait until she officially steps down. Then we can mention the cause of her resignation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait and support, will support putting up when she steps aside, blurb needs work. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notable (and very sad, I hope she recovers). But why would this be ITN worthy? She will be back in her job in about a month. This is suitable for the Current Affairs page. Not so much ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 15:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose only a temporary leave. Should we post everytime a President has a colonoscopy? Hot Stop UTC  15:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes? And those cases were only for a few hours, this is for several weeks. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The real news here is not the temporary leave, but that she has cancer. A current head of state with cancer is an important news topic (perhaps reformulate the section title to clarify this). The temporary leave is merely a side-consequence of the real news. Cambalachero (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this it's not uncommon for South American leaders to have cancer. Also, the same article states that the type of cancer she has is "highly survivable" with 95% of patients living 10+ years after it's spotted.  Hot Stop UTC  16:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think this deserves to go on ITN; we never posted it when another powerful political head had surgery for cancer. I don't mean to say anything like "we didn't post that, so we shouldn't post this" or stuff, but the leave is only temporary, and she'll be back at the chair after a few weeks.  Lynch 7  16:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a Head of State with a serious disease go to surgery and step away from presidency, and Argentina "change" his Head of State is a Event, like any other nation changing his HoS. Sorry if this break some protocol rule.--Feroang (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not all cancers are created equal. As pointed out by Hot Stop above, this one has a 95% 10-year survival rate, which makes it little more dangerous than catching a flu. And this is not a change of the HoS; practically it is just a three-week vacation for an unfortunate woman.  JimSukwutput  21:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment When it was announced that Hugo Chávez was diagnosed with colon cancer and traveled to Cuba for treatment, did the headline make it to ITN? The two news stories share similar characteristics, except that Chávez didn't step aside from the presidency. --   Luke      (Talk)   22:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Swedish journalists sentenced to prison in Ethiopia
Oppose A very minor event. Unless this creates some sort of international break between Sweden and Ethiopia then maybe a better worded blurb could be posted. Wikifan Be nice 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is that had these two journalist been American it would probably have already been on ITN. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Support my problem here is that the media spin suggests they were wrongfully accused and convicted, yet no one disputes that they violated the Ethiopian border. The wiki articles themselves seem to be better. The question is do we label this as a mundane border violation, or the trampling of "free press", or something else. There seems to be some media coverage of this, and the template is in it's 36th hour of non-updatedness. --Stop China Now (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Two journalists violated the law of a country and got imprisoned. How is this different from the millions of cases of crime happening in the globe every day? This is only significant if you believe that Ethiopia is somehow oppressing free speech by not giving foreign journalists extra-judicial privileges. Even then this is a completely trivial incident compared to how oppressive the Ethiopian government is to its people every day. This nomination should be speedy closed, and nominators who repeatedly demonstrate such a poor grasp of significance (and who cry U.S.-centrism at every turn) should be revoked of their privileges of nominating on ITN. Don't waste our time.  JimSukwutput  02:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right or wrong, journalists traditionally get some lenience regarding legal issues while performing their duties. In many countries the law considers intent and action (see Mens rea). I think it's fair to say that these two Swedes weren't gun runners or suicide bombers. I'm not saying these two are particularly noteworthy just that they can't be lumped into the common criminal category. --Stop China Now (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Journalists being targeted while trying to do important journalism. Thue | talk 17:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can't see this story with much 'spread', hasn't been covered by many sources. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Compass navigation system

 * Can this qualify as a minority topic? I realize that it's space technology but it has terrestrial applications. --Stop China Now (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Important news, as COMPASS will serve in the same category as GLONASS, Galileo and GPS. I remember we posted related news for GLONASS and Galileo, so why not for this one as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because GLONASS had all 24 satellites operational. --Stop China Now (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait until the system has global coverage. --Stop China Now (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this should follow the precedents. I can see at TALK:GLONASS an ITN template which was placed when the system went global. I can't see one for Galileo. So the precedent seems to be for when the system goes global in which case this nomination is premature. If someone can uncover an ITN listing for Galileo, then Compass should be mentioned at a similar stage.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * GLONASS first went locally (and globally) operational before Wikipedia was started. Galileo has not yet gone locally operational. So there are no Wikipedia ITN precedents, as far as I can see. Since Compass is a megaproject, I think we can post this milestone, and then post again when it goes global. Thue | talk 23:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * GLONASS got ITN coverage on Oct 5/2011 when global coverage was restored after more than a decade of disrepair. Galileo is not yet fully operational, and is not yet on ITN. We can't post every milestone in a mega-project. What's next? COMPASS covers Asia? The Pacific? When it's done, it's completion will be a triumph of organization and engineering and will certainly deserve mention, but not yet, sorry. --Stop China Now (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support first time operational. ... (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons given by Kiril. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because, it's yet another space news item, and ITN has too many of those, because it is a partial system, and because it's really boring. Speciate (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Notable, interesting, and as has been said, the comparisons with other similar systems make this of world-wide significance. Also covers a science story which is rare for ITN doktorb wordsdeeds 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article needs some more prose to say what has happened just recently and then it's good to go. We have a slow news week, besides, out of six current ITN items, three are about bombings and one is about the death of a state leader. In principle, we could update the Syria item with the monitor team coming to the country. --Tone 08:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone? We're two days red and this item would be nice to have... --Tone 08:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. ... (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Up it goes. --Tone 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Death of Helen Frankenthaler

 * Weak oppose Blurb suggesting her significance as a developer of Color Field is not sufficient for posting. For example, we didn't post the death of Kenneth Noland, who is considered as more advanced proponent of this movement. However, given the fact that she was one of the very few female postwar painters who gained fame compels me to give only weak oppose leaning towards neutral.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, perfect material for recent deaths but not ITN. Nothing world-changing about this. Nor is there any substantial update to her article. --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Anna Hazare begins his fast

 * Oppose. No indication of notability.  JimSukwutput  08:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose A quick Google search suggests to me this is "a little local difficulty" and not convincing enough for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 08:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its surely not "a little local difficulty", it is a major part of the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, which has been named among the "Top 10 News Stories of 2011" by Time magazine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean we should be posting every small update on the main page. We posted the end of his previous fast, and his detention because they received far more attention than this. Also, mention of "several thousands" of people itself kills the notability; for a so called large scale protest, it doesn't even include probably even 0.1% of the Indian population. This is probably why big houses like CNN and BBC have not picked up the story in a big way, and that should be why we should not be posting this. If Mr. Hazare's "Jail Bharo" thingy picks up steam and gets popular, then that could be something worth posting.  Lynch 7  10:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. His article suggests this is something he does quite frequently. No indication that this is especially notable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Though this is the thing that Indian news channels are going crazy about, this has become something he does quite frequently (as Ghmyrtle said), and this particular fast is nothing special as such. Nothing on an international eye-catching level anyway.  Lynch 7  10:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, that's the third time this year, if I am not mistaken? We've posted one of the previous times. Well, if there is some major effect this time, another post could be discussed but it's too early to say at this point. --Tone 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose-ish, if and when the bill is passed, I'd support posting it, as that would be a major milestone in the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement. But yeah, have to agree that a 3 day fast during the parliament discussion on the bill isnt all that notable (even though most of the Indian media thinks that this and the Boxing Day Test are the only notable things happening on earth right now). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I completely agree with Vibhijain, the news doesn't only belongs to India. The news was named among the "Top 10 News Stories of 2011" by Time magazine. -- Karthik Nadar 11:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's been covered on ITN in the past. What's different about this time?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I really think this article appeared more in March & August. Katarighe  ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, three days? That's not a fast, it's a diet. --Golbez (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Golbez. I don't see any major ramifications to come about from this. This is something he does quite frequently.--WaltCip (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reconsider from a different angle: No offence Vaibhav, but I think the proposed blurb focuses on the elephant dung while there is a goddamn elephant in the room. As I've mentioned above - I dont think Hazare's fast is notable enough, but the Lokpal Bill got passed in the Lok Sabha yesterday, if it gets passed in the Rajya Sabha as well (I think the vote will happen later today), then it will become law. If and when it becomes law, the Lokpal Act will be an important milestone in the Indian anti-corruption movement, and given India's status as the most populous democracy as well as one of the most corrupt countries, I'd think the new law would be notable enough. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends though, on what Hazare's reaction to the passing of the bills is. If Hazare isn't satisfied, then I'd expect that the media won't be particularly upbeat about it. There is still speculation on whether the law will be useful or not.  Lynch 7  04:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike, and also it doesn't seems that it will pass in the Rajya Sabha. Maybe we can later consider the "Jail Bharo" protests if they get some spark. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 10:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing this, I'd deem it unlikely, let's see how it goes.  Lynch 7  12:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Bombing in Nigeria

 * Two articles are:
 * December 2011 Nigeria blasts
 * 2011 Nigeria Christmas Day bombings
 * Merge implemented. Brand meister  t   20:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support As nominator. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 07:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support -- Updated blurb, best in breaking news scope. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 14:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support Important story with separate bombings and decent media coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support However, the 2 articles about the events need to be merged first.  Spencer T♦ C 17:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose while tragic, this kind of violence has become rather routine in Nigeria. Boko Haram has been responsible for 6 attacks in 2011 alone (according to WP). The only thing that makes this one stand out is that they attacked Christians on Christmas. The article has 2 good sources, but has some unsourced content, and has twitter as a source for another. The title is neutral and the overall article is ok, but it could use significant expansion (4 cities needs at least 4 headings IMO). --Stop China Now (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SCN. Msallahr (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a quite odd terrorist incident because of its premeditated Christmas timing. Brand meister  t   20:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Major incident. A major terrorist incident is a major terrorist incident even if it happens in Africa. Or do ITN criteria include systemic bias?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions led to the consensus (or at least the stalemate) that violence in a country prone to violence is less newsworthy than violence in a country where it is uncommon. Personally I'm on the fence in this regard. --Stop China Now (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the Sinophobe.  JimSukwutput  23:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The only reason these bombings received a relatively large amount of media coverage was because they took place on Christmas. However, I feel this is significant and I would feel the same way if this happened in August.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted - BanyanTree 07:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hackers attack Stratfor

 * Just adding another comment: I'm not that good at writing, nor making the blurb, I just packed a lot of information, so if it is useful for someone to write a news post, it could be taken and edited. (maybe I should have posted somewhere else before here, I don't know) --Arthurfragoso (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - another poor and insignificant imitation of Robin Hood.  JimSukwutput  08:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Big Oppose Yeah this is a non-story, and the blurb is just...ugh. Seriously. Wikifan Be nice  08:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lulz, no The blurb is essentially a tweet, the story is nonsense and this nomination shouldn't go much further. Oppose doktorb wordsdeeds 08:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Its a not important story. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support I know the nom is doomed, but I changed blurb anyway to something a little better. The original was written by a non-native speaker. It's a fairly significant data theft, even with trumped up claims of "Anonymous" aside. --Stop China Now (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tangent Even if "Anonymous" did the deed, which they claim they didn't (how the hell does a non-entity like "Anonymous" make a press release anyway?), and if they made donations to charities, every fraud victim would immediately dispute the charge on their account. Generally CC gateways charge a dispute fee to the merchant regardless of the outcome, so that each of these supposed donations will actually end up costing the charities money. This has nothing to do with the nom, I just wanted to climb up on a soap box for a minute and rant. --Stop China Now (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Death of Johannes Heesters

 * Support - As nominator Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly of his significant importance to German cinema and was the last living person of a historic era, the oldest performer in the world at the time of his death. How many entertainers actually life to become 108? With no less then thirty-six non-English language Wikipedia articles --ATX-NL (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I was to nominate this by myself. Clearly an important person, not only for the German-language cinema, but in the world's as well, having a 90-years long career that began in the silent era.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Awful blurb. "Hitler's favorite singer?" Clearly famous in Germany, but these facts seem more relevant for DYK than ITN. "Did you know x was Hitler's favorite singer?" Or "Did you know y was the last living blah blah.." Wikifan Be nice  03:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the blurb is the reason for oppose, then we can easily modify it to say something suitable for ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then modify it. Wikifan Be nice  06:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I modified it. If it still isn't a good blurb, please be so kind and help me write a better one, as I am not much of an expert when it comes to blurbs. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support Regardless of blurb, although this was my stab at it. "Weak" because while there's relatively little to be said about a natural death, the personal life section (which covers the death) is pretty bitty. —WFC— 08:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I tend to agree with Wikifan that this is a DYN-style curio not real news. If the nomination is accepted, then Operette should be changed to Operetta which is the term we use in such articles as The Merry Widow as well as the article on Heesters himself. Also the article could be made less senstionalist by e.g. mentioning that he was Lehar's favourite Danilo - See here and be aware that there are an awful lot of character recognition problems - and not just Hitler's. However, the fact that I only found two mentions of him in Gramophone does make me doubt that he was that important a singer.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Searching on sites such as the Guardian and the BBC, they have not rushed out to mention his death yet. Not a big world figure.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- As nominator. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 13:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the importance of the person is because of his life-span spent in the cinema, commencing at the time of silent film and ending in 2011. A slight consensus has been reached through the discussion and I must say that the opposes are groundless, since it surely won't be posted without further modification of the blurb. How about something like: "One of the last survivals of the silent film and the oldest active performer Johannes Heesters dies at the age of 108."--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed blurb per Kiril. Msallahr (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support - very notable artist, one of the most famous operetta stars of all time and record-holder for most Bambi's won. Msallahr (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment "opposes are groundless..." Not exactly. Basically, this guy really isn't that well known. The fact that he was Hitler's favorite singer and the oldest actor, last actor, whatever actor, does not infer importance. This guy isn't universally known, no front page news in international papers. Obvious minority topic. Better for DYN than ITN. Wikifan Be nice  21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * His death received a lot of media attention in many countries and in many languages. Since he died well over a thousend news articles have been written about the death of Johannes Heesters. In Germany he was a major star, receiving their Bambi prize (German equivalent of the Oscars) more then ten times. He held several Guinness World Records and while he may not be "universally known", he has received plenty of media attention outside of the German-speaking world already during his life. And, more so, in death. He probably has the longest running career of any movie actor or artist, living or dead, and he was a major star of the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. He was one of the, is not the biggest operetta (light opera) stars of the 20th century. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Went back and forth looking through the sources. No doubt he was a big national celebrity, but peter cohen's notes are convincing. Only weakly opposing given his long career. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 01:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the lack of coverage noted by PC. Hot Stop UTC 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - significant death.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Slight, but sufficient consensus has been reached here, so I think the item should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only two supports with rationales. The rest are merely endorsements. Wikifan Be nice  21:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So? Endorsement is support too. A lot of people simply vote without giving much reasons. It's not in any way a requirement. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The relevant update comprises a statement that Heesters fell ill and died and a list of his surviving descendants. The article lacks information about his death's impact.  —David Levy 08:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good enough for DYK, and of course for recent deaths, and maybe the article could be worked upon for Featured status if it's not already. But not significant enough for ITN. There needs to be a good balance of argument that front page inclusion in the ITN section 'looks right'. For this story, I can't see it looking "right" doktorb wordsdeeds 08:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Wikifan and Peter Cohen. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Russian protests

 * Oppose. We have posted this before. Nothing particularly new in this new episode, and more are likely to follow in the new year. Makes no sense to post every of them.  Grey  Hood   Talk  12:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, Christmas in Russia is on January 7, and the number of protesters is not yet definitely known with large differences between police counts at metal detectors and organisers' claims. Grey  Hood   Talk  12:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Already posted once, and as of now, there is nothing new about this. "On Christmas Eve" in the blurb is typical anglophone bias in WP, as Greyhood points out. Nanobear (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really, most of the world celebrates it on December 25, as our excellent article on Christmas points out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose larger protests in Moscow have already been posted recently, I don't think we need a follow-up unless the numbers are confirmed to be somewhat significantly larger than 60,000 which was number of participants the activists claimed attended. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Evolution theory of early animals reversed
Oppose. This will be music to the ears of creationists but the theory of evolution is undeniable so this story is of little importance. --109.150.238.107 (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If you only cared to read the sources, you would have realized that this doesn't have anything to do with denial of the evolution. Crnorizec (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Clearly of significant importance to the scientific world. As to the IP address above, no, what this shows is that we still don't know what the earliest ancestor of the animals is, which we haven't know for all of science anyways. It was theorized for a fair amount of time that these fossils were as such, upon which a lot of the animal history tree is settled upon. What this discovery does is force us to continue looking for that ancestor and opens up the possibility that animals as a kingdom are a lot younger than we originally thought. It's very important, yes, but it hardly overturns evolution. Silver  seren C 14:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: "turn out to be the remains of much simpler microbial organisms" doesn't seem like proper grammatical English. Silver  seren C 16:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm concerned about the fact that most of the mass media coverage about this discovery seems to have came from people who believe that the validity of evolutionary theory is in doubt, something that is absolutely false. See here for a more professional explanation of the significance of this discovery.  JimSukwutput  18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment along the same lines as Silver seren and Jim, "turns out to be" is almost pejorative. Also, even though the study was very thorough, and is published in Science, doesn't a second team of researchers have to reproduce the results before this can be declared scientific fact? I'll confess that I couldn't make it through the abstract in the science article, let alone the body, but the VOA article seemed more interested in sensational claims like "Upend Evolution Theory". --Stop China Now (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just switch turn out to be with are in fact -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or "Researches believe that tiny fossils thought for decades to be the embryos of the earliest animals, are the remains of simpler microbial organisms." --Stop China Now (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is the usual overstated scientific hype. Or hoopla. But at least it's not hogwash. The main problem with posting it is that the distinction between multicellularity and sporulation is quite subtle, both from an interpreting microfossil perspective and from the lay perspective. Speciate (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Let's look at the sources. "...could make scientists rethink..." Wow! Surely that's what scientists do. "...even if this turns out to be the last word on the Doushantuo fossils..." A really dumb comment. "...it probably won't be the last word on the origins of animal life." Der. (Or masked creationism?) "...likely to dismay many palaeontologists..." Ooooh, those poor dismayed palaeontologists. Another really dumb comment. Not being a subscriber I obviously haven't read the Science article, but the abstract looks well beyond the scientific reading level of 99.999% of Wikipedia readers. This a classical problem for us, and something we must always work to avoid, but those other sources aren't much help at all. I don't think there's anything here for ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sure the story, blurb and conclusions are all in line, for one thing, but regardless, this seems more speculation than story doktorb wordsdeeds 06:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Shock news.... "Scientists modify their theories".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too early, but shocking news. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 15:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whoever posted this didn't notice that "Ediacaran" fossils cover a wide range of types over hundreds of millions of years, if not more. While these recent results have yet to be reproduced, even if they are, this is only a small subset of what is covered under the larger "ediacaran" umbrella term. Ryoung 122 20:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Bombings in Syria

 * Support. The first major terror bomb incident during the uprising. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 14:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. The ammount of casualties makes it pretty notable too. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; I am of the opinion that these car bombings were the work of the Syrian government attempting to give the Assad regime more legitemacy. Either way, this is a pretty major occurrence.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 21:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose copyvio. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there? I was just about to come and say that there is not enough content to post yet. It's amusing to see both problems pop up at once. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After checking the whole article, it was only one paragraph, which I have now removed. I checked everything else (not much!) and it seems fine. But yes, now I'd oppose, because there are only three paragrpahs left... But I'd support in principle if we can have a decent article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I updated the article with most of the information that is currently available. Wikifan Be nice  22:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 16:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support in principle This is a curious incident. We're not sure who is responsible but whether it is rebels attacking the capital or black propaganda by the regime to make it look like it, it is a new development in the Syrian situation.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Further earthquakes hit Christchurch, New Zealand

 * Oppose Little damage, no deaths, not notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I really agree with Doktorbuk, he said that its not important for now. --Katarighe (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Coincidences are not a metric for notability. I don't see how this is notable in its own right at all, considering that we regularly pass over earthquakes with millions of dollars of damages and dozens of casualties.  JimSukwutput  06:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Nothing about this is a coincidence. Geology doesn't do coincidences. It's a sad follow up to three other earthquakes in the past 15 months in this advanced western city, all on a previously unknown fault line. By New Zealand standards it was previously regarded as a safe and geologically stable place to live. (A lot of NZ is not.) This actually parallels the Occupy movement where it's easy and probably valid to say that most of the protests, like this earthquake, are non-notable events in their own right, but what IS notable is the sum of the protests, or the sum of these earthquakes. Wikipedia doesn't handle these "cumulative" stories very well at all. My city in Australia is a very popular destination for people who have been leaving Christchurch in droves over recent months. This migration will only grow. We are watching the slow death of a city. That is notable, but I can't see our rules dealing with it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkey cuts ties with France

 * Support. Seems a notable development involving several countries. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, seems very significant after reading over some of the news. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please update France–Turkey relations and link to it in the blurb. Speciate (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when Armenian_Genocide_denial is updated a little more. The France–Turkey relations article is not in a good shape, unfortunately. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - major news event, very prominent and unique. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be made clear that that France's new bill is not yet law; it has thus far been passed only by half of France's legislature. I'm surprised that we don't have an article on it though. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The blurb may be a little over-dramatic. Whilst the withdrawal of the ambassador and the freezing of political visits are not unnoteworthy, they don't really justify the phrase "cuts ties", IMO. Turkey is retaining diplomatic staff in France, has bilateral and other treaties with France (they are both in NATO, for example) and has not announced any economic or other sanctions against France. Also, the French ambassador does not appear to have been expelled from Turkey. And, as NW points out, this is not a "new law", but a private bill with a cat in hell's chance of actually becoming law. --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not post this as worded. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So... Turkey has not cut ties and France hasn't passed such laws? – H T  D  02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with FormerIP that "cuts ties" sounds over-stated. The tension on this issue between the EU and Turkey is there since over a decade. The media rather describes it as "freezes political relations" or "sanctions". --Elekhh (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - further escalation between two influential countries, but let's be precise on the wording. Crnorizec (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to clarify concerns raised above, "cuts ties" might be a non-moderate way of saying it but the degree to which bilateral relations have been damaged is pretty significant. According to Reuters link above: "Erdogan called off all economic, political and military meetings with Paris and cancelled permission for French military planes to land and warships to dock in Turkey, marking a new low in relations between the NATO partners.". I've changed law to bill and "cuts" to "severs" in the blurb. It's not adopted yet, since it has to go through the upper-house (French Senate) and yes political analysts predict that it's not going to pass but the important thing here is the political bargaining which caused the severing of relations. When it fails it the senate (if it happens), I doubt it's going to be a news story anymore and that's scheduled to happen in +6months time. --Tachfin (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment can "genocide denial bill" be changed to "proposition of a private bill which would criminalize denial of the Armenian Genocide" (or something shorter)? I think it needs a few words linking Turkey with genocide to help it make sense for drive-by readers. --Stop China Now (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Notable development involving several countries including Europe and the Middle East. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 13:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Medvedev's address

 * Oppose the reforms themselves might be noteworthy if enacted, but this isn't Hot Stop UTC 18:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Let's see less words and more actions.--WaltCip (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Perhaps, when some of those proposals are enacted, I will support posting them, but now it is just a regular political address with some promises for the future. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Even the most trustworthy of politicians consistently fail to deliver on promises made in speeches.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 11:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Waltcip put my thoughts exactly. Talk is cheap. Beyond495 (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are regular for now for the official address. -- Katarighe ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 13:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

[Ready] Mercosur votes to ban boats with a Falkland Islands flag

 * Oppose for now due to lack of an apparent update (apologies if I've missed it). I can be considered neutral without further input when an appropriate article is updated; the story is on the cusb of ITN worthiness given the number of countries with a stake in the decision. —WFC— 17:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fence-Sitting I'm British so therefore am already throwing out cans of corned beef as we speak. It's an interesting story but am not sure it's a detailed enough article for the front page. Notable story doktorb wordsdeeds 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if updated, per above. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, these tinpot Latin American politicians are not worthy of attention, which is clearly what they want. Speciate (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support if the news is actually updated. --Katarighe (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Question  it's not clear from the article or source but how many Falkland islands flagged vessels are there. I mean, you could still register a vessel in Panama or The Bahamas and sail it from the Falklands to Argentina right? This seems mostly symbolic, unless I missed something. --Stop China Now (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 32 fishing vessels Pol098 (talk) 06:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the grounds that this is a mostly symbolic gesture which doesn't actually change anything. --Stop China Now (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (pending update): This is tantamount to the Mercosur recognizing the sovereignty of Argentina over the Falkland islands. Even if the consensus is to not post this, I just hope its not because the representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela are considered tinpot Latin American politicians who are not worthy of attention. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Garbage-spewing politicians rattle their sabers because they are trying to get votes. Wikipedia should not be involved in promoting their re-election campaigns. Speciate (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Has been updated. Is ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Bagdad bombings

 * Support Too bad interest in these articles has become practically zero among the general editor population. I remember the rush on all the terrorist events in Europe/America, but killings not involving the West are often ignored. SOAP aside, this attack is of great importance not only in the region by sheer loss of life but also a revelation of what is to come since the US removed troops from the country. Editors should note the reactions (or lack thereof) from world leaders and quickly include them in the article. Threshold for ITN is 5 sentences minimum, the sources above will help in supporting content contributions.
 * Support - first major bombing after us troops withdraws.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - This is the largest bombing since January this year and with the withdrawal or US troops, I can see things spiralling downwards already. (No - I am not US-centric) YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support while bombings in Iraq are fairly common (we have fifteen notable ones this year alone) this one is both unusually large and has significant timing. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 15:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Soyuz TMA-03M
Is this ITNR? I'm fairly certain there was a consensus that we should stop posting relatively routine space launches, which this appears to be. The Space Shuttle launches were mostly posted but that was because the space shuttle program was winding down and there was reader interest in that. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly remarkable here, and the article isn't updated as well.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, pending update - Not to nitpick, but the article doesn't currently mention the launch. It doesn't need a major update, just a bit more information than what is there at the moment. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Standard ITN material, as we did post many such launches before.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried on several occasions to get these removed from ITNR, and argued against routine crew rotations. However, consensus on WT:ITNR was against me, so all manned spaceflight has remained on ITNR. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The two most recent conversations here and here don't really indicate consensus was against you. I think these discussions just didn't attract enough editors to result in a consensus to change policy.  WT:ITNR doesn't get that many eyeballs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose routine space launch, fail to see the significance in it. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  06:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Standard ITN material (both in practice and per ITNR).  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the definition of "news" was something important, unexpected and interesting - not something "standard" and "routine". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree at all. Most of the items included within ITN are either elections or already scheduled sports events, so the outcome of this "routine" event is even more risky and unexpected than the whole bunch of things that we tend to promote as ITN material. It's clear that a news is something unexpected, but I can't remember we have ever established this definition as a criterion to oppose other nominations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support – the article is mediocre, but does communicate the important facts. Speaking as a football fan, I think this is a bit more significant than the expected result in a relatively minor football competition, and on that basis I think ITN/R is spot on. —WFC— 16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've expanded the article a bit. Now it explains the mission highlights. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

HIV Vaccine

 * Oppose What's an FDA? I've heard of one in the USA, but that would imply US-centrism. Could be others elsewhere, meaning something entirely different. And where are the details of this alleged trial? Certainly not in the article linked to. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just skimming through your comments you do like to rant about US-centrism a lot. Come on, you didn't even address if this was ITN worthy you just ranted about US-centrism and didn't even read the article. If you did you'd know the details. Here's a quote from the article
 * "Phase 1. Beginning in January 2012, this phase will involve 30 HIV-positive people on whom safety will be retested.
 * Phase 2. This phase will examine immune responses in humans and will involve 600 HIV-negative people who are at high risk of contracting the AIDS virus.
 * Phase 3. This phase will determine the efficacy of the vaccine and will involve 6,000 HIV-negative volunteers at high risk of contracting the virus."
 * Also, I don't need to put out what the FDA is you know what it I mean and there is no other FDA that I can refer to than this FDA. Maybe if you spent the time to read the article and not ranting about us-bias you'd actually make a valid point for or against the ITN, but instead you did nothing but say oppose and rant.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the article. Absolutely NOTHING about a new trial. Pointing out that you did not clarify "FDA" was NOT a rant. An overly sensitive, paranoid person may read it that way. There should be no need. HiLo48 (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I just quoted a piece from the article that explain what the trial will be. All you do is complain about US bias. Read the rules at the top of the page "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." Then again you still won't read the article and still pretend to and say "there's nothing about the trial".--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no update to the article between 2 December and AFTER this item was suggested. Where is the "news"? Is it over three weeks old? We wouldn't post that. The US-centrism was NOT in the suggestion of posting this item. It was in using the term "FDA", with no further explanation, in a GLOBAL encyclopaedia, and assuming we would all know what you were talking about. You're going to have work bloody hard to convince me that's not US-centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are making stuff up. The article was written and posted on December 20. You know what you really need to read Civility. I'm done talking to you. I have never met a user like yourself before that complains and then instead of admitting their at fault just continues to make stuff up to try to support their claim. I don't get involved with users like yourself. I've proved my point. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just realised that maybe I haven't been clear enough when saying "the article". I am referring to the Wikipedia article HIV vaccine, to which your proposal refers. It wasn't updated for nineteen days before your proposal. How can it contain any news? And do you concede yet that a non-clarified "FDA" was US-centric? HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguing that a ITN shouldn't be posted because the article isn't updated isn't a vaild point. End of story. It just mean it needs to be updated. That's all. Second, I'm not going to argue with you about the FDA BS. The FDA (if you follow medicine which you don't) is an international standard and they have offices in China, India, Costa Rica, Chile, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. You just like to rant about US bias whenever you can (I looked at your history) even when there is none. I do not want to get into this with you because that's all it seems you like to do. It's like if I said "Royal Society". I don't need to say Royal Society of the UK just because they are others. goodbye--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, I cannot point out blatant US-centrism here because I've done it before? Ha ha ha ha ha. You may argue that it didn't always exist when I've called it in the past (about which I would generally disagree), but it sure did this time. One thing I have learnt is that some Americans are extremely sensitive about having US-centrism pointed out. Why that should be when they come from the most powerful nation on earth I simply cannot understand. It's a great nation. Be proud of it. Just keep things in perspective, and don't be paranoid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of you and your self-indulgent rants. Please note that nobody here gives a fuck about your opinion; the only reason somebody replied to your silly ranting was because he was new. IN fact, your opinion may be falling off a cliff and a fuck might be able to save it and I could have a entire bag of fucks in my pocket and I still wouldn't give a fuck. So please, be quiet and do not take up the space of people who're contributing to the discussion.  JimSukwutput  07:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded to being treated like an idiot by someone. Obviously my initial point about "FDA" was correct, because it was fixed. I don't think the editor in question even noticed. As for no update in the article, there was a simple misunderstanding about which article, but even when that was clarified, our "new" editor still wanted a fight. I think you would do well to check the full sequence of posts here. I don't care if you don't like my style. My goal is to make Wikipedia a better place, not to be nice to fools. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see what happened. You start off by ranting about US bias and not even addressing the subject. You then call be a sensitive and paranoid person braking WP:Civility. I then say I don't want to argue with you (yet I'm the once trying to fight), but you continue to entice me by saying "do you concede yet that a non-clarified "FDA" was US-centric". You then entice me further by calling me a fool. Not ONCE have I resorted to name calling. This sort of thing is making wikipedia 'worse not better. You aren't helping here one bit. This whole conversation is useless and started because you rant about some stupid feud about US centrism crap where there is none. Seriously, if you think this is productive and helping wikipedia you need to look closely. The goal of this page is to see what deserves to be on the front page not rant about how I didn't explain what FDA (at this point I don't give a rats ass if I need to explain or not). You got what I was saying and everyone here did but you decided to rant and complain about it just to try to promote your idea that there's US centrism. You are making this place less productive and worse by doing this.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - This is some significant progress to producing commercial vaccines to fight HIV, one of the most notable and prominent disease in mankind which has killed 30 million people since the beginning of the epidemic. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment'. According to our article "Several vaccine candidates are in varying phases of clinical trials". What's so special about this one? --FormerIP (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the first one with entire virus... however there is no guarantee it will work either. So i dont know, perhaps wait till trials finish -- Ashish-g55 12:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments and questions:
 * 1) as I understand it, this isn't a licensed treatment, just a medical trial, yes? If so, the blurb should definitely make that clear, and it rather reduces the significance of the news. I'll hold off on !voting until the status is confirmed.
 * 2) The blurb should definitely also explain what the FDA is and which country it operates in - there are plenty of other things it could be and it's hardly a well-know acronym.
 * 3) The article currently has an orange-level tag on it (outdated) which needs addressing before we can think about posting this. Would it not be sensible to have a separate article on this particular trial, if it really is as significant as the nominator suggests? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) is easily fixed. I've done so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Phase I trials haven't even begun yet? Oppose as far too premature. If Phase III turns out to successful and the vaccine gets the green light, then we should think about posting it. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose way to early.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Hell, groundbreaking preliminary successes in Phase I trials can sometimes be considered significant enough to post, IMO. But prior to any apparent breakthroughs at all, I'd agree that it's too early.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 10:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Too early news.  Katarighe  ( Talk  ·  Contributions  · E-mail) 15:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

SAAB Automobile is officially bankrupt

 * Oppose - As noted in the article, this isn't the first time this has happened. Support if this is actually the end of Saab and that they're ceasing production of all vehicles, extremely significant and quite unprecedented for a company this large and operated for this many years. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted in the article, there was a 3-years fight for survival. Previous petition in mid-2011 has been reject by the Swedish court. The definite end of SAAB AB happened just yesterday; an end which could have been avoided had GM agreed to sell SAAB's technology to the Chinese. I see it making headlines all over, especially in Finance/Industry media --Tachfin (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Caution The meaning of "bankrupt" varies widely around the world. I don't know what it means in Sweden. Does it need to be explained in a fair bit more detail? HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - The end of a major auto manufacturer.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 10:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Swarm. Crnorizec (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support - major news.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as long as it is correct that Saab cars will no longer be produced. Speciate (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Comment/Question  first, the article is overly dramatic with "bringing a 64-year-long chapter in Swedish industrial history to an end.". Second, and more importantly, has Saab closed the doors, cut off the dealers, fired the workers and put a for sale sign on the factories? If not, then strong oppose, if yes then support. Like HiLo48 says, bankruptcy means different things in different places. American Airlines declared bankruptcy and they're still flying. --Stop China Now (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's assets are getting counted for liquidation (and other manufacturers seem willing to buy chunks of technology) and the employees are given leave and their salaries for the past are paid by the state instead . The factories haven't been open for a long while. Narayanese (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense, but if you made a simple effort to read, you wouldn't need to be asking that question. Google "Saab". All reports are that this is the end.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 11:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I actually googled Saab bankruptcy, found a tearful goodbye from some guy in Australia, and a boiler plate press release, but couldn't find a concise explanation of the consequences of the action. Further, if the article is going to be posted to ITN, my fairly legitimate questions should not require a google search to answer, they should be explained in the article. Narayaneses explanation should be added to the article. --Stop China Now (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DRC presidency

 * Oppose and this is NOT on ITNR, which lists elections for heads of state and specifically excludes swearing-in ceremonies. All we have on the election is Elections_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo, which is totally unreferenced, outdated and doesn't even give the date it was held. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that's not a great article, but the election isn't being nominated and is stale anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it should have been nominated at the time and is, as you say, now stale. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was some violence as a result of this election, but the coverage was vague. Did that ever go anywhere? --Stop China Now (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Darvish bid accepted

 * Comment This discussion will be interesting. – H T  D  10:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose It passes the notability guidelines of a local sports editor but will mean nothing to a world audience. Minority interest story in a minority interest sport. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not a minority sport at all. Sports such as cricket are, for ex. this posting fee alone is more then all IPL players make combined. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   18:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not say that cricket is a minority sport compared with baseball, though there is (I assume; not looking up the figures) more money in baseball. Baseball and cricket are both sports that are vastly popular in some countries and virtually unknown in others.  But baseball is certainly not a minority sport.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If posted the blurb should probably mention the sport involved. However, I'm not sure that a transfer, regardless of the value or the sport, is particularly notable. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Our coverage of sport should be restricted to the results of competitions and, in particularly major sports, key individual performance records. Transfer fees are not suitable. The amount of money some owner is prepared to pay for the services of a player is not significant enough for ITN. Quite apart from all that, he hasn't actually been signed yet. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should seek a diversity of sports-related stories. I'd say the biggest problem with sport on ITN is that it's almost nothing except X competition ends with y team defeating z team, regardless of whether or not the result is significant. (Though we did post the end of the NBA lockout recently). The business of sport is very significant and shouldn't be ignored.  I'm not sure about this one but if it's a record setting transfer than I'd consider support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And that from an editor who made no less than nine contributions to a discussion below to post and article that is nothing except 'X competition ends with y team defeating z team,' regardless of whether or not the result is significant. Ho hum  Kevin McE (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest we seek diversity, not eliminate reports of sporting results of x competition.... I didn't support the handball nomination below.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Record transfers of football/soccer players have been proposed, and dismissed, in the past. Kevin McE (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, not much to add that's not been said.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. It's of limited worldwide relevance and would set a bad precedent for other sports. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not your ordinary transfer. While baseball is certainly not a minority interest sport, Yu Darvish is seen as the best baseball player outside the major leagues. Most of the expensive football transfers involve players that are already "tried and tested," while baseball's posting system is a bit different. Think of it as an American soccer player with tremendous upside bought by Real Madrid for $50 million. Among those who had been "posted" only Ichiro Suzuki (think of him as the David Beckham of Japanese baseball) and Daisuke Matsuzaka had become legit MLB stars, so each player "posted" is not as straightforward as Ronaldo transferring to Real Madrid from Man Utd. While the record "post" may not be ITN material, this should put the "record" into perspective. – H T  D  17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm one of those rare creatures, a non-North American editor of English Wikipedia with a strong interest in baseball. Let's get some perspective here people. This isn't really even about the sport. It's about the money behind the sport. It's ONLY of interest to a subset of fans of the game. Major baseball results belong here. This doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)v:


 * Oppose Per all of the above, not much info. Katarighe (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per all of the above, this is about money. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  23:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't all about money. It is about the spread of the game globally. The high price is just an idicator of how important this global outlook has become for baseball. --<font color="#000000">T <font color="#993300">orsodo <font color="#000000">g Talk 00:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing here about the spread of the game. Japanese baseball has been very strong for many decades. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To suggest that Japanese baseball has been so strong that the top league in the world spending $100+ to sign one of its players isn't notable anymore is a gross over-exaggeration of the talent in the NPB and just flat out wrong. The bottom line is that this isn't simply about the money as the previous comment stated. To oppose on other grounds is fine, but this is very much about the globalization of the game and the money involved helps to highlight that. --<font color="#000000">T <font color="#993300">orsodo <font color="#000000">g Talk 07:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's evidence of a step towards further globalization, but it's not as if it's the first ever Japanese player to sign for MLB or something that groundbreaking. The main notability here is the record posting fee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And we don't normally post record posting fees in sports. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing it done. HiLo48 (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When Beckham went to LA Galaxy? – H T  D  17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall it, but that would be a likely exception. In that example, the subject was already extremely well known. HiLo48 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as its just a free agent signing and there actually isn't any guarenteee he will be wearing a Rangers uniform next season. Bigger contracts in soccer occur all the time, anyway. And no, I am not opposing this because I am a bitter Jays fan. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

114 people killed in Syria Monday

 * Support - I haven't been on recently so I don't really know whether any Syrian uprising related news candidate(s) was posted but if not then this is the perfect incident to start posting about the uprising. 100 people killed in a single day by government forces is undoubtedly notable and significant. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 05:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support As far as I know, we haven't posted anything about Syria for a while. Given the death toll, the conflict clearly continues to be notable. My only concern is that posting an item based on the stats "100 deaths in a day" seems a bit arbitrary.  JimSukwutput  07:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Tachfin. I did not realize we regarded opposition sources as RS.  JimSukwutput  10:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose because 1) People are killed in Syria everyday 2) I've heard reports of much lower numbers (~10) 3) The only reliable sources in your nom (AP) says " Activists said security forces killed up to 70 army defectors Monday as they were deserting their military posts near the Turkish border. At least 30 other people died in other violence across the country, the activists said " So this is just activists having fun by dramatizing stuff to foreign media happens everyday and everywhere. --Tachfin (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By that logic, all death toll figures reported by governments or civilians in civil wars are invalid and serve no purpose other than to dramatise a cause, and it will be obvious that the Syrian government forces will attempt to abate the death toll and circumstance in the region. We cannot simply continue to ignore the situation in Syria, you will not get an exact death toll figure until a government reform transpires or when a neutral force enters Syria. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 09:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Situation in Syria is critical there is not doubt about that, but that's nothing new. A better story might be "Syria accepts 100 Arab League monitors amid continued violence in the country" since this is the only new development. The numbers of deaths should be attributed to those who made the claim (as RS do) but that would be awkward in the blurb and I find it uninteresting since everybody knows that there is violence and casualties in Syria since quite some months now. Even the different activists groups do not agree on a number (some say 38, 100, 140 yesterday it was 12). --Tachfin (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would support posting something about Syria - such as what Tachfin suggested above. But not some impossible-to-verify casualty count.  JimSukwutput  03:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Tachfin, I understand your concerns but unfortunately the heavy absence of independent journalists in Syria makes it nearly impossible for news organizations to confirm facts themselves. BBC appears to accept the claims made by the activists and I don't see any challenges in the source. Wikifan Be nice  09:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BBC reported a claim made by the opposition, as is their duty. But I think the ITN has somewhat higher standards with regards to notability, which means it will be difficult to post allegedly significant events like this. Not to mention that the Syrian opposition doesn't exactly have a perfect track record with regards to reliable claims (which is no better and no worse than any other party in an ongoing civil conflict).  JimSukwutput  10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Foreign journalists are banned in Syria. A lot of the sources in the original article are predicated on info fed from opposition movements and activists to rights organizations (Amnesty International) and the media. If it makes editors more comfortable, blurb could start with..."Activists report 100 killed blah blah." I'd like to hear the other numbers Tach is speaking of. Wikifan Be nice  10:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - How about we simply aggregate all death toll reports since the onset of the uprising and include the incident which occurred today, probably something along the lines of, 'The syrian uprising continues with an estimated *** casualties since the onset of the uprising in February, on December 19 ** civilians and protesters were killed making it one of the highest single day death tolls reported.' That was just a rough blurb and obviously needs amending. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 11:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the deadliest days during the late-2011 Arab Spring. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This clearly has the support, but is this event discussed in a particular article? --  tariq abjotu  03:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated the original article with the recent killings. The death toll has been widely circulated around internet sources: 150 killed in 2 days in Syrian uprising. Wikifan Be nice  03:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; I consider this to be a very significant event and a milestone in the uprising.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I questioned this initially due to the concerns raised above but with reports of 200 deaths we can't ignore this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Plus update, since it seem to be 200+ deaths already. Sad story. --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. significant death toll.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jim Sukwutput and Tachfin. Details of the incident are not clear and given the state of matters in Syria this is not something too much out of usual. De-marking [Ready]. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Occurred almost three days ago. If this isn't posted soon it should be considered stale and closed. Wikifan Be nice  07:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Stockbrokers of all Moscow, unite!

 * The fact that the bolded article is red-linked can't be a good sign.--WaltCip (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be a new article, the entity seems to have appeared today. Grey  Hood   Talk  15:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is created. Grey  Hood   Talk  00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The event is certainly notable, and I would support the article going up. But not yet. The second paragraph reads like it was taken straight out of a press release. That needs to be fixed first. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs some more references as well. It currently has three, one of which is in Russian, and another is behind a paywall.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed with NW and Johnsemlak after that, I can support. Beyond495 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Epic fail. Support only if this notable development is described in the article. Colchicum (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, interesting. Worth mention, though 15 minute malfunction doesn't seem too important. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to share what happened with those of us less adept in Russian? :) --hydrox (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The short description of the incident has been added to the article. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support With or without mentioning the afternoon computer glitch they had on the first day.  The merger is a major change in the Russian financial scene. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. The second paragraph made shorter, one reference added (the one on computer glitch). Grey  Hood   Talk  22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A good start-class article. Gold star. --FormerIP (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has since been improved and we're running red, posting. --Tone 08:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Kim Jong-il

 * Support and post ASAP: Dammit, edit conflicted with you. Sceptre (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious support. We might want to remove Christopher Hitchens so there aren't three deaths up simultaneously. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will only be removed upon conclusive proof that Hitchens' death caused Kim Jong-Il's. --  tariq abjotu  03:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, but leave out details of how it happened as we only have the word of NK media on this. Looie496 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it sounds vaguely like the Soviet leaders that seemingly died of common colds :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On quick posting, it would make sense to attribute this to the NK media sources (which all world sources are confirming), once that we've got more confirm, adjust to include cause of death (as, in this case, the fact it was natural means a lot) --M ASEM (t) 03:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What if we said "North Korea announces the death of its Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-il"? Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Death of Kim Jong-il reported on North Korean State Media" Karthik Sarma (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Obvious support Post ASAP, per above.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  03:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This hardly needs a nomination. Post as soon as the update is sufficient. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, yep, ASAP Karthik Sarma (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support in the Strongest Possible Terms, I know we have other deaths up but the death of a long-lived, internationally infamous despotic leader of a state is news that only come once in a great while. This is almost certainly one of the biggest stories to be posted on in the news since that of Osama and needs to be put up ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.2.124 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Most obvious support in the history of mankind &mdash; Since I am not very experienced with ITN, I'm assuming news articles cannot be featured until discussed here as a matter of process. That is  the only reason I'm not suggesting we just bypass nominating it here and post it.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 03:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Posted. Please edit as necessary. The Moose  is loose ! 03:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not; look again. --  tariq abjotu  03:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is; look again. The Moose   is loose ! 03:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cut this out. This post-pull-post cycle is embarrassing already. Just as Barcelona's build-up of their entire season to win the Club World Cup. – H T  D  03:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cut what out? --  tariq abjotu  03:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez don't act as if you don't know I'm talking about for the love Barca fans who waited a long time to see their team lift the Club World Cup trophy. At least the threat of pulling an already posted item. – H T  D  03:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "At least the threat of pulling an already posted item." That's not a complete sentence. But, if your issue is with me removing an item from ITN based on lack of update, well... I don't really mind. Other people have given me a hard time about that, and I continue to ignore them. And, frankly, I'm surprised (based on, you know, your signature for a whole year) that you don't at least have some sympathy toward this cause. --  tariq abjotu  03:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know what "At least the threat of pulling an already posted item." means? – H T  D  04:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uuuuuh.... no. As I said, that's not a complete sentence. It doesn't mean anything. And it doesn't describe something I did. Soo... yeah, I don't know what the hell you're trying to say. If you don't particularly care if I do, keep it up. Otherwise, how about you put together a complete sentence that says what you intend? --  tariq abjotu  04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you can't understand an incomplete sentence. I bet you didn't also understand "post-pull-post" so lemme tell you for your information. It also includes the act of posting articles that have no updates. That also means that's not entirely on you. – H T  D  04:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay, whatever. I'm not here to play word games. --  tariq abjotu  04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well of course. It was a mistake of me to assume that when you said you can't understand incomplete sentences. I'm sorry that you're incapable of understanding such things. – H T  D  04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. --  tariq abjotu  04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert again, but seriously guys. That's not remotely close to sufficient. And, I really wish that people would, at the very least, read what people say at ITN/C. People have said the claim should be attributed to North Korean media. Not done. People have said that the cause of death should be omitted. Originally not done. And, even people have been kind enough to mention the importance of an update. Oh, yeah, but we don't care about updates when important events occur. They must be posted within thirty minutes of their occurrence. Yeah, I'm just going to work on an article instead now; I believe our mission as an encyclopedia is still in place at least there. --  tariq abjotu  03:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please keep up the good fight, Tariq. —David Levy 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) As noted above, if we'd simply waited a short time, there wouldn't have been a problem. We'll never know how many readers clicked through to the article before it was ready, closed it in disappointment, and didn't load it again. —David Levy 06:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC) In asking "what more could we have updated?", you assume that it's appropriate to add an item as soon as we've provided all available information. This is incorrect. That a very small amount of information about Kim Jong-il's death was available was a reason to wait. Wikipedia isn't a news website and ITN isn't a news ticker. —David Levy 09:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Expecting those who make the decision to read beyond the bolded bits is a pretty onerous requirement. —WFC— 09:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will also add that T:ITN says that he died at age 69, but the article's lede says that there is a controversy about how old he is. I'd recommend taking out the current blurb and use something similar to Nyttend's blurb. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're an admin, aren't you? Why don't you just fix it? --  tariq abjotu  03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the age per Titoxd's comment; it now reads "Kim Jong-il (pictured), the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, dies." Not optimal wording; we need to add something or reword it.  Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Tariq. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Why the hell do we feel compelled to act as one? Do any of you honestly think people are going to rely on Wikipedia for news items? They're here for QUALITY updates, and there was none. I did support the Christopher Hitchens post, but that nomination was up there for 36 hours, not 30 minutes.  JimSukwutput  03:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree too. The article contains barely enough relevant material now, and it clearly didn't when the item was posted (in either instance).  I'm baffled as to why such events invariably spark the sentiment that "WE NEED TO PUT THIS UP IMMEDIATELY!!!!11!!".
 * @Jim Sukwutput &mdash; Speaking only for myself, Wikipedia is my primary source for news topics.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Support Man, I was about to recommend this and it's already up. That was quick. Beyond495 (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was even quicker than the article update. —David Levy 04:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's constantly changing. I think most readers accept this. Beyond495 (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Meaning what, exactly? —David Levy 04:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Meaning most readers accept the fact that Wikipedia's constantly changing, because it is. It's right there under the edit summary bar after all... Beyond495 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that part, but I don't see the relevance. —David Levy 00:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and Keep Posted - I see nothing wrong with the current update. The tenses are appropriately updated and there is sufficient information on his death, considering that's all the reliable information currently available at the moment.--WaltCip (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article is fine, and I would not suggest pulling it now. But that's exactly the point. 20 more minutes was enough to give the article all its necessary updates. Why did we feel the need to sacrifice quality just to post it 20 minutes early, when Wikipedia is under no obligation to report breaking news at all?  JimSukwutput  05:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that Wikipedia is heralded and celebrated as being updated as quickly as a news story breaks - so to not have this death on the front page as quickly as possible would appear to casual readers as unusual or unexpected. People use Wiki for all sorts of reasons, including checking if editors have updated an article at the time of a news event breaking. (Haven't we all at least once gone to a page when something big has happened to see if we're the first to press edit?). Wiki is not news...but our audience expects big news stories to be covered sharpish. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You remind me of the kids at my school who, when confronted with the fact that they have done something wrong or dumb, say "But everyone does it sir". In answer to your question about "Haven't we all....", my answer is "No". HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And we fail to serve those readers by posting ITN items prematurely, thereby sending them to articles that haven't been updated sufficiently.
 * HiLo48 - I don't believe you. David - what more could we have updated? At the time of the news breaking, we had no more than the news agencies. Isn't this the whole point of Wikipedia - to update as much as we can? I can't understand the concerns here at all. Someone as notable as Kim Jong-Il dies, we put it on the front page as quickly as possible, whilst getting people to the article they can update (which is, er, what this website is all about, no?) doktorb wordsdeeds 09:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't believe me? That doesn't hurt me, but it's a shame for you. Your life will now be less complete. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks G. —WFC— 09:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ITN's primary purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent/current events, not to report breaking news.

Regarding quality of updates: As I've done several times before, I'm quoting the ITN criteria page, with added emphasis on relevant parts:"Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." I'll concede this doesn't hold up to the discovery of a cure for cancer, but if we have a consensus that the notability is high enough to have a sub-par update, then we should go for it ... this is a community project, not a service ... if there is a highly notable event, people should come to the page and if they are disappointed with the volume/quality of the updates, they can make the necessary changes. The above is just for those who think the update is not adequate and without prejudice to the quality of the update (I've looked at the article right now, and I'm happy with the 8-sentence well-referenced paragraph). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current update is two sentences plus two references. That is itself sub-par. It's just about allowable because of the significance of the news. But having no update at all is certainly not sufficient, and I agree with Tariq that items should never be added to the template until the article has been updated. Those two sentences could have been added in barely any more time than it takes to add a support !vote here; posting should have waited until the article had been updated. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Without indicating my own view on the content of the posting and article themselves, pulling something that has already been posted is a necessarily troublesome action. My understanding of Wikipedia's mentality is that editors are strongly urged to fix problems first, and remove problems as a last resort (with a few notable exceptions like BLP). If Tariq had either A) updated the article himself with the information that I think he himself said was quick and easy to post, or B) posted a warning that if the article wasn't suitably updated in, say, 10 minutes then it would be pulled, he would have gotten a lot less backlash. It should be obvious that what some might consider 'blind' adherence to the guidelines in the face of strong consensus to the contrary is going to cause problems. There are less confrontational ways to deal with situations like this than the one Tariq chose to pursue. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Please see WP:BRD. Tariq fixed the problem by removing the inappropriate item (which was very poorly written, incidentally).  The suggestion that it was his responsibility to "[update] the article himself with the information" (most of which probably wasn't even available yet), is absurd.  Likewise, I see no basis for the proposed ten-minute grace period.  How is it preferable to temporarily retain a premature item (thereby doing a disservice to readers) instead of simply pulling it, with the understanding that it will be restored when the article is sufficiently updated (i.e. creating the situation that should have existed in the first place)?
 * 2. There was no consensus, let alone a strong one, to post the item immediately. To someone who bothered to actually read the discussion and examine the article (instead of tallying the bold votes and blindly inserting a problematically worded blurb), it was clear that there was consensus to post the item after the necessary update occurred.  —David Levy 00:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was Tariq's responsibility to update the article himself, I said that it was one of the options available to him that would have achieved a better reaction from other editors. Tariq equally could have not done anything at all. I'm familiar with BRD, but we differ on our reading of consensus in this thread. I think it's clear that a number of contributors wanted this item posted as soon as possible (and stated as much), whereas prior to the original posting, only one editor had indicated he wanted it posted 'after an update'. It appears to me that a reasonable interpretation of consensus was to post.


 * The rest of your reply is plainly unnecessary aggression that isn't worth addressing. I maintain the stance I described in my reply above: Tariq had a number of options for how to approach this situation, and he chose the one assured to attract the most negative response, after which he throws his hands in the air and complains that he doesn't need this crap. This is not an isolated incident, this is something that has happened frequently, and indeed exists on the current revision of this page more than once. I said in my comment above that I am not taking sides on whether he is right or wrong, but simply that I think he should be revisiting his approach. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here on ITN at least we do not make decisions by mob mentality (just as we do not do so on content articles). We follow community guidelines that have been decided through years of debate between experienced members of this project. I am not one of them, but I have enough sense to trust their judgment, and their judgment clearly says that 1. ITN serves more than the purpose of simply reporting breaking news events; and 2. A minimum update of 5 sentences is almost always necessary to provide enough details for readers on Wikipedia. Frankly, if editors negatively responded to Tariq in this case, that's their own frigging problem. If they have a problem with the existing standards, they can take it to the talk page rather than whining about it in when the standards are upheld.  JimSukwutput  01:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Here on ITN" we follow consensus, just like we do on any part of the project. The community guidelines were likewise created through consensus. While typically local consensus can't override broader consensus, we do have options available to editors when the conditions are right. After all, nothing is set in stone on Wikipedia, at ITN or anywhere else. Consensus can change, decisions can change, policies can change. I agree that it would be more appropriate to take up issues with the criteria itself at the page for those criteria, but is there a problem with the criteria, or just how some editors are interpreting it? Let's take a look.
 * You said "ITN serves more than the purpose of simply reporting breaking news events", and you're right. Your original line before you edited it, that ITN is not for beraking news, was too severe. WP:ITN identifies two criteria that applied here. "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news", and "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource". You also said "A minimum update of 5 sentences is almost always necessary to provide enough details for readers on Wikipedia", but this contradicts the wording of the guidance, which says "a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable" (emphasis mine). This does not say '5 sentences is generally the minimum', it says '5 sentences is more than enough'. At the time this entry was posted, it had 3 sentences and 2 sources, certainly more than the 'highly questionable' threshold in the guidance.
 * I think your interpretation here is stricter than intended. The article had an update, it wasn't great (but how many paragraphs can you write on a notable person's death when it didn't involve bottom-poking or dubious CIA operations?) and the admin may have looked at the part at WP:ITN where it says "For example, a highly significant event [...] may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article", decided that this article meets that criteria (which it certainly has, given the number of edits to it after it was posted) and been in the right to do so. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Here on ITN" we follow consensus, just like we do on any part of the project.
 * "Consensus" ≠ "whatever the most people line up and demand".
 * The community guidelines were likewise created through consensus. While typically local consensus can't override broader consensus, we do have options available to editors when the conditions are right.
 * Indeed, we ignore rules when doing so helps to improve or maintain Wikipedia, not when a bunch of people feel like it.
 * At the time this entry was posted, it had 3 sentences and 2 sources, certainly more than the 'highly questionable' threshold in the guidance.
 * Let's examine the three sentences.
 * The North Korean government announced his death on 18 December 2011. [...]  It was reported on North Korean state television on December 19, 2011 that Kim Jong-il had died in Pyongyang.  The tearful presenter announced that he had died two days earlier of "physical and mental over-work".
 * Are you seriously suggesting those three sentences — two of which directly contradicted each other — constituted an adequate update? Our criteria plainly indicate that "updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you mixing up threads? My action attracted very little negative response (or any response for that matter) here, as my removal stood for only a couple minutes. My issue is not that non-regulars who aren't, presumably, familiar with the ITN process came here demanding this be on the Main Page immediately. It's that a couple admins gave in to those demands. Sometimes, like in the case of The Moose, I chalk it up to lack of involvement with ITN; I don't recall seeing him or her ever post a blurb on ITN, but as in the past, admins often choose very big news stories for their first foray into ITN -- and thus become livid and perplexed when told that's not how things are done. That's not necessarily the case with Prodego; I think I've seen him around here. But, regardless, admins who are involved in any Main Page section or do any admin duty are not compelled to just do whatever a majority says; they should use their judgement, based on the circumstances, to determine whether a proposal is reasonable and within our guidelines. --  tariq abjotu  01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and in my reply to Jim above I detailed how I think it's reasonable to believe that the admin did use his judgement in deciding to post this item. You were within your rights to revert that, naturally, but I would have thought it would be appropriate and courteous to at least ask him why he thought it met the criteria before arbitrarily reversing his decision. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to ask a question knowing full well I'll just get a bullshit answer. As I noted in the edit summary, it was obvious that he had not looked at read the remarks at ITN/C. The blurb he put up, while taken from the template from the top of the section, heeded none of the concerns mentioned by people below it. Namely, he ignored the requests to attribute the claim to North Korean sources. He ignored the requests to omit the nonsense about him dying because of train fatigue. And, of course, he ignored the request to put it up when the update was sufficient. He just rushed to put it up, as if he'd get some award for putting it up first. There was no judgement there, so I certainly was not going ask him about some. --  tariq abjotu  02:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reason for asking the question is at WP:Administrators: "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." Courtesy is a fairly important thing, especially amongst administrators to prevent situations that might encourage wheel-warring, which is what ended up happening here. The rest of what you wrote is your personal assumptions on another editor's motivations, which aside from being baseless (can you prove he didn't read the comments?), are fundamentally inappropriate for making decisions like you did. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that comment, I was not expecting you to agree with it. And, yet I wrote it anyway. You see, I do not aim to win any popularity contests. I have no intention of ever running for ArbCom or any higher position of power. I see no reason to pander to the bottom rung by resorting to pleasantries when guidelines may prudishly encourage them, when a more direct, albeit knowingly controversial, action that may possibly be reversed within two minutes would get the job done just the same -- minus The Moose's bullshit explanation for his action. But, if trite principles are so important to you, take me to ANI over it (where I will neither provide a defense nor respond). Or, just get over it. --  tariq abjotu  02:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting that when you are enforcing a guideline, the letter and detail of that guideline applies in full, but when your own conduct potentially falls foul of a policy (WP:Administrators is a policy, not a guideline), it's simply 'trite principles' that are unimportant and that you shouldn't be held to that standard? I don't plan to take you to a noticeboard, but I would reiterate my original point that you strongly reconsider your approach to these situations. Not doing so is only going to accomplish two things: 1) you're going to continue to be frustrated by backlash from fellow editors, and 2) you're going to aid in the perpetuation of the image that ITNC is a hostile, aggressive environment that should be avoided, contrary to multiple editors and admins indicating that they'd like more people to participate in it. Neither of these things are beneficial either to you as an editor, or to the project as a whole TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And you are free to think that. Thanks. --  tariq abjotu  03:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Tariq enforced the guideline's spirit. You're the one picking apart the words to defend a poor update as technically compliant.
 * 2. The Moose's action was a "clear and obvious mistake". He/she clearly and obviously failed to read the discussion or follow the correct procedure.
 * 3. What "backlash"? —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's patently obvious that The Moose, while well-meaning, was ignorant of the ITN process. In addition to being premature, the blurb that he/she posted was terribly written.  "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "assume competence".
 * We serve our readers first and foremost. When an administrator wanders in and screws up, our top priority is to correct the error, not to kowtow to him/her while thousands of readers are adversely affected.  —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was Tariq's responsibility to update the article himself, I said that it was one of the options available to him that would have achieved a better reaction from other editors.
 * I, like Tariq, am baffled as to what you're referring. His response generated significant support.
 * Tariq equally could have not done anything at all.
 * ...thereby allowing a disservice to readers to continue.
 * I'm familiar with BRD, but we differ on our reading of consensus in this thread. I think it's clear that a number of contributors wanted this item posted as soon as possible (and stated as much),
 * "As soon as possible" ≠ "now". And even if a bunch of people did line up and demand that the item be posted immediately, that isn't how consensus is formed.
 * whereas prior to the original posting, only one editor had indicated he wanted it posted 'after an update'.
 * Even among ITN regulars, that often is assumed (and not explicitly stated). Administrators are expected to know better than to post an item whose bold-linked article lacks a sufficient update.
 * The rest of your reply is plainly unnecessary aggression that isn't worth addressing.
 * I'm sorry that you feel that way.
 * I maintain the stance I described in my reply above: Tariq had a number of options for how to approach this situation, and he chose the one assured to attract the most negative response,
 * ...excepting the fact that it attracted a largely positive response.
 * after which he throws his hands in the air and complains that he doesn't need this crap.
 * As opposed to Prodego, who hasn't even bothered to participate in the discussion. (That's what's called a "drive-by posting.")
 * As further evidence that Prodego didn't care about following the correct procedure, he/she intentionally inserted an image of Kim Jong-il without locally uploading/protecting it (and then sought a Commons admin to protect it, leaving it subject to vandalism for approximately nine minutes) because "downloading and reuploading and copying the file information over was more work than [he/she] wanted to do".
 * This is not an isolated incident, this is something that has happened frequently, and indeed exists on the current revision of this page more than once.
 * It's unfortunate that Tariq has had to clean up after other administrators so frequently.
 * I said in my comment above that I am not taking sides on whether he is right or wrong, but simply that I think he should be revisiting his approach.
 * I'm taking the side that he's right and administrators ignoring the ITN process should revisit their approach. —David Levy 03:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this discussion is now no longer relevant to the merits of this nomination for ITN; perhaps better to move to the talk page?--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il article is an embarrassment. There is little on his death – hardly surprising that his death is shrouded in as much secrecy as his life and his health. Most of the article was a simple cut-and-paste from the bio – such a waste of space (I've now taken the bold step of removing it). What follows below is a hardly encyclopaedic – a collection of comments and "sweet nothings" that encourages editors to post more of the same, thus perpetuating the cycle of unencyclopaedic content. What this article needs is real analysis from observers and pundits about the impact on his death. In the meantime, the article should be redirected back to the bio.-- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reactions from the international community seems like a standard staple in these sorts of articles. Is that the section you were referring to? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exactly what I mean. Comments like "President Alexander Lukashenko sent his condolences to Kim Jong-un over his father's death" don't strike me as being encyclopaedic, particularly if there are going to be more than three of those in the article. I view this as proliferation of the "standard" of inclusion of all such comments and condolences, wishes for the future... is just all diplomatic fodder for the press. We are not the news. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that my actions had sparked this much discussion. Yes, I did read the comments here before posting the update. In fact, I used the blurb that was suggested here, with a minor change. No-one had objected to it. The article looked properly updated to me. I have participated here before, and it was that previous participation that pushed me to post the update when I did, because the bureaucracy that takes place here often allows postings to be held up for way too long (Ted Kennedy's death being the main example I can think of.) I did not see a request to hold the item, or any obvious concerns about the item. If there was one, I apologize. As for my "bullshit explanation for [my] action", I never provided an explanation for my action until now. (Check my contributions.) I'm sorry for my actions, and I won't post any more items. The Moose  is loose ! 08:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, I used the blurb that was suggested here, with a minor change. No-one had objected to it.
 * You're mistaken. Three editors had posted four messages on the matter, suggesting that the cause of death be omitted and the wording be adjusted to attribute the claim to North Korea or North Korean media.
 * The article looked properly updated to me.
 * Please elaborate, if you don't mind. As noted above, the update comprised three sentences, two of which covered the same ground and directly contradicted each other.
 * I did not see a request to hold the item, or any obvious concerns about the item.
 * There was a request to "post as soon as the update is sufficient."
 * As for my "bullshit explanation for [my] action", I never provided an explanation for my action until now.
 * That was a hypothetical construct. (It was suggested that such a reaction could have been expected if you'd been consulted.)
 * I'm sorry for my actions, and I won't post any more items.
 * Please consider hanging in there. That you've taken the time to address our concerns and apologize gives me confidence in your ability to learn from the experience and do better in the future.  —David Levy 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 World Women's Handball Championship

 * Weak Support World championships are generally ITN-worthy IMO, but this is pushing it. Beyond495 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Listed on ITN/R and it is updated. My only concern is that the article is almost all results tables and very little prose. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh... I know the men's championship was discussed at ITNR but I don't remember the women's championship being discussed. – H T  D  03:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the women's isn't on ITNR. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Most notable sport story nominated on this day. —WFC— 09:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support & Explanation I think it could be helpful to clarify that this is about Team handball, an Olympic Sport and a sport very popular in Europe. It's played between teams of seven people. It's not about the less formally organised games involving two or four people played at times in the USA and Australia. It's a pretty serious game. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh I'd argue men's team handball is very appropriate for ITN, dunno about the women's championship. 4,000 people watch the final at an 11,000-capacity arena; even on matches were the hosts (Brazil) played, the arena was never half-full. – H T  D  20:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at a couple of past tournaments to see if attendances for this sport are usually so low. If you look at Russian 2005, attendances were in the 100s until the semifinals (except for matches with Russia which were around 2-3 thousand).  The semifinal matches were in the 1000s, and the final, won by Russia, had an attendance of 10000.  If you look at France 2007, attendances of all quarterfinals matches and onward were 9000 or more.  Some earlier matches, not involving the host nation, were in the 1000s.  If you look at China 2009 attendances were in the 100s (or lower) until the semifinals, which were 6000 each.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure those were not sellouts, unless those arenas had capacities of less than 10,000. Come on, an ITNR sporting final must at least sell out it's arena/stadium, no matter if men or women played. – H  T  D  03:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the 2007 final at the Palais_Omnisports_de_Paris-Bercy did have the full capacity of 14,000 apparently. However, the 2005 final in the Ice Palace Saint Petersburg only attracted 10500 spectators, short of the 12500 capacity, and that's with the home nation in the final.  The 2009 final at the Nanjing Olympic Sports Center Gymnasium appears to have sold out at 13000 spectators.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt if the final in China was truly a sellout. On the 2008 Olympic basketball tournament they keep on saying every matchday was a sellout when there were empty seats. – H T  D  04:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose If no-one cared about it in the city in which it was being played (see pathetic crowd numbers) why will the rest of the world? I'm hardly seeing wall-to-wall media coverage either, just stock reports saying "Norway beat France". I can't even find any reports of congratulatory messages from the Norwegian PM, as you'd usually expect. And of course the article is just stats and completely unpostable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird reasoning. It was a match between two European teams in Brazil. Low attendance is no surprise. If the Brazilian team had been there and, not surprisingly, the arena had been full, would we post it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't notice the very low attendance for matches in the tournament involving Brazil. In any case, if the tournament had genuine international significance, neutrals would pack the rafter for its final. That's a pretty good test actually. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Smartypants, what if it had been in Norway and had a full stadium. Would you approve it then? HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the 2010 European Women's Handball Championship article, the final had an attendance ~11k... it did not even fill up the 12k capacity of the arena for handball! I've seen indoor domestic leagues that would never be on ITN that had higher attendances in it. – H T  D  03:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we recall as we do it usually on the ITN/R, we should post this without any further implications. However, to me this discussion is a proof whether an item is definitely an ITN/R or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this simply doesn't receive the attention that the men's competition does. And the men's one only just meets the threshold for posting anyway (see the various discussions in the archives). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Russian oil rig capsizes
Support update is fairly decent. oil rig disaster will create lots of interest -- Ashish-g55 21:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhere in between weak and regular Support. If there are significant environmental damages, put it up to full Support. Beyond495 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is now of a suitable length.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as updated ♫GoP♫ <sub style="color:red;">T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 12:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A fairly unusual event for a large oil rig to capsize and I agree with Ashishg55, this will definite generate a lot of interest especially amongst the obvious green groups. The death toll is also pretty significant 4 deaths and 49 missing in waters 200km offshore. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] FIFA club world cup

 * Support World championship in a sport seems notable, IMO. Beyond495 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has been rejected in previous years. It is a money spinner rather than a major championship of itself.  The events by which clubs qualified are far more notable than this event.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's definitely not at the level of say, the UEFA Champions League final or the Super Bowl, but I think it's past the threshold at this point. Beyond495 (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The winners of each continent's Club Championship taking part in a "best of the best" competition. It's a notable world competition for pitting the top teams around the world against each other, perhaps more so given Barca were already considered to be the best team in the world regardless doktorb wordsdeeds 16:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support quite frankly, I'm only supporting because it'd be nice to have some good news on here instead of just deaths, convictions, and war. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment' Hopefully we won't have any nominations related to The Running Man :) Beyond495 (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Maybe a money maker like one nominator said but then so is the World Cup. If the Champions League represents Europe (which regularly get posted every year), then this represents the world, so why not. Donnie Park (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming the article is updated, we post the Copa Libertadores every year. There's no Euro-centric bias here. —WFC— 19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Copa Libertadores has ever been posted, or the Copa America, though both are on ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a separate article for the finals as well. However, any of the two will need some more prose before posting. Maybe some match details or statistics. --Tone 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's an important annual competition then it should be added to ITN/R. Since it's not on ITN/R, what made this particular tournament unique or special enough to be included on ITN? Also . --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a very significant tournament, and is taken very seriously particularly in South America.  Calling it a 'money spinner' seems odd considering the fact that all professional football matches aim to make money.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not the point, and I believe you know it. The event has for more commercial than prestige value.  Just like the Confederations cup, the Community Shield, the Supercopa de España or the European Supercup, it is a bonus that is available to the winners of events that are far more important in terms of competitive value than this is.  No-one believes for a moment that Barcelona or Santos built their season around this as a major goal.  Santos considered playing a 70 year old in the event, for crying out loud: that does not suggest that they took it very seriously.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it has less prestige than the Champions League doesn't mean it's not important. Both squads played their best available players, and Barcelona lost one of their stars due to an injury during the tournament.  No 70 year olds played (Surely Santos inviting Pele to play was a publicity event in and of itself, he would have never played).  No Barcelona didn't build their season around this tournament but they did sacrifice a great deal for it (and suffered).  The 4-0 scoreline indicates Barcelona took the match very seriously.  And no, the fact that Barcelona waltzed to the title doesn't indicate it was a weak tournament--Barcelona hammer everyone they play.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your confident comment that Pele would not have played shows that you have not read the source. If this were such an important event, it wouldn't need such a publicity stunt.  Barcelona have failed to win in >30% of their league matches this season, so no, their don't "hammer everyone they play".  A claim with no evidence that they "sacrificed a great deal" to participate needs some evidence if it is to be taken seriously.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kevin McE. And because the fact that no-one's managed to sneak it on ITN/R is prima facie an indication of its insignificance. And because the article, entirely as you'd expect, has next to zero prose. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think not being on ITN/R rules out a routine sporting event. Had something remarkable happened – for instance if Pelé played – I would most likely have supported. —WFC— 19:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being on ITNR is not a valid oppose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as an invalid oppose. There are good opposes and bad opposes, distuinguished on their merits rather than off-hand dismissals like this. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, anyway, the article on the final has a prose update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The addition of prose is great for the project, but the event is no more significant than it was an hour ago, and my point has still not been refuted. —WFC— 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has. Your ITNR objection was invalid doktorb wordsdeeds 20:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to elabourate? Or are you counting on a disproven 20th century method? —WFC—
 * Oh for heaven's sake nobody's invoking Mein Kampf to oppose your argument.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously trying to suggest some perverse political philosophy is at play here? The World Club Cup involves as entrants those teams which have won the individual club competitions Wiki already considers notable in their own right. I suggest that the sum of half-a-dozen notable competitions is one heck of notable finalé doktorb wordsdeeds 21:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It is a World Cup.... of the top world sport, it is the sport event of the week in late december every year.--Feroang (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 21:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Brilliant doktorb wordsdeeds 21:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. It's a joke of a competition that no-one takes seriously. This is barely any more notable than the Charity Shield. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose suggest pull. All the arguments above are great for including this tournament in ITN/R. It's not in ITN/R, however, and no one has explained what makes the 2011 FIFA Club World Cup Final more significant from the 2010, 2009, and so on. It looks like a routine occurrence of a high profile sporting event. ITN/R is for that.--76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being on ITNR is not itself a valid reason to oppose. That list exists to expedite some items. It does not exist in order to exclude any item which isn't on it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted, but being on ITN/R can take something that is routine and guarantee it's posting (assuming the update is good enough). I'm opposed because no one has explained what makes this FIFA Club World Cup any more notable from a past cup. If it were on ITN/R, then notability would not be a factor. That's the only reason I mention ITN/R, obviously the majority of the items posted are not listed there. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pull I must agree with Modest Genius. This is not a competition that is taken seriously, although it gathers the continental champions. In addition, the broadcast of this tournament is by far lower compared to many other tournaments that usually are not posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. The tournament is taken very seriously in South America; less so in Europe.  As far as viewing figures I don't know about tv ratings but the final had a crowd of 68,000 that's very large for a neutral venue.  It's far bigger than the crowds for the 2011 AFC Asian Cup for example.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 68K is not an outstanding number, FC Barcelona attracts 79K in average. --Elekhh (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At their home stadium. This was a neutral venue on a different continent from the two teams in the final.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with 76.18.43.253 and few from above, Not a major or important cup, I would even say its same level as domestic super cups.
 * Comment. People comaring this to a domestic super cup such as the Community Shield or even the European Super Cup are missing a key difference.  Those matches are viewed as inconsequential because as a title, they are redundant to what the at least one of the teams already has earned.  Manchester United are the 2010-11 English champions; they did not need to win the Community Shield to prove that, and had they lost their claim to the title would have been unchanged.  Barcelona had no claim going into this to be a World Champion, they had win the competition to earn it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Barcelona had no claim to be winners of the 2011 Audi Cup or Joan Gamper Trophy before winning those glorified friendlies this season either. Nor would they have lost their claim to the 2011 Champions League title if they had not won this.  The comparison to a domestic super cup seems wholly appropriate, but Sepp Blatter will be pleased that a few people here have swallowed his publicity stunt hook, line and sinker.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a glorified friendly. The only people who regard this as in any way indicative of the best club in the world are FIFA and whoever happens to win it. No-one else believes that. This is no more prestigious than the UEFA Super Cup. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Václav Havel

 * Support came here to nominate it. Very notable figure; was responsible for the Czechoslovakia split into Czech and Slovakia and for the fall of communism in these countries. Also first president ever of Czech republic --Tachfin (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Support - I came here to nominate it too. Key figure of the Velvet Revolution and of the post-Soviet era in Modern Europe. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support should be immediately added to main page. Petrb (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - major international figure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - per nominator. Crnorizec (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Obviously.  I'm working on an update, but it will take a short time for news to filter in which can be used.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per others. Brand meister  t   12:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yOu cant speedily add without any update whatsoever. Right ow the only thing thats sourced on his death is the date.Lihaas (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, no doubt. --egg 12:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously. (came here expecting it to be posted) Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  12:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support important figure much before Wikipedia was born. Is our last and only chance of having him in the ITN. --Elekhh (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Nothing to add to the other votes here. Clearly notable doktorb wordsdeeds 12:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. Three sentences update in the corresponding section, so far this is sufficient. --Tone 13:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding a picture:File:Hedwig&Vaclav Havel Prague backstage Dylan concert cropped small.JPG or File:Václav Havel 9. června 2006, Café d'Europe.jpg --Tachfin (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Kazakhstan clashes
At least 10 die as the protesters in Zhanaozen, Kazakhstan, clash with police on the country's Independence Day. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Source.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011 Kazakhstan clashes.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose No international significance. Beyond495 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean this how?.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clashes are also happening in Syria and probably half a dozen other countries, so these protests are common. Also, I don't see how this bears importance beyond Kazakhstan. Beyond495 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - No, this is not Syria or the Arab Spring, where the masses are rising up against their governments and thousands are dying in the ensuing fighting. But who cares? In most other parts of the world, incidents like this are still rare (in Kazakhstan they are "extremely rare") and I would definitely say this is significant.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 21:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, protests, riots and civil confrontations are not rare in most of the world, and especially not in Central Asia. I know there's a statement in the article saying something of that sort, but it's misleading. Here is the actual quote from Telegraph: "Under Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan’s president, the country has grown relatively wealthy from oil revenues. It has also carved out a reputation as an island of stability in volatile Central Asia. This year, though, several attacks by Islamic-linked militants now the fighting in Zhanaozen have shaken that reputation." (emphasis mine)  JimSukwutput  02:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The "incident" is not simply the existence of rioting (though such rioting in Kazakhstan is arguably significant on its own), it's the fact that 11 have been killed and 80+ have been injured, and that is indeed extremely rare in what's overall a stable country. We post rare national occurrences all the time.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kazakhstan might be stable relative to its neighbors, but that's not a high standard. Just last month 7 were killed in a terrorist attack BBC, and Kazakhstan is still battling insurgencies like the Hizb ut-Tahrir. I agree the current nomination still can be considered notable, which is why I have not voted, but I just wanted to put it out there that it's not as rare as one might think.  JimSukwutput  03:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And just last month the BBC, in the article you cited, opinioned that "The assault is highly unusual for Kazakhstan, but follows a handful of bomb attacks in recent months." and that's in no way related to this labour dispute, not at all relevant right, or am I not able to follow your thought?--Alcea setosa (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - first such clashes in Kazakhstan, very high political significance for this country.Oleg-ch (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - great coverage for me. --Katarighe (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - very big country, Geo-politically significant, and a clash like this is unusual. Crnorizec (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose very local & no political significance. It sounds like routine trade union stuff, overall it's just an incident. --Tachfin (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet to see any credible indication that this event is significant. And per Jim Sukwutput excellent "citation needed" job on the supports. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support More than 14 civilian protesters are dead, killed by the state police force. If this had happened anywhere in Europe or the Americas it would be front page on ITN already. These are not Islamic terrorists, and as stated above Kazakhstan is relatively stable. We must be careful to consider the whole name, not just "stan" and not relate this place to Pakistan or Afghanistan where violence has become so routine that it's more easily overlooked. The BBC has a correspondent on the ground who has reported the roads are sealed and communications locked down. I understand there is some hesitance here to post any sort of "protest", but these aren't some hippies in a park, there are deaths and a substantial government response and I think it's worth posting. Thank you. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Some of the soapboxing and ungrounded allegations of U.S.-bias made me think twice about my neutral stance on this nomination. There is no reliable source whatsoever saying that the police shot dead 14 civilian protesters. Even if you believe completely in the story given by the opposition parties, it was unemployed oil workers who, after six months of being ignored in their demands, went on a stage and began pushing officials aside and destroying the speakers. That was how the riots got started - there was no political element in it whatsoever. See videos of the incident: beginning of the riots, Riots continued. And the riots from the unemployed oil workers, which were restricted to the single city, have completely died down by today, with rioters arrested by the police and facing trial. To quote a famous comment, this is local news of no international significance.  JimSukwutput  23:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What soapboxing? What "allegations of U.S.-bias"? These claims are unfounded. While government officials said 11 people died as a result of Friday's violence BBC At least 10 people have been killed as striking oil workers clashed with government forces in a town in western Kazakhstan, officials say. BBC It is the worst violence in the Central Asian nation's recent history. BBC. Youtube fails WP:RS and WP:OR forbids primary sources. The BBC on the other hand easily fulfills both requirements. Again, the "worst violence in the Central Asian nation's recent history", per the BBC. Certainly noteworthy. To quote an equally famous reply: "You gotta be kidding me here. Read the third point of the "Please do not..." guidelines above." --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The government claimed that 11-14 people died in the riots. It did not claim that the police shot dead 11-14 civilian protesters. That was my point. Your feigned inability to comprehend simple sentences is making me doubtful of your good faith. And by "allegations of U.S.-bias" I refer to this sentence: "If this had happened anywhere in Europe or the Americas it would be front page on ITN already.". Please refer to the fourth point above: "Do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism)".  JimSukwutput  00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok so two things. 1) "At least 10 people have been killed as striking oil workers clashed with government forces" was pretty clear to me. Lets try "At least ten people have died in fighting between police and demonstrators" Telegraph I sincerely doubt they all had traffic accidents on the way home. 2) Where did I accuse specific editors of bias? I didn't. I don't think the geographic location of the country suffering violence should matter, if violence is generally unusal in that country (as established by the BBC). I made that remark in response to the comment: "protests, riots and civil confrontations are not rare in most of the world, and especially not in Central Asia". Violence is rare in Europe and America, and according to reliable sources it's rare in Kazakhstan. So what soapboxing? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Cesária Évora
Cape Verdean singer Cesária Évora dies at age of 70. - The Amazzing Race (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is in bad shape. Not notable. --Katarighe (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is in bad shape - the biography section should be written in prose instead of list by years. If updated, I support, a prominent person in the field. --Tone 17:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but then again, when anybody dies, they pretty much get in. Beyond495 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Regardless of how significant she may or may not have been, the article is messy and the sourcing patchy. —WFC— 18:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Don't think it meets the standards we generally have for natural/expected deaths. A few Grammy nominations, a few tours, pretty brief career, and her most popular album sold 300,000 copies and has 104 ratings on RYM, which is respectable but not uncommon.  JimSukwutput  20:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is "Recent deaths" material.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually this person's death got huge coverage in France, Portugal and Brazil (and other European countries I suspect); where Hitchens death didn't. But obviously Cesária Évora's fans are less likely to edit Wikipedia than Hitchens fans. For those who don't understand why she was very notable I say that she was an artist with an incredibly atypical carrier, she became famous at 50, was just an average poor woman from an African country never learned singing or music but was incredibly gifted as to sell that much in Europe. --Tachfin (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think is notable event. Won't have time to fix the whole article but I am happy to give a hand. --Elekhh (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I cleaned up the article (was mostly copyvio, and linkfarm); further help expanding it would be appreciated. --Elekhh (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support She is notable enough even in Russia. Besides, she is from a country which is rarely in the news. Oleg-ch (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - much as I love her music, she is (at best) no more notable than Hitchens, much less notable than Havel, and we don't want too many celeb deaths in one batch. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 180 people are killed in Tropical Storm Washi in the Philippines

 * Support but we need to be prudent, since it's a developing story and the casualities now could be changes very quickly. However, the timing is fine to me and if anything else happens, we can just update the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I believe such a disastrous tropical storm occurring in December is quite unusual for the Philippines and with 180 fatalities, it's pretty significant. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Heavy death toll - BBC currently says "more than 200" fatalities.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - im hearing reports of upto 400 deaths - Thus i am gonna try and get an emergency article out this afternoon.Jason Rees (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's now an article available on the storm...currently being built up - Tropical Storm Washi (2011). Also please update blurb to reflect the latest death toll: 436 dead, >400 missing Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Linked to the storm article. --Tone 16:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current link points the wrong page. Can one of the admins correct it --Natrajdr (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Russia joins the WTO

 * Strong support Finally the negotiations end with accession of Russia. Incredibly, but one of the largest economies in the world enters the WTO among the last.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The section about the admission of Russia has been updated. The rest of the article provides more information about the historical background and the admission process. --Tachfin (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unconditional support. Huge news. —WFC— 13:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Post, but not yet. It's unclear to me whether Russia has joined, or will join after 30 days. The lead is also now outdated, and I'm worried that the section on Russia creates proper balancing issues issues&mdash;should one country really take up that much space in the article? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Russia's coverage is in any way disproportionate to that of Tonga, Vietnam, Ukraine or Cape Verde, given the relative size of the economy. The section header itself is the only issue, and I would suggest is primarily there for the benefit of ITN readers. —WFC— 18:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support -- Agreed with Krill SImeonovski. Katarighe (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I've been reading about this for decades literally.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Huge international significance. Russia is a very significant country as well on the world stage, so that's a bonus. Beyond495 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * [Ready] removed for the time being due to NW's concerns about the lead. —WFC— 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Fixed blurb. The country is accepted for membership. Grey  Hood   Talk  19:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support One of the biggest events of this decade so far. --hydrox (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have clarified the blurb and removed the outdated part of the lead in the article, so the concerns voiced above seem to be addressed. Marking [Ready]. Grey  Hood   Talk  22:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 22:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Wukan

 * Note, according to The Wall Street Journal, "the Wukan revolt is [2011's] most serious case of mass unrest in China".


 * As police besiege the Chinese village of Wukan, the Chinese authorities block all searches for "Wukan" or "Lufeng". <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 10:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this. The villagers reported took over a town and drove the CCP official out! It appears newsworthy to me.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose current article. There is no siege. There is an ongoing protest in the village and the police are checking the identities of the people going out and in; and yet the article made it sound like this is a revolution. To be fair, this does seem like an important event; it's a pity that some people had to turn it into sensationalized crap. Let's fix that before we think about posting this.  JimSukwutput  05:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my arguments below. People say "sensationalised crap" (this is hardly celebrity news) when they wish to oppose something but do not have any reliable sources to support their position. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 02:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Speedy Support totally unprecedented in China. A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault. Sure sounds like a siege to me, and The Telegraph agrees. . --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It surely is not unprecedented; see List of civil disturbances in the People's Republic of China (2011). This particular protest has been going on for three months, with villagers stopping their protests numerous times and some of them returning afterwards (it heated up most recently because a village official died under custody). And no, this is not a siege; there is no military, no city, no fortress, no conquest, and no assault, so I have no idea why you thought that definition would apply (is this another one of your jokes?). Well, you could consider the police encirclement "attrition", but just today they let in hundreds of people carrying food and supplies. Doesn't sound that exciting now, does it? Trust me, I know people there; this is not going to be the revolution that the Western media and liberal do-gooders has been clamoring for.  JimSukwutput  13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not "protestors in a park". They ran their fascist government dictators out of town on a rail, so yes, it is unprecedented, and you know it is. Yes there is a city (albeit small), it's called "Wukan". For their trouble the police have surrounded the city and are controlling access. That's a siege, period. The "police" there are a paramilitary organization run by the ruthless and brutal MSS. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * More bullshit. Wukancun is not a city, it is a village near the county-level city of Lufeng in Shanwei. And MSS is not a paramilitary organization; it is an agency of the state, and by definition, is considered police. For example see here and here, or here and here if you can read Chinese. Next time, check your facts and don't waste my time with facts pulled out of your ass.  JimSukwutput  14:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim, it says in your second source that the village is "at war" with the govt. And even if other villagers are bringing in supplies that seems like a siege to me.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition helpfully given to us by the IP says: A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault. There is no military blockade (it's a police encirclement, and that's entirely different - compare the recent Brooklyn bridge encirclement to this); there is no city or fortress but rather a rural village; and there is no attrition and no preparations for assault. In other words, it is the complete opposite of anything described as a siege. Seriously, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to using descriptions, but this is borderline ridiculous. Not even the most pro-democratic news sources outside mainland China (Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Singapore, San Francisco) are referring to it as a siege. They all refer to it as a police encirclement of a protesting village, and that might have been worth posting if it did not have sensationalism and exaggerations plastered over it.  JimSukwutput  20:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between a "city or fortress" and a 20,000-inhabitant village is taking the definition too pedantically IMHO. The intent of conquering by attrition or assault: most of the sources crystalball that the PRC government intends to retake the village rather than allow the village to secede - these predictions are for RS's to decide, not Wikipedians. As for police vs military, again, although the wiktionary could potentially become an encyclopedic level study of usage frequency of every subtly different usage of a word in an individual entry, i think that saying that it's not a siege because the police are not military is also an overly strict interpretation of the wiktionary entry. As for RS usage, which overrides the above subtleties of Wikipedian judgment: Wukan siege: the fallen villager, Wukan Honors Martyr Amid Siege. Boud (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Paramilitary government forces have surrounded a city of 20,000 people (call it a village, 20k is not a small number) and are restricting access. I fail to understand how that's not a siege. What would you call it then? It's not some protesters in a local park, that's for sure. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Siege, riot, protest, Tupperware Party...call it whatever you want. Let us not let semantics make us pass up a notable event.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a siege. Villagers lay siege and turfed out the officials they thought were corrupt, the corrupt officials in turn have reinforced themselves and are trying to starve the villagers out. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now we see that even among supporters of this nomination you cannot put up a coherent argument. Boud argues that the PRC government intends to retake the village by force; Ohconfucius argues that the local officials intend to starve the villagers out. Now you see why I have a problem with posting this mess of an article?  JimSukwutput  03:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, being highly political, it's not that simple. If you don't understand the possible nuances, then it's all the reason why the article deserves to be posted. At least it will help educate those who don't understand. In fact "the people's government" isn't likely to intervene openly, but its inescapable that they are there watching, if not giving orders. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article (and whatever blurb you guys can come up with) are unlikely to educate anyone. "Police and Communist Party officials were forced out of the village, which then became self-administered...The Hindu said that Wukan village became "entirely controlled and administered by its residents" and that this was "a likely first in China's modern history." Villages in Guangdong have been self-administered since the early 1980s. That's 30 years ago, and there are two hundred villages in Lufeng alone, all self-administered. "Under the government's internet censorship program, internet searches related to Wukan, and the cities of Shanwei and Lufeng were blocked after the December uprising started." - Not true, at least not now. Any simple search on Sina or Baidu can tell you that. There are, of course, more blatant errors, but given the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude taken by some of the participants in this nomination, there is little point for me to list them all.  JimSukwutput  04:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Battleground? You joking, right? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What else do you call this comment by the IP below? "the towns people rose up, said "You will not steal from us anymore!" and drove out their single party state appointed fascist overseers." I do respect your rational participation in this discussion, but you have to admit that there's a fair amount of soapboxing going on.  JimSukwutput  04:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion of the Tibet annexing, Tiananmen square massacring, child butchering government of the illegitimate fascist police state "china" has no impact on the overall significance of the event. You've failed to produce a single scrap of evidence that this is not unique or news worthy. You've labelled it as a mundane "village land protest" that "happens all the time", choosing to ignore the eviction of the government or the police blockade. You've derailed the discussion with your obstructionist practices and frankly I don't understand why. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, they're not allowing food and water to get in. They intend to starve the villagers out. I don't know how more notable you can get. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 18:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are allowing food and water to get in; they're just distributing it via government supporters (while the rebels would prefer to get it via smuggling). This proves, by the way, that there are supporters of the local government in the village, so you can't claim the whole number of the villagers as lawbreakers to enhance the event's notability. Shrigley (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Supporters are vastly outnumbered; the attending crowd is at least 6000 in size. Your remark that this remains "routine" is puzzling. Is it the normal response to civil disturbances to stop all regular trade and merchandising and to restrict the flow of food and water to only government supporters and defectors? You yourself are calling them "rebels". By what principle are you still opposing this? <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse  à jamais  (be free) 02:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Land protests in China are common. Changed to Strong Oppose. Land protests in China are common, and I now also have neutrality concerns. Beyond495 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give us a link to the Wikipedia entry for another recent land protest in the PRC in which the Communist Party officials and police were thrown out of the village/town and a locally elected village/town council effectively took over political and administrative control. I cannot see any other event where there was effectively a complete replacement of the Communist Party village/town government by an independent locally elected group of people. Boud (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's not common, in fact what's totally unprecedented, is that the towns people rose up, said "You will not steal from us anymore!" and drove out their single party state appointed fascist overseers. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support International media think this is a unique protest. They might be exaggerating, but we don't (yet) have any Wikipedia documentation for that, i.e. articles regarding other 20,000-or-more-inhabitant PRC villages/towns which threw out the Communist Party and police and replaced them by their own elected representatives. (Disclaimer: i've done a lot of editing on the article, trying to check RS's.) Boud (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "threw out the Communist Party and police and replaced them by their own elected representatives". You're incorrect. Wukan is a village, and village representatives (村委會) are elected (now you know why there's a difference between a village and a city), although the transparency of that election is of course in doubt. In fact, this is one of the main concerns of the protest: villagers want to improve the democratic process. Any talk of them throwing out "state-appointed overseers" is just bullshit. They may be corrupt, and they may have rigged the elections, but they're not appointed by Beijing. In fact, Beijing and the provincial government of Guangdong are both considered potential allies of the villagers against the corrupt local government in Lufeng/Shanwei. This is not a semantic debate; it's crucially important that we get these facts right, because this section will lose a LOT of credibility if we put up something so erroneous and ridiculous that it is akin to claiming "the U.S. marines are besieging Oakland protesters". And if clueless editors like you are the main contributors to the article, I have even greater concern for whatever passes for facts in the article.  JimSukwutput  03:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the insistence on the label "just a village". It might be convenient for a sadistic totalitarian regime to attempt to marginalize these people, but 20,000 people is a substantial number. There might be some technicality on the Chinese system of exploitation which demands the moniker "village", but it's as fraudulent and misleading as the moniker "Peoples" in a country which will steal land from it's own people. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I referred to it as a village because it is a village. The place is called Wukancun (check Google Maps), and cun means exactly village and nothing else. This might run contrary to your understanding of what "village" means, but that is how it is defined in the PRC, for various reasons that I might be more inclined to go into if you were a more serious user, and not someone who blames everyone around him for educating him about the facts and then implicitly accuses them of being fascist sympathizers.  JimSukwutput  22:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a routine event of local significance. Per Jim Sukwutput, some media are just sensationalizing this and drawing grandiose inferences. Despite what 76.18.43.253 says, this is not a revolt against the Chinese government or against communism; it is a protest against supposedly corrupt local officials. In fact, the villagers are appealing to Beijing to "save" them from their erstwhile municipal government. Also, to address what Boud is saying, village heads are directly elected in China, and about 40% of such heads are not Communist Party members. The organized violence of the villagers makes the subject more notable than most land protests, but it is still a local event and not some national revolutionary movement. Shrigley (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite reliable sources that says that the BBC, NYT, Telegraph, etc. etc. are "sensationalising" this event? Extraordinary claims require reliable sourcing. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 02:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We use reliable sources for articles, not for whatever we say here on ITN, my friend. Though I try to keep the original research to a minimum, all the comments made here are by their very nature subjective. I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the RS policy. Do you personally dispute Shrigley's claim? If so, for what reason?  JimSukwutput  02:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is policy. If there are strong reliable sources to support the posting of an article, the weight of original research to support opposing should be sharply discounted. For example, if I have strong RS to support a claim in an article, original research that argues that claim is "sensationalised" on a talk page should not be treated seriously until the opposing editor has reliable sources of his/her own. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You gotta be kidding me. Ok, how about the source that the IP brought up, about the definition of a siege? Do you dispute that none (or at most few) of the definitions of a siege are fulfilled by this incident? Or how about claims that the military, or Beijing, are encircling the village when in fact it's the local police force? (see the four sources I linked to above). How about the ridiculous claim that Communist appointed officials were forced out when in fact a simple look at the current article will tell you otherwise (that it was the elected representatives who were forced out)? How about the claim that Beijing is cracking down on the protests when it was Lufeng which threatened to do so, and the villagers have been asking Beijing for help (a fact that you do not dispute)? Are these not good enough examples of the blatant misrepresentation, misunderstanding and inaccuracies that plague this article and this discussion?  JimSukwutput  02:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support [declaration of interest: I am one of the principal editors of the article] It's a siege involving 20,000 people, so it's significant. If they reported it in Chinese media, it would underline its importance and significance; that they are not reporting it in China but the whole world is taking an interest further underlines its importance to "social stability and harmony". -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, this event will likely be posted despite any discussion here. Beyond495 (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have more faith in our admins' ability to resist sensationalism and maintain some basic standard here.  JimSukwutput  03:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that it's a peasant's revolt. The press coverage "SIegeof Wukan" is undoubtedly a little sensationalist, but that descriptive isn't out by much. I believe this is a significant event that will have repercussions inside China. The event will probably join the List of peasant revolts in due course. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A revolt is organized; this is a rural protest against local officials that dissipated once provincial authorities promised fresh elections (in September), then flared up again after the death of a village representative in custody. Except for the rioting and their dramatization by the Western media, it's little different from the over 100,000 village protests that occur in mainland China every year.  JimSukwutput  04:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Really Jim? Exactly the same? You honestly expect us to believe that 100,000 times a year the towns people drive out their oppressive overlords and are barricaded in by the state police force for their trouble? Really? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please look at Beijing Will Make Microblog Users Reveal Their Identities, which was prompted by the Wukan incident. This is a unique protest in that it has gone "viral" in China (underground), to the chagrin of the central government. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 10:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That story said the new controls were implemented as the Wukan protests were happening; not as a result of them. China had been moving in this direction for months, creating a State Internet Information Office in May and starting a media campaign against the "lies and rumors" of microbloggers from 6 December, three days before the death that supposedly catalyzed the Wukan incident. Going "viral" would imply that the protests are spreading, which they are not; the fact that dissidents have been spreading this news among themselves is nothing new. Shrigley (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have huge neutrality concerns over this. Also something sounds fishy, the villagers seem to have a problem with land being sold to private investors; that's seems like asking for more communism not less contrary to speculations in some media. --Tachfin (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're objecting based on your ideological beliefs? <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 18:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think he's just pointing out that this local dispute is not some antigovernment, anticommunist revolt as it is misread by excited media outlets, but could actually be a government-organized demonstration to scapegoat local authorities and strengthen the central government's hand. Shrigley (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we've established that local disputes are still news. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh really. Then why do you continue to oppose every non-U.S. nomination (except this) with the one-liner "local event of no international significance"? (And never mind the fact that you completely and intentionally avoided Shrigley's point. Please don't pretend to be obtuse; it's hard enough to argue with you without the obfuscation.)  JimSukwutput  22:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that though I oppose, many such items get posted anyway. I thought a worldwide movement against financial tyranny was noteworthy, and in this case I think a small city rising up against state tyranny is also noteworthy. Since you've chosen to reply only to postings of no significance while ignoring those items which actually pertain to the discussion at hand, I'll ask again: Really Jim? Exactly the same? You honestly expect us to believe that 100,000 times a year the towns people drive out their oppressive overlords and are barricaded in by the state police force for their trouble? Really? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Listen, kid, you have repeatedly fabricated things that I've never said ("exactly the same"? "protesters in a park"?). You've shown no intention of actually assessing the notability of the nomination and continue to misrepresent our viewpoints. And you've repeatedly insulted the numerous dissenters in this nomination by implying that they are fascist sympathizers, despite the fact that many of us here have lived or continue to live every day under tyranny while you're out there with your self-infatuating soapboxing without a clue as to what's actually going on in China. So please, leave me the fuck alone. This nomination will not succeed, and your trolling is not going to change that.  JimSukwutput  00:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you steadfastly refuse to address the nomination? Why do you prefer instead to spread lies about me? To use foul language? To insult the sincerity of my participation? You talk about fabricating things. Whom have I called a fascist sympathizer? When? And how the hell is it not news when a city throws out it's government and gets barricaded inside by the police? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop acting like a victim when you're throwing around epithets like "fascist" and "child butchering government". Again, Wukan is a village; not a city. Some people are squatting on land to protest a government that sold it for development. The government has not come in with guns to end the protest, but is trying to negotiate with the villagers to reach a peaceful solution. This is not as you've repeatedly implied, a revolutionary Paris Commune-type situation. The goal is agrarian reform, not democracy, and the impact is highly local. Shrigley (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it is a village or a city is irrelevant. This protest is more notable than most Occupy protests, and I recall the Occupy movement has made ITN a few times. News from China endures a clear systemic bias that favours Western news sources.
 * Some people are squatting on land to protest a government that sold it for development. The government has not come in with guns to end the protest, but is trying to negotiate with the villagers to reach and solution and restore order peacefully. Oh; I suppose the cutoff food supply and water supply also makes it routine; the emptied police station (how often does this occur?), the threats by Lufeng's mayor to crush the protests. These are all backed up by reliable sources, but I have yet to see reliable sources for your claims. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 01:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally some facts from your side. About frigging time. Well, yes, there is a threat by Lufeng city to crush the protests; that is, at present, just a threat. We do not gauge notability by speculation; if and when that actually happens, I'll be glad to support a nomination. Second, the "cutoff" in food supply is indeed not common in the 180,000 village protests that China has every year, although this is certainly not the first time it happened. Entire academic articles have been written by village protests and local/state response to them (e.g. Guo 2001 Land Expropriation and Rural Conflicts in China). And in this case, the police gladly let in food supplies after only one day. Again, exaggeration. Finally, I'm not speaking for Shrigley here, but my opposition to this post stems from its omission of content and concerns with neutrality issues, and I suspect many other users share the same concern. I am not saying that the protests are non-notable, as I have repeatedly indicated above, though I maintain that their notability have been misrepresented.  JimSukwutput  02:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I largely share your concerns. Here's a telling self-congratulatory excerpt from a Telegraph article: "Since the Telegraph broke the story to the West last week, more international media have made their way into the sprawling coastal settlement... the media presence is seen to be acting as a human shield; the government wouldn't dare send in the armed paramilitary riot police with so many cameras around". So the media coverage is encouraging some kind of possibly violent escalation (that hasn't happened yet), making for a more suspenseful story and prolonging a routine end to this kind of normal land rights protest. Clearly what some outsiders want, as our ip friend so eloquently says, is an end to the "illegitimate fascist police state 'china'". But save for the media's self-perpetuating hype, the villagers' actual demands are quite tame. Shrigley (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What generally happens when the Western (or, as the local Hoklos would call them, ang mo) reporters stage these media events is that the villagers quickly begin to turn against them after it becomes clear that they have no interest in actually understanding their demands, but rather wants to paint it as a democracy vs. CPC battle. Of course, the media leave that part out when they're presenting the crusades to docile audiences in the West, such as the IP above.  JimSukwutput  03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please, I'm a Chinese Singaporean who uses the word "ang mo" on a daily basis. What reliable source says the excerpt is self-congratulatory? Your original research is absurd. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 03:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, your insistent and hypocritical demands that we reliably source our own editorial judgments border on parody. Shrigley (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Would an administrator post this already -- I think international news sources have made it quite clear that this is not routine. It has escalated beyond that of a typical protest; typically most civil disturbances might provoke censorship, but not the censorship of an entire city (Lufeng). <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 01:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense; there's no "censorship of an entire city". The only reason international media can write stories about this village is because they're following residents' posts on Sina Weibo and the like. Oh, and the fact that some journalists are actually moving in and out of the village- how's that for a "siege"? Just as posts extolling the number of villagers (20,000) display deep ignorance about China's size, so do posts heralding how "unprecedented" the protests are, as if 180,000 such disturbances don't happen every year. Obviously there are varying levels of media coverage, but behind the hype there's little that indicates Wukan's broader significance. Shrigley (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I refer you to the five pillars of Wikipedia? Please educate yourself on WP:V, as well as read WP:TRUTH. Show me an editorial from a reliable source that says that this sort of thing is routine. It's not for you to judge what is notable -- it is coverage from reliable sources that determines our judgment. This is core Wikipedia policy. There were 180,000 public disturbances, but most of them involved a handful of people. There are not many that number more than 1,000 -- never mind 20,000.
 *  there's no "censorship of an entire city". Uhhh, you can't look up Wukan or Lufeng (a city of 1.7 million) on Weibo or other social media search engines. How often does this happen? <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 01:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases of social unrest, this kind of mild censorship is routine, however information is getting out so there's not the total censorship as you describe, just how there's no total blockade or total rebellion or other extremist judgments of the events. We're not at AfD, and I'm not disputing the article's right to exist; it has enough sources for that. I'm just disputing the article's worthiness of ITN, which is for non-routine events of high international significance. Shrigley (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting reliable sourcing with your personal opinion. So what if it's not a total blockade? That's irrelevant. This sort of event -- that escalates up to this point -- is rare in China; the response has been remarkable. Blocking searches for an entire city of 1.7 million isn't remarkable?<font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 02:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Internet censorship in and about areas of unrest - even whole provinces - is not unprecedented in China. Do you have a reliable source that says it's unusual? Shrigley (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If Beijing blocked searches for entire provinces because of an incident, that incident is automatically notable. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 02:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you serious? You want a ITN post every time Beijing blocks some search? We might as well stop posting anything else.  JimSukwutput  02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocking an entire province -- or blocking searches for a city of 1.7 million -- is hardly "blocking for some search". Small disturbances that attract local news attention would attract internet censorship of a different sort. <font color="#20A7E4">elle <font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse à jamais  (be free) 02:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea..okay. And let me correct you: they're not blocking all searches for the city. They're blocking searches for it on weibo (as of today). That's it. And by "they" I mean Sina corp, the owner of Sina Weibo that self-censors its own search engine and has nothing to do with the state. The city is still on the news, there are blog posts about it, etc. In other words, no noticeable state censorship.  JimSukwutput  02:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How revealing that even the shocking claim of censorship - in China! - of the blurb, substituting itself for a lack of anything exciting happening in Wukan, is itself exaggerated. Shrigley (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not even exaggerated, it didn't exist at all. I was surprised to find out myself, given how vocal some of these people have been in claiming state censorship. Since I have been asked to provide a reliable source for every claim I make, here is an article from Reuters about how Sina self censors its Weibo search engine.  JimSukwutput  02:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's tragic how the unprecedented act of a small city throwing out it's government and being barricaded inside by the police is not considered news. The article isn't about censorship, or opposition to communism, it's about a unique and special event that would be news in ANY country. The fact that's it's happened in China makes it even more so. Dissenters here have labelled it routine and local in nature, but have failed to produce a single reliable source to that effect. They've used the moniker "just a village", well fine, in the "PRC", it's a "village", but this is en.wikipedia.org not cn.wikipedia.org, and 20,000 people is simply not what readers of the English WP would consider a village. Land protests are common, fine, but this is not a common protest. The truly rabid opposition to posting this story is a shining example of the failings of ITN. Today there are two dead authors on the main page, while in Wukan there is a city under restricted access from state controlled law enforcement. For shame. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about you admit that you knew nothing about what happened, that we've debunked every single one of your claims WITH reliable sources ("city" "siege" "state censorship on search engine" "military crackdown"), and thank us for our trouble? Since your comments have shifted from incomprehensible but relevant debate on the nomination, into personal attacks and angry ranting devoid of any content, I do not intend to reply again. However, I still expect a gracious "thank you" for your education.  JimSukwutput  18:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thank goodness you'll stop "replying" with your derisive and misleading comments. I never said a thing about state censorship or a military crackdown. I will not thank you, in fact I will vigorously condemn you for repeated personal attacks, for derailing the discussion, for spreading misinformation and for your steadfast refusal to address the underlying fact that this was a unique event. A city threw out it's government and has been locked inside by a state police force. I don't understand your instance on trolling here but it's sad and frustrating. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support + rewording : Very surprising event. Put the emphasis on "revolt against corruption", not against the CCP. Thus most of the wiki NPOV debate is solve. Yug (talk)  18:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose new blurb as well. I don't know what the hell happened with the blurb, but it's still incorrect. There is no evidence that the local village officials were members of the Communist Party of China. As someone helpfully pointed out, only 60% of village officials are CPC members, and so far I have not seen a source which states that the evicted officials are all part of the 60% (I don't think conclusive evidence can be had either way; CPC membership data is confidential). Let me note that I am still opposed to the blurb even if this error is corrected; I'm just noting that as of now there are not just neutrality/soapboxing issues with the articles and the blurbs but also factual inaccuracies which make it absolutely impossible to post. I am also astounded that the nominator continues to make careless errors such as this when numerous users have provided him plenty of information concerning this topic, with reliable sources to back them up; I guess this just shows the kind of attitude prevalent amongst some in this project - do everything to get the nomination to succeed, plaster sensationalism all over it, and fuck the facts.  JimSukwutput  22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jim: there was no old blurb, so "as well" and "still opposed" don't apply. Now i have proposed a new blurb after your latest (22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)) comment. The nominator, la Goutte de pluie, forgot to or wasn't aware of how to use the ITN template. This is my first time on ITN/C (AFAIR), and i didn't know the procedure at all. i used the template after noticing that a long discussion happened without the template, making it difficult for neutral third parties to judge what to do. It also made it difficult to consense on the wording of the blurb, since there was no blurb. Since you seem to have more ITN/C experience than me, it would have helped if you had pointed out that the de facto nominator or someone else should post the ITN template. That would have helped focus the discussion.
 * You have made many claims without showing in which Wikipedia articles these claims are RS'd. i have put in a link to Organic Law of Village Committees, since that seems to be a main theme that you are referring to. At the moment, that article is purely theoretical: it refers to the law but has no RS stating typical percentages of elected village councils that are CP members, the degree of independence from the CP, or to what degree the elections are really free and fair, whether the individuals and political parties that tend to win the elections are mostly left-wing, right-wing, pro-workers, pro-business, anarchist, socially conservative, socially liberal, pro-religious, secular, ethnic-based, or whatever. I would presume that many of them would be more or less associated with regional or national level political parties, assuming that you are right about the lack of a CP monopoly. In the interests of the Wikipedia, it would be great if you could work on that article about which you apparently know a lot, providing RS.
 * In any case, please tell us if you still have any problem with the blurb version as of 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC). Please also remember WP:GOODFAITH. It might be difficult sometimes, but it's critical to making Wikipedia work :). Boud (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct, there was no old blurb, and I was confused. As for RS concerning village officials, I did link to a book on Google Books in my comment above. It contains some data about percentage of non-CPC village officials, which varies a lot across the country but is typically around 40%. I think it's safe to say that it's highly unlikely that the local officials in Wukan were all members of the CPC, and so far I have not seen any source claiming that this is true. User:Shrigley made a similar point above.  JimSukwutput  10:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Christopher Hitchens

 * Support. One of the most influential (and controversial) commentators in international politics as well as religious issues.  JimSukwutput  06:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. International notability. Untimely, if not unexpected, death. Lampman (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (came here to suggest it, actually) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Change it to "British-American author" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 07:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Recent deaths material. He talked a lot but didn't have any actual impact. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed, he talked a lot. Not sure why that could be seen as a negative. Suggest immediate posting. Wikifan Be nice  07:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Died far too young. Talked a lot, of awful good sense. Even to have upset as many people as he did makes him notable. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose apart from a nonsensical book, this guy has a far amount of notability; I would post the death of really notable authors, who really influenced future writers; he did not influence anyone, maybe except atheists. His biased books are not at all educational, but more brainwashing. If you think I am against Atheism, then I say "no". I would also oppose posting death of a Conservative writer.-- ♫GoP♫ <sub style="color:red;">T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 09:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You sound angry. Political authors are not under an obligation to be "unbiased". They're supposed to offer their own points of view. On the other hand, we on Wikipedia and especially ITN do try to be objective when evaluating the notability of a nomination, and not resort to insults such as "brainwashing" against individuals who recently passed away. I'm not going to judge you as I do not know you, just as you do not know Hitchens; but your comment is the very definition of hypocrisy.  JimSukwutput  13:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Fairly notable polemicist, much as I dislike him personally. Probably a borderline case, but a) the article seems pretty good and b) ITN is slow recently. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A fairly notable writer who died suddenly.  He presumably would have written a great deal more had he not died at a relatively young age.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mkativerata. Absolutely right. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose . I don't think he was influential enough on a global scale to ordinarily merit an ITN posting. But then again, on a global scale neither was Gary Speed before his death. If the extent of the coverage of and reaction to his death is shown to be comparable to that of Speed, I could be swayed. —WFC— 15:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence having seen the sorts of people that are reacting to his death. —WFC— 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support obviously the most notable face of atheism. As much as I don't agree with his writings, he obviously had a huge effect on the subject (right now I'm looking for an article I saw last night of many notable people commenting on Hitchens death). Secret account 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Many notable people are condoling to his death, but it doesn't make him very notable. I cannot decide on his writings and political and religious views as well, and seems like the death does not make any further implications.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence here too. While there has been a lot of attention, it seems to be a case of the press taking care of their own. Another thing to consider is if this had been a conservative columnist like George Will or someone like a Rush Limbaugh, would we consider posting it? Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mkativerata. Beyond495 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. He was a much better atheist than some of his colleagues, in my humble opinion. Also we have a nice photo. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for so many reasons. Best-selling author and columnist who was at the forefront of the New Atheism movement and one of the most opinionated people on the planet. Leaves behind a large following and a successful career cut short. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  22:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. We have a post above from Mkativerata saying that Hitchens "didn't have any actual impact." And we have User:GreatOrangePumpkin saying "...he did not influence anyone." Given the rest of the posts here, those comment are clearly total nonsense. (I would also add that he had some influence on me, but I guess I'm a nobody.) Then we also have two of those regular but pointless echo posts saying "Oppose per Mkativerata", obviously adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. (We don't count votes!) I really do wonder why people post such rubbish. Is it because their god tells them they must disagree with the guy? (Note that this is not intended as personal attack, but it is intended as severe criticism of appalling logic.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I would ask the admin in charge of this decision to ignore the comment from HiLo48 and close this discussion. It seems clear there won't be a consensus in favor here. Rancor is all that's left. Beyond495 (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please tell us what is good about the posts I have criticised. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good or bad is irrelevant. Ideas should be discussed, not other users. Comments that include other users are tainted in nearly all instances. Beyond495 (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment All of the above discussion is moot without an update that is more than half a line. Ashish-g55 01:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, what do you suggest? He died and his memorial service will be held at some place at this time? Mention his illness? He died. What more can be said that won't look like an obituary? Wikifan Be nice  01:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * after all the discussions on how quality of updates should be main criteria of ITN. this one would rank pretty low. we are not even posting ITN/Rs without a decent sized update these days so why would we post this? -- Ashish-g55 02:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is this guy? Should we have something on the section title on what he is? – H T  D  02:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hitchens is one of those people who is very hard to categorise. He has been a writer and journalist for over 40 years, with interests covering a huge range of topics. That incredibly shallow tool, the one-liner in his Infobox, describes him as "writer, journalist", and describes the literary movement of which he was part as "New Atheism". But he was an awful lot more than that. Given my lack of respect for the stupidly brief summaries in Infoboxes, I have no idea how we could simply describe him in the section title. Let's hope people can use a mouse click to find out for themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well so much for NPOV, eh? – H T  D  02:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not NPOV enough to have a section title as bare as this. – H T  D  02:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the line is sufficient enough. The guy has been named as one of the topic intellectuals of this era. Wikifan Be nice  02:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Death of Christopher Hitchens" doesn't tell much of what he was. – H T  D  02:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Death of journalist and essayist C Hitchens would probably be as good of a short title as possible.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks fair. Can you imagine how could've things have been here it this guy was American-born and the section title was as bare as "Death of <some American>"? – H T  D  03:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but ultimately, it's blurbs (and articles) that get nominated, not section titles. Plenty of nominations with bare or otherwise poor section titles have been posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. But I was emphasizing a point... – H T  D  03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posting, with the current blurb. The update isn't that great, but the article is fairly well-developed and there is a great deal already written about the disease that ultimately took his life. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has several paragraphs about Hitchens' last few months, which I think can be counted in the update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but rather weakly. Was going to go neutral but HiLo's trolling convinced me otherwise. Seems like a notable figure to group of people, and major in English countries. If someone can note international acclaim, he seems significant enough that I'm okay striking my oppose, which I'm usually tough on. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as a British-born author he was certainly notable in the UK, and his death was a headline in the UK press.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but being notable in the UK is not enough to justify an ITN posting, and if anything that shows a strong bias that ITN has; I wouldn't think a BBC obit automatically merits posting; if so that's a slippery slope to overrun the itn page with obit stuff. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 05:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My response to that is that it might have helped if you had read my post immediately below, which was made over two hours before yours. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never been to the UK. Only heard of Hitchens here in Australia. Even heard him on radio here. And I do wish you could try to comment on the actual words I posted, rather than just labelling them as trolling. I stand by everything I posted above. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Apparently, again, the contents of this discussion were irrelevant given the posting. I don't understand the point of these discussions if they are ignored. Beyond495 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I see that. The consensus above looks very strong in support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but we can agree to disagree. I think it's more a lack of entries than a clear consensus. Beyond495 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't see how you can complain about "the contents of this discussion" when your (and another user's) oppose was a simple "per Mkativerata", whose own oppose was a one-liner.  JimSukwutput  04:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can somebody kindly add the photo? Thanks in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. -बोधिचित्त (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're posting one-line updates now? Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest pull Ask someone outside of USA and Great Britain, I am pretty sure less than 5% knows of him. In his whole life he criticized Religion; he has just one book, which is imho important, but only for Atheists, God is not Great (but Evil yes?). He was not covered in RT, Al Jazeera, RIA Novosti, etc., a proof he was just non-notable in other countries. Also suggest replacing it with the Russian protests, which is far more notable, which is still ongoing and which has immense news coverage outside and inside English-speaking countries-- ♫GoP♫ <sub style="color:red;">T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 10:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, you already tried to make your case. People didn't agree with you. It was posted. Let it go. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 'I don't know who he is' isn't sufficient reason not to post this. Plenty of people do know, and obviously care about his death - see the huge media attention this is getting. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * His death was reported in Al Jazeera quite prominently. Not sure where you got that he only wrote one book--Hitchens bibliography and bookstore.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are people so stupid as to repeatedly say things like "unknown outside US & UK" when I've already pointed out (TWICE!) that I've heard of him (and heard him on radio) here in Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pulled The article is not updated. --  tariq abjotu  18:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was implacably opposed to posting this article. But pulling it is a cowboy move, for which you are becoming increasingly well known around these parts. The admin who posted it was well aware that the update was marginal, but he considered it postable nonetheless. Who are you to revert on the basis that your judgment is preferable? Wikifan and Johnsemlak have made entirely valid points that the material on his death is sufficient in the context of the material on his illness. Did you consider those points? Or would you have us hurt an otherwise pretty good article by including four useless sentences of padding about his death? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I share the same concern. Some things require a context and hence a detailed update; but everybody knows what dying entails, and there isn't anything other than padding that you could put on about it. I understand that we have a standard to enforce, but the policy states that "five-sentence update is generally considered the minimum", and this seems to me to be one case where the policy clearly does not apply. Besides, there is an entire section devoted to his cancer and death, many of which are fairly recent materials.  JimSukwutput  19:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, what's the deal Tariq? It's pretty obvious there is not a lot one can update other than he suffered from cancer, and later died from his illness. And there is more than one paragraph devoted to this issue. The threshold does not require the sentences relating to the update need to be consecutive. That football guy that no one knew in the US was posted without challenge. This guy is an international figure. Wikifan Be nice  20:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird, irrational behaviour from the opposers Yes, this thread is full of it. I have made some comments above on those who have obviously ignored what I or others have posted, and those who made echo posts (nothing more than "Oppose per X"), but now Tariq takes the cake. Pulling it while ignoring (or simply but rudely refusing to respond to?) many posts explaining beforehand why his reason for doing so is inappropriate. As I said at the start, weird. I do wish we could raise the quality of debate here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Objection to pull. How a couple of late objections can override solid support is beyond me. Count the notvotes. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was pulled due to an insufficient update, not due to the opposes.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 21:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I submit that we don't really know why it was pulled at all. We know what Tariq's ostensible reason was, but that matter had already been discussed and good counter arguments presented BEFORE he pulled it. So in using that reason for pulling it, Tariq has either ignored or chosen to not comment on what seemed to me to be very good counter arguments already presented. Either way, it's not really clear why he pulled it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe he has simply failed to be objective as per his user page. Leaky  Caldron  21:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)\
 * You know what; I don't need this. I made a simple, factual statement that the article was not updated. And, rather then respond to that point, you and HiLo took it upon yourselves to effectively call me a liar that had some unknown, ulterior motive. Oh, get off it. I expect this kind of nonsense from HiLo, but I don't expect that from you. If you have an issue with the action, have the fucking decency to respond to that -- in the same way people have fairly politely done that. Did you notice how Mr-Not-Objective re-added the blurb, in response to the calls here, ten minutes before you spewed this claim out of your ass? Oh, no, you didn't, because you were too busy being a jerk, jerk. --  tariq abjotu  22:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that most of us do not agree with HiLo48's comments.  JimSukwutput  22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. You, and others, as I said, politely objected and I acceded to your points. I wasn't even really responding to HiLo, because I understand he's physically incapable of assuming good faith. He deserves our sympathy, rather than our condemnation, as he works to overcome this difficulty. But, Leaky Cauldron's baseless accusation, piggybacking on HiLo's chronic nonsense, is simply unacceptable. And I'll make no efforts to refrain from making him aware of that in the sake of civility. --  tariq abjotu  22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see him here. I don't know what his claim to front-page significance is, especially as his cancer diagnosis has been known for over a year now. I wouldn't say I "object", but hopefully we can figure out a front-page threshold that allows for individuals like him. —Designate (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a discussion to topic-ban HiLo a while ago? Where do we re-open it? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll repost it. This isn't worth the harassment. No, HiLo, there was no ulterior motive, although somehow I'm not surprised by your assumption of bad faith. The update was and is poor and I continue to hold the idea that no story important enough to go on ITN can't have more than one sentence said about it. Weren't a couple people saying condolences were coming from several notable figures? Not mentioned in the article. This story isn't even one of those "everyone's talking about it, so put it on ITN story"; people here are rather divided, unlike, for example, on the World Cup opening or Steve Jobs' death. So, I'm not sure why someone felt so rushed to put this up, and why twenty-four hours wasn't enough time to get more than a "He died." into the article. But, as I said, this isn't worth the harassment, and if this is what the lynch mob wants, yeah, okay. I feel it should be the admins' job to hold the section to its original intended purpose (perhaps that's why most of the other sections have official or unofficial directors), but clearly I'm alone in this philosophy. --  tariq abjotu  22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad faith? Then clearly bad manners. Plenty of evidence for that in those last couple of posts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remind me again where I said I cared what you thought about me, or anything else for that matter. --  tariq abjotu  22:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think Tariq can or should be blamed for pulling it when he thought he had grounds on the basis of an insufficient update, which several editors did comment on.  Yes, I supported this on the basis that material concerning the last few months of his life could be considered part of the 'update', but I can easily see how someone would view it differently.  If an admin feels an article does not meet the criteria, they can pull it irregardless of the number of supports for it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * SUGGEST PULL. Even though arguably notable, it does not come close to a top five headline news section. The "In the News" section is at the VERY least implicitly a top five headline news section, and though Hitchens death is notable, it is not a top five news story. I suggest immediate removal from in the news. As an addendum of opinion, I believe there is some soft positional and idealogical steering by those who want Hitchins' death displayed on "In the News", thereby obliquely inconsistent with Wikipedias' policy of neutrality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by John11235813 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To cover your two objections. 1) It's not a 'top 5 headline'.  I'd broadly agree that generally that's the kind of headline that makes ITN, but there are plenty of stories that make ITN that are not such headlines (e.g. elections).  If we look at our criteria for deaths, I think Hitchens does meet #2: The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field..  He's been frequently compared with George Orwell.  Also, add to the fact that he died near the peak of his career (ITN prefers that to notable deaths from old age long after their careers) and he had written pieces only 1-2 weeks previously.  2).  Some of the supports are POV.  I would agree that at least a couple of supports were POVs in favor of Hitchens, but the majority weren't.  As I said above, Hitchens clearly was one of the most significant journalists in the field, regardless of his political beliefs.  As a practical matter, also, Hitchens was hard to categorize politically as he had strong views on both the left and the right side of the political spectrum.  It's hard to imagine that many WP editors shared Hitchens' views on everything.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] U.S. intervention in Iraq ends

 * Support I was just about to nominate this; I've changed the blurb if you don't mind. --Tachfin (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I've modified the nomination heading, as some people may object to the suggestion that the 'Iraq war is ending'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Both changes make sense. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what you're getting at, John. Iraq War Is Officially Over, US formally ends war in Iraq, US shuts down operations, ending war, Iraq War's end, US declares Iraq war over, End of Iraq War, The Iraq War is officially over, Iraq War ends, Iraq War Ends, War in Iraq officially ends, Iraq War Ends, End of Iraq War, Panetta announces official end of war, Ceremony Formally Ends Iraq War, US Ends Iraq War, Iraq War is Over. I would venture to say we shouldn't be listening to anyone making the fringe claim that the war is not over in spite of the innumerable reliable sources to the contrary.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really dispute your point Swarm but I believe a similar nomination earlier of Obama's announcement of a withdrawal was derailed partially because people objected to the claim that 'the war was ending' due to the fact that fighting is certain to continue in Iraq regardless of the US presence. And I believe then we had similar reliable sources with similar headlines.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, I see where you're coming from; when combat operations ended last year, some sources initially called it the end of the war, some avoided doing so, the US government didn't, and overall the media continued to treat the war as ongoing. At the Iraq War article, we made the mistake of going with the sensationalist "war is over" sources and, thanks to a couple of uncompromising users, it took something like 6-8 months before we were able to agree to change it back. But this looks like a different situation. All the reliable sources I can find are universally calling the Iraq War over. Yes, violence continues in Iraq, but whether any sources will treat that as a continuation of the "Iraq War" remains to be seen (I don't see any indication that they will, not that it matters, since we're not making that declaration in the blurb).  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose the section in the article is "2011: Eng Game" which sounds like the title of an Alex Jones DVD. The whole section is just a loose timeline for 2011. It needs a section like "US involvement officially ends" with relevant updates. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on lack of update. There is no doubt that the story is ITN-worthy, but I don't see any sort of update in the section we're linking to. —WFC— 16:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for more recent updates. The crucial decision was made months ago; there were some doubt about whether the decision would be overturned. Well, it wasn't. That's the news. If we didn't post it months ago because "it didn't happen yet" and we don't post it now because "we knew it was going to happen months ago", what exactly do we post?  JimSukwutput  20:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Every addition to ITN should read as if it has been recently updated, and the version I originally read didn't. A much more suitable article has been selected, so I now support posting. Thank you for assuming good faith. —WFC— 21:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - updated or not.this is major news.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone disputes that. But it won't go up unless there is an update of sorts. —WFC— 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok I've changed the bolded article to Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq which provides better background information. Many Iraq-war related articles are a bit messy, information on withdrawal was scattered between 3 different articles --Tachfin (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq is appropriate for linking. --Orlady (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - especially if and when further reports on the event are included in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Support' The update is pretty good, and this one is obvious enough. I must be reading something wrong though, are all the troops now out of Iraq? There aren't like 15000 "peacekeepers" scheduled to be out by 2014 or something like that is there? It's not 100% clear to me from the update is all. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, all combat troops are out of Iraq as scheduled. There are support staff remaining, I believe 5000 of them, but their only purpose is training.  JimSukwutput  19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, 4,000 remaining troops will be withdrawn over the next 2 weeks. 150 soldiers will remain in Iraq to assist in arms sales.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Despite some sensible discussion that the USA leaving doesn't mean the end of the war, the heading still says it! Exactly this same thing happened last time. No wonder Americans get upset when they make it so easy for others to shout "US-centrism". HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, bitching about it every time doesn't help. It's a section title, the only purpose is for editors here to locate the nomination. I could change it to "America stops massacring Iraqi citizens" or "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: American boys liberate Iraq" or whatever else and it's still the same fucking nomination. Since you seem to intend disrupting the nomination to make a point every time, I've changed the section title. Any more irrelevant complaints? (FYI, neither I, nor the nominator, nor the user who contributed most to the current blurb are Americans. And why the hell does that even matter?)  JimSukwutput  19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the change. But I will continue to make such points whenever a simple change can make all of Wikipedia more NPOV. We must be ever vigilant. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, for the same reasons I put out in the previous nomination. Suspicions about whether the pull-out will actually happen turned out to be untrue; now let's post it already.  JimSukwutput  20:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support End of major war is worth posting. Would prefer ITN for end of SOFA (I believe that's two weeks from now), but this is close enough. Beyond495 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Update looks fine.  Plenty of supports.  I'll mark it 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we get another blurb? The article explicitly says four thousand troops remain in the country. --  tariq abjotu  21:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I modified it... it's still somewhat forced, but perhaps it will spark a polishing. The "story" here is the "official" end to the war, but our bolded article is the troop withdrawal...which isn't yet complete. Therefore it's kind of hard to factor that into the blurb.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can just say that U.S. declares a formal end to the Iraq War. That's the news here anyway.  JimSukwutput  01:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, how does it look now?  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We could phrase it saying something along the lines of "US military bases in Iraq have been turned over to the regime in a major drawdown of the Iraq War" which is true while making the significance clear. Mamyles (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support --Katarighe (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - major event, we followed the war thru many entries on ITN, I don't see how we can ignore this one. Crnorizec (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  02:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Jacques Chirac found guilty of corruption

 * Support. Chirac was a very high-profile world leader for over a decade and for such a figure to be convicted is pretty significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. On balance I think it's worth posting given the lack of the recent update. The conviction of a former Western leader is rare indeed, and this is certainly making the news outside of France. On the other hand it was only a suspended sentence. —WFC— 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose a weak sentence and a non-violent crime. No different from other celebrity prater. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support since Chirac is/was a major figure on the world stage. We have posted the convictions of major politicians for non-violent crimes (we posted Yulia Tymoshenko just a few months ago). <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add that Strauss-Kahn had his face on the front page for a non-conviction. This is an actual conviction of a former French president, last time it happened was in WWII. Speaking of which the grandson of de Gaulle was amongst the convicted --Tachfin (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * DSK was the current director of the IMF at the time, and that debacle caused considerable consternation inside that organization and globally, and lead to his resignation. Chirac is a former present and therefore a current just like everyone else and is therefore irrelevant. Sorry. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry office holders have legal immunity, they can't be prosecuted while in office so you'd never get a current President dragged in courts that's absurd. --Tachfin (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Simply not that major a story, not that major a crime, not that important a person, not sufficiently notable in general.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A former French president 'not that important of a person'?!--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, a former French president is not that important. He's just an old man, convicted of a relatively mundane corruption charge. Because of this the French government will not destabilize, there will be no special election, the Euro will not be affected, nothing will happen. It's as irrelevant as Lindsay Lohan shoplifting. A sitting president would be vastly different, but he's gone, and in fact long gone. Sorry. Yulia Tymoshenko was a mistake, but we must not let the mistakes of the past dictate the actions of the future. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My view exactly. Still, too late now.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Article has been updated --Tachfin (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I think users here underestimate the significance of this. We have a former, long-term leader of a major developed country convicted of corruption. That doesn't happen often. And this does have real effects in the world, unlike some celebrity scandal: every political leader in the world is now going to think twice about stealing from the public, lest he suffer from the same fate. And if you consider the extent of corruption in many countries in the world, the significance is huge.  JimSukwutput  20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Major world figure, but no longer in the spotlight. Also seems to be only of low level significance, otherwise it wouldn't have been a suspended sentence. Still, probably enough. Beyond495 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking as [ready] based on the update and a rough head count, but it's for an uninvolved admin to weigh the arguments and determine whether there is consensus to post. —WFC— 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted The update isn't very good, but I won't nitpick. --  tariq abjotu  21:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea constitutional crisis
Oleg-ch (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit long? :P --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting story, in a country that doesn't feature normally on ITN, with possible unrest. Blurb is too long, though, and we don't really have an article for this. Doh5678 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak to Moderate Support Eh. I'd like to see this, but it feels similar to the Cote D'Ivore situation at first glance, minus the civil war part. I guess it's been long enough since that ended. Beyond495 (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's been no update. It may be a significant development, but there's almost no text in the bolded article about it.  Indeed, the bolded article is essentially a stub list, with almost no text at all.  Unless the target article is significantly improved, it would be a bit of an embarassment to put it on the main page.  Again, the event is good enough for me, but the article sucks.  Fix that if you want my support.  -- Jayron  32  22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting development in a country that many do not know much about. Wikipedia should bring attention to such stories!
 * Comment The sad thing is that this affects vastly more people than some soccer coach or author or singer dying. Beyond495 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Higgs particle discovered?

 * Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland find the first experimental evidence for the Higgs boson, with observed GeV values deviating from the Standard Model. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Misinterpreted the results - scientists excluded the possibility of the boson at 145 to 206 GeV interval. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it hasn't been discovered yet. Leaky  Caldron  15:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. According to reports the scientists own interpretation is that they haven't discovered anything. --FormerIP (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the reasons already stated. The news story is not actually what's occured. If indeed something has actually happened at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The news is not actually occured yet. --Katarighe (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Beyond495 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Belgian bombing attack
Crnorizec (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Few dead but many wounded, and a rare place. Grey  Hood   Talk  17:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - four dead and counting, 75+ wounded (many of whom severely). This is possibly the biggest attack on Belgian soil since the Second World War. I see every reason to add it on the Main Page asap; article needs improvement though. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Crnorizec (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Per Writerlord. The attack shows that even Belgium isn't safe from terrorist violence. Nanobear (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - definitly ...rare event in europe.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support once the whitespace alongside the infobox is gone. --FormerIP (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article title includes the word "bombing", but it seems from reports that no bombs were planted or used in the incident, but guns and possibly grenades. --FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment White space is now gone. Hand grenades were used. Do you prefer "grenading" instead of "bombing"? Crnorizec (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Attack", "assault", "shooting"? Whatever's accurate. --FormerIP (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just checked the dictionary. "Bombing" is the verb. Crnorizec (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an "attack" in the NYT, and "attack" on the BBC and an "attack" according to the Guardian. Should I keep looking? How long do you think it will be before I find one that says "bombing"? --FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Bombing" is a legitimate term to describe "grenade attack", in one word. If you feel like changing the blurb and the article, go for it. Crnorizec (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be most widely reported in the media as a "grenade attack" or "grenade and gun attack". "Bombing", though perhaps correct by definition, is too misleading.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Speedy" Support. I would suggest that the sooner this is posted, the faster the article will grow. —WFC— 18:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support to post ASAP. Update can't be better for now; the attack happened hours ago so nobody knows more than what's already in the article. --Tachfin (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted. Wordsmithing, as always, would be much appreciated. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Post-post comment. This does not seem like politically or religiously motivated, in which case it is not rare (not even in Europe).  JimSukwutput  04:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Same day in Italy: . --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep quiet, lads. This is only relevant if this happened in the U.S. :P – H T  D  04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would venture to say the fact that attacks involving explosives that injure more than 120 people are indeed rare...especially in Europe, much less Belgium.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 05:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[Pulled] Canada pulls out of Kyoto

 * obvious support... whenever updated. -- Ashish-g55 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support After update. Canada!? Really?! --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when updated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done the all-important job of updating the lead image, but I'm not sure I will get time for the text. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I originally coloured Canada blue, so please no-one think I am to blame for the "red for danger" version. --FormerIP (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support major blow for the Kyoto Protocol, and probably many others will follow this precedent. Crnorizec (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment combine with Durban? Something like "The 2011 UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, closes with agreement to establish a new treaty to limit carbon emissions; as Canada becomes the first country to withdraw from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change."? A bit wordy. maybe someone with better English skills can suggest better. I just think the two are a logical combination, then Tunisa and the Ivory Coast and round out the top 3 nicely. IMHO anyway. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Major event. --Katarighe (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.  JimSukwutput  03:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this or Durban as a whole, not both. Beyond495 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with this.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support when article is updated. Mamyles (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)*
 * Support if blurbs are merged Great story and works well with the Durban nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 04:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but oppose blurb with "the first country" as tendentious POV, suggesting that other countries would follow, and ambiguously inaccurate (The US was even faster in withdrawing after signing but before ratifying).--Elekhh (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see the implicit suggestion that you are seeing. I find the description "the first country to withdraw" to be an important component of its notability.  JimSukwutput  07:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merging blurbs - such as "The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, closes with an agreement to establish a new treaty to limit carbon emissions, while Canada withdraws from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol." The conference should take precedence, in my view, and we should avoid unnecessarily duplicating the words "climate change" - but Canada's decision is certainly notable and should be mentioned.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging. These are two separate events, nominated separately and linked only by the fact they each have something to do with climate change. --FormerIP (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, we don't combine all the election articles together. Hot Stop talk-contribs 12:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish people would not say "We don't..." We could, and perhaps we should. I fail to see why the fact the two were nominated separately is relevant in the slightest to our readers - this is not a process of giving out awards to nominators. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't be absurd. This announcement came one day after an agreement to replace Kyoto was made. The claim that these two stories aren't linked is absolutely laughable.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's the update?--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support posting, oppose merging, per above. Grey  Hood   Talk  12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The Environment Minister has compared Kyoto obligations to pulling all vehicles off the street or cutting all natural gas to homes, saying that pulling out of Kyoto will have no effect on carbon emissions. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 15:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a section titled "withrawal", which I think is probably not quite satisfactory yet. --FormerIP (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2011(UTC)
 * The article has bias tag on it. Not good.  Just looking briefly the article has a lack of proper citations in some places.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The bias tag has been removed which is good, but this article still has some problems IMO. I've spotted at least one copyvio. The whole article looks more like an academic paper than an encyclopedia article.  Why does it need parethetical references?  For sources it relies far too heavily on academic papers and similar sources.  This is an article about a political treaty, not a scientific subject per se.  We should be citing major media sources for how politicians react to a country withdrawing from Kyoto, not Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment [Ready] - The section which should be bolded is "Withdrawal". The sources cited are the Guardian, Toronto Star and Financial Times [=http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1100802--canada-withdrawing-from-kyoto?bn=1#article]  which are plenty main stream enough. Looks plenty ready to me. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * John: I agree with you on the general readability and over-emphasis on science in (essentially) a current affairs article. But probably some scientists have been editing it who would look at you agog if you said that to them. And, at the end of the day, I don't think it bars it from ITN. The update could still do with more. For example, there has been a lot of comment from other counties and notables on the withdrawal and I think that should be represented. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the issues you've mentioned above don't bar it from ITN, but copyvios do. I've found at least two full sentences copied from their cited source in this section.  Those are easily fixable but I'm worried that there may be more.  That article should be looked over very carefully.  Given that I will remove the 'ready' tag. (EDIT: whoops, it hasn't been tagged ready yet; fine).  I agree that the update is now ok.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a somewhat large story here in Canada, but it doesn't surprise anyone here. This government is just a huge mess and things like this are inevitable. They haven't done anything to aid the danger Kyoto was created to quell, but in order to look good they bitch about how Kyoto is a horrible protocol. They're playing politics with what should be a very serious issue. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a little to the update. Maybe it is ready now. --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  18:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to merge the blurbs.--WaltCip (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be "whilst" not "as" doktorb wordsdeeds 20:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The two are separate events. Just because both deal with environment does not mean they should be merged... we dont merge elections of two countries. -- Ashish-g55 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The two are associated (I know this looks like semantics but....). We don't merge elections, that's true. But these aren't elections, I think putting them together is a sensible idea. The word needs changing, that's all doktorb wordsdeeds 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For an international audience, I think it would be "while". But also, no, they absolutely should not have been merged, because it's a significant innovation not mentioned in the guideline and it didn't have consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The events shouldn't be merged. The timing coincidence is irrelevant (except for Canada government's beautification of the act). Crnorizec (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any benefit of "while" (or, God forbid, "whilst") over "as". Furthermore, the former, more than the latter, suggests the two happened simultaneously, which they didn't (Dec 11 vs. Dec 12) and makes the connection less overt. That being said, I'm really shocked that people think these are two completely unrelated events. The Kyoto Protocol article even mentions that a Canadian minister noted that the new idea out of Durban would be a better way forward. The blurb isn't saying that the Canadian withdrawal was because of what happened in Durban (or vice versa); it simply mentions that they're two related ideas -- "coincidental" or not. Elections in one country generally have no connection whatsoever to elections in other countries and are almost never, if ever, mentioned in another country's election article. --  tariq abjotu  23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has suggested that they are completely unrelated, Tariq. The timing probably isn't a coincidence. But they are separate news stories and are treated as such by reliable media. Can you appreciate that the majority of editors seem to disagree with your position on this? --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am Neutral on the actual item, however Oppose the merging of the two unrelated stories, if it is going to be listed (and consensus would indicate it should be) then it should be as two. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also oppose merging as those above argued. Certainly there was no consensus on merging at the time of posting, and is even less support now. --Elekhh (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I can't, because it's not true. Comments after posting, furthermore, are skewed toward requests for changes, and are, thus, generally ignored unless a good reason is provided. --  tariq abjotu  02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Count!--FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know how to count, thanks. As I said, it's not true. --  tariq abjotu  02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PULLThe article Kyoto Protocol is full of copy-and-paste copyright violations.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples? At least tag the article as such. --  tariq abjotu  02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Between 2001, the first year CDM projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in emission reductions.., in this section, taken word for word from [here on page 262. I cited two more in my post above.  I agree the article should be tagged.--[[User:Johnsemlak|Johnsemlak]] (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pulled accordingly. --  tariq abjotu  02:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If we're posting this again, let me state that I also oppose a merge. It's true that these events are related, but if we put these events in the same blurb, we run the risk of seemingly emphasizing this connection when this itself is a controversial political issue (it is not considered proper to pull from one treaty in the prospect of having another agreement). Furthermore, I see no need for putting them on the same blurb; each event is important enough on its own. (For the record, I did oppose the merge before the nomination was posted, but my comment was accidentally removed by another user.)  JimSukwutput  02:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Post pull opinion And this is why ITN has been so slow recently ;) I continue to support merging the two stories into one blurb. There is an obvious connection between the two - but not SYNTH-like. The Canadian decision happened whilst the agreement was made elsewhere. There is an obvious and relevant connection between the two. Wiki does not have hard and fast rules on precedent which forbids news stories being connected in this way. It might be a good precedent to start. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither are there rules for such stories to be merged, and so far eight editors had argued against the merger (as opposed to four in support). It is however sad to see that a news item of such global relevance is stalled, while a local lunatic can make it to the front-page in minutes. --Elekhh (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, numbers, especially when considering remarks after the fact, should be taken with a grain of salt. I would not be surprised if, had the blurbs been kept separate, a couple people would have come here asking why two related stories aren't just combined (or why one didn't replace the other), especially since they would likely be on ITN one below the other. The rationale against it is highly enigmatic to me. "We don't do it for elections" is a straw-man argument, and we frequently merge related blurbs together (e.g. during the Arab Spring protests at the beginning of the year) when there is an obvious connection. So, this is hardly without precedence. Some seem to argue that this is coincidence, but FormerIP, who still thinks the blurbs should be separated, acknowledges that this is probably not the case. So, I don't understand what the issue is. That we don't want to imply something that isn't explicitly said anywhere? That we don't want to bold two articles in one sentence? That we just want to give a nomination the full glory of a blurb to itself? Someone please explain, especially as most of you have provided no reasoning so far. --  tariq abjotu  04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see the obvious connection beyond the fact that they're made around the same day, and that some Canadian politician made a offhand reference to the conference. Does anybody have more substantial facts suggesting that the conference had any influence on the Canadian decision? This suggestion troubles me because I believed that the decision in Canada was made (informally) long before the conference happened.  JimSukwutput  04:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The blurb did not say "because of". The fact that an agreement to establish a new treaty replacing Kyoto comes at the same time, even if by coincidence, that one of Kyoto's signatories backs out is a connection on its own. --  tariq abjotu  04:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The rationale against it is highly enigmatic to me"? It has been argued very clearly and persistently that the two news items are quite distinct, and that merging is confusing. As you well know, Durban is about 190+ countries negotiating to join a future treaty for 2015, this item is about Canada stepping out of a 1997 treaty which is currently active. Each news item is notable in itself, and sophisticated enough to have a proper blurb explaining it, instead of monster merger likely to confuse. --Elekhh (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying this has been argued very clearly and persistently is quite the exaggeration; most have presented straw-man arguments, repeated the idea that there was no consensus to merge to begin with, or simply expressed disapproval like their positions went without saying.
 * And I really just don't understand how half of the people here see the obvious, direct connection between these two stories, while others say the only connection is that both stories are about climate change. The Kyoto Protocol article mentions the UN conference when speaking about Canada's withdrawal, while the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference article mentions the Kyoto Protocol. The connection, clearly, is not just climate change; the connection is the two treaties themselves. Canada's impending withdrawal was a point of concern in the conference. Going further, the fact that Canada made do on their promise the day after said conference was over, with the Environmental Minister remarking that the treaty at the conference is a better way forward, is hard to put down as coincidence. This is not just some random guy making an offhand comment about the proposed Durban treaty; this is the Environmental Minister, an attendee of the conference, making the statement. And, despite what you say, every reputable news organization seems perfectly content making a connection between the two stories. How does merging the blurbs confuse readers? If anything, in clarifies things, because, right now, readers are left to wonder what this "new treaty" is replacing. You do realize that's the Kyoto Protocol, right? The same treaty that Canada's withdrawing from?
 * Either way, this is a moot point if the copyright violation concerns remain on the Kyoto Protocol article. --  tariq abjotu  06:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I was fine with the merge, and if an alternative article could be found, I'd be fine with merged blurb again. There is an obvious connection here.  ITN has limited space so while media websites may report them as separate events it makes sense for ITN to combine blurbs were possible.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why we should promote the "cunning" idea of the Canadian government to link the two acts. No other country has pulled out of the Kyoto protocol, of all that committed to Durban. I cannot accept this as some kind of a "reasonable trade off" with treaties, especially because some politicians would like us to interpret it in this way! Crnorizec (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] New President of Tunisia



 * Support - once the article and this nomination have been sourced. Crnorizec (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This article and its subject has everything required for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 22:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per ITN/R. Sources added to nom. I added WP and BBC to the article, left out AFP. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Yep, meets criteria I feel - haven't checked sources against updates myself but no reason to assume all is not well with the article. It's always nice to see non US/UK politics on ITN. Pedro : Chat  22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Katarighe (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Elections are generally notable, this is more notable than most due to its connection the the Arab Spring. Beyond495 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Article is decent, marked as ready. --Tachfin (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Can you put his picture too? The Russian protest pic has been up there for a while...--Tachfin (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit odd angle. --Elekhh (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ivorian parliamentary election, 2011

 * Weak Support Elections are generally okay IMO, but depends on what else we've got. Beyond495 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Elections of internationally recognised states are always posted regardless of current events hence ITN/R. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 05:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why have this page? ITN/R is for recommendations, it's not a guarantee of anything. Beyond495 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly because most of the ITN material we post up isn't ITN/R, secondly because the blurb may need amending and thirdly, the article may not be updated and up to the standard where it's deemed ITN suitable. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 07:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * with significant entries, ITN/R doesn't matter at all. Otherwise it's just a recommendation in my opinion, and a poor article isn't enough to keep an article off ITN on its own. If someone feels adamant about an article, it can be improved. Hell, giving it exposure will probably help it get improved. Beyond495 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support pending outcome, meets ITNR and I'm confident that a sufficient amount of work and a suitable blurb will materialise when the outcome becomes clear. —WFC— 09:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "Election" section of the article needs an update; the article also requires a "Results" section as well.  Spencer T♦ C 03:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is ITN/R, so the only issue is whether the update is sufficient. There is absolutely no merit in placing it here before it is in anyone's power to provide an update.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * '''Support"' -- Great news coverage for Ivory Coast. --Katarighe (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference



 * This is a relevant ITN topic, however, there is an issue with the article. As the orange tag says, the article is mostly about background and not so much about the conference itself. Some work will be required to update/expand it. --Tone 10:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. The articles will need to be updated as reports emerge.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait til an actual treaty is written. This isn't much different from the Eurozone agreement which wasn't posed. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed Copenhagen was meaningless while Kyoto was not. Let's see which way Durban goes. Beyond495 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Might be a great coverage for the United Nations since they held last 2 years ago. --Katarighe (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as long as there is a good update. --FormerIP (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but the article still needs updating. The news here is that the United States and China didn't oppose this from the beginning. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support updated the lead and added an image as well. It could be of course further improved. --Elekhh (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support Story of global interest, India, China and the USA agreeing that something should be done is significant in itself, and enough has been added to the article to just about justify an ITN posting. "Weak" because the article could still be more informative. —WFC— 09:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Marking [Ready], since it is a new event article and there is some update. Grey  Hood   Talk  15:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look improved, but I would like to see more content about the deal that has been reached before it is posted. --FormerIP (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unmarked, there's no update on the deal itself. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added section on the agreement. It was already summarised in the lead. --Elekhh (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting. Could we change "new" (as implicit) to "legally binding" (which is the main and unexpected news). Eventually could be shortened by replacing United Nations with UN and/or removing South Africa (as Durban is already linked for all those interested). --Elekhh (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "new" treaty is fine, as it contrasts this treaty with the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, "legally binding" sounds unlikely. How could it possibly be legally binding with no one really to enforce it? --  tariq abjotu  06:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * United Nations? Whoever enforces international law? Anyway, was only a suggestion. --Elekhh (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Luke Donald

 * Weak Support Good sport news --Katarighe (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Generally golf wouldn't be worthy globally unless it's one of the four Majors or if Tiger Woods does something huge again. Beyond495 (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd often resist sports stories here, but this is a notable achievement in a globally significant sport.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is a matter of sport statistics. We don't post it, unless it is combined with some other story that would make it to ITN anyway. --Tone 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has done this without winning a major is the angle that a lot of media outlets are taking. —WFC— 10:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a world ranking for golf, and this isn't it. This isn't a result, it is a conclusion based on an aggregate of results.  We already have 9 guaranteed golf stories every two years. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The moon disappears

 * Oppose. We normally post total solar eclipses (which are on ITNR), but not other types. Besides, what update could possibly be done? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The same as what we do for a solar eclipse, maybe?
 * Solar eclipses usually have their separate articles. Overall, those are much more interesting events for the spectators, drawing crowds from all over the world etc. Lunar eclipses occurs more often as well. --Tone 17:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 1. This is not news; lunar eclipses are easily predicted. 2. This has no practical significance, unlike other regular astronomical events - such as the Sun coming up every day.  JimSukwutput  19:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support -- I think it may come.. --Katarighe (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Maybe you missed it. --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Support lunar eclipses are fairly common, but just uncommon enough to be worthy here if it's a slow day. Beyond495 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support since it seems it is a really slow news day.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the next total eclipse isn't until 2014 --76.18.43.253 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone's bored, the article is at December 2011 lunar eclipse. – H T  D  19:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Poll fraud protests in Russia



 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * support - could be the start of even bigger protests.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - massive election fraud protest, with wide international coverage. Crnorizec (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support &mdash; Definitely a major news subject.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 13:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for being a significant and widely reported deveopment in Russia. But why the formulation "disputed legislative elections" instead of "vote fraud"? It is undeniable vote fraud. Why else would Putin's party receive 99.5 per cent of the votes in Chechnya, for example? Sure, Putin will say the vote was fair, but just because one side in a dispute insists that the Earth is flat, we don't have to restrict our description to "opinions differ on shape of planet". Thue | talk 13:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In Chechnya?! Oh yeah, that is definitely voter fraud.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There were some alleged frauds in Moscow, not in Chechnya. Communists are hated in Chechnya for the WWII deportations of Chechens, and all other parties, except Putin's one, used nationalists slogans including the calls to stop federal money going to the Caucasus. So in Chechnya they haven't any choice but Putin's party. Grey  Hood   Talk  13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What you say doesn't appear to be true. A Just Russia is a social democratic party. Although I haven't thoroughly researched their political platform, I can't imagine that they intend to repress the Chechen people any further.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 13:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, A Just Russia placed second in Chechnya ;) The party received some support from web activists who promoted the slogan "Stop feeding the Caucasus". Not the best PR for the party in Chechnya. Grey  Hood   Talk  13:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, they vote along the ethnic lines in the Caucasus and in some other ethnic minorities regions, and I don't know any ethnic Chechens outside the United Russia party. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you think that United Russia winning 99.48 percent of the vote with a voter turnout of 99.51 percent is legitimate? When United Russia is the party of Putin, who is responsible for the extremely brutal Second Chechen War? That is simply absurd. Thue | talk 14:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear not to be in the topics of Russian politics and Chechnya well enough. The Second Chechen War brought an end to brutal and archaic rule of islamists in Chechnya, and billions were pumped in post-war reconstruction since. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be deluded. Only dictators have voter turnouts of 99.50% out of a population of 1.3 million, with 99.49% voting for the same party. It is absolutely blindingly obvious that there are more than 1% of the population who don't like Putin's party after two brutal wars, or at least don't care enough to vote. Can you point to another any recognized democracy, where a region with a population of more than 1m has 99% of the population both turning out to vote and voting for the same party? Thue | talk 16:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again you just don't know how it is in Chechnya. It is traditional clan society, all Chechens in their settlements know each other, and they vote by families and vote for their kinship. Voting for different parties where are no Chechens or not turning up at the election may lead to as much trouble as blood feud, and most certainly will lead to trouble with Chechen authorities. Of course, many Chechens still remember the loss of relatives in the wars etc., but they also see that at present situation the federal government is their ally, and how would you vote, tell me please, when all major parties other than one are against your ethnic group and you may worsen relationship with your kinship if you don't vote? Grey  Hood   Talk  17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The elections are not disputed in court by any party so far. Better use something like this:
 * "In Russia, the largest protests since the dissolution of the Soviet Union take place, following the allegedly flawed legislative elections. Grey  Hood   Talk  13:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the official result of 99.48 percent of the vote in Chechnya going to United Russia, with a 99.51 percent voter turnout, we should drop the "allegedly". Including the "allegedly" is an argument to moderation fallacy. Thue | talk 14:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not make our own judgements before the court judges the situation. Voting in Chechnya is peculiar, but not unreasonable. Ethnic voting, anti-Chechen stance of most parties except UR, and yes, the authoritarian Chechen leadership all pro-United Russia. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support on the adoption of Greyhood's alternative blurb doktorb wordsdeeds 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support as well, if we take the alternative blurb. When some parties go to the court, the word "disputed" would be more appropriate, but not right now. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, these are significant protests. Not huge numbers in world terms, but for Russia they're massive. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Greyhood's blurb. You all need to chill. Whatever your feelings about this election, Greyhood's blurb is professional and the nominated one is blatantly biased. Under no circumstance whatsoever would I support the OP's blurb. JimSukwutput  16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting, the neutral blurb. IMO no link to dissolution of the Soviet Union is needed here. --Tone 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What about using some picture, like the ones above? Grey  Hood   Talk  23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support Additionally, I must say that those who call it "voting fraud protests" have point. The protests are against suspected fraud during the election and there is no firm evidence to prove it. It doesn't mean that every time you have protests against something, it becomes automatically proven.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment. Good post.  Unfortunately again this thread has veered into discussion more appropriate for a forum on Russian politics rather than ITN.  Whatever we think of the possibility of fraud in the elections, we can only write about what reliable sources say.  We can't draw conclusions on our own.  I think the argument over whether to say 'disputed' versus 'allegedly flawed' is a. bit of a waste.  The word 'disputed' is not a legal term and doesn't necessarily mean the elections were challenged in court--I thought that word was fine.  The protesters are disputing the elections--that's factual.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 9 Syrian Death Toll

 * Difficult one. These are ongoing protests, and we can't post every day there are a large number of deaths. There have been higher death tolls during the uprisings, so what is the significant milestone here? Then again, it would be good to keep this story popping up on ITN while the uprisings are ongoing. I would prefer that we didn't use the timeline as the bold link; it would be more encyclopaedic if 2011 Syrian uprising was used instead. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and it appears to have been fixed. Anyways, you pretty much took the words right out of my mouth. I think it's important to regularly cover this story on ITN so people who check Wikipedia's front page for major news articles will be kept up-to-date. I'm very passionate about the situation in Syria and I feel compelled to do everything in my power to support their ongoing struggle in the face of such adversity.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 17:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Modest Genius; you have to explain in your nomination why this day is a exceptional, and not just a day with higher-than-average deathtoll. Unlike a normal newspaper, In-The-News usually don't feature regular updates from ongoing conflicts unless they are very exceptional (though IMO it should, and it will once I become dictator!). Thue | talk 00:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you're highly biased, and are nominating this to make a point? Right? We're supposed to be neutral and post items based on a dispassionate implementation of the criteria, not pick items based on what users personally support. That doesn't invalidate the nomination btw, but doesn't help your argument. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 02:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am biased. I admit that. But I don't think it's relevant to this argument; speaking hypothetically, I would support including a story about the Syrian opposition committing war crimes if such instances were to be reported. What I was saying is that the Syrian uprising is major news, and should receive regular updates on ITN. I'm not intending to make a point. I'm new to ITN (in case it wasn't already obvious), and I wasn't aware that Wikipedia's news section doesn't regularly update major news stories outside of particularly major occurrences (which I considered this to be). By the way, is this for discussion regarding what gets transcluded on the main page, or is it for everything listed at the actual portal?  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with Modest Genius, but if regular astronomical phenomena are all that's left for us to post, this deserves a good look.  JimSukwutput  22:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Indistinguishable from other moments in the movement it seems. Beyond495 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Beyond495 on this specific case (which was probably too long ago to post now anyway). But the Syrian local elections might be a good opportunity to give an ITN update, and indeed an opportunity to do so relatively neutrally. —WFC— 16:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Hard to pick and choose which massacres to post since they seem to be weekly events. IMO, it would be better to just sticky the article (temporarily) so we don't have to post every time the government kills 50+ people. Wikifan Be nice  22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Iran drone (again)
So I'm posting this again, knowing full well that last time both the drone and the nom went down in flames. I think there have been some important developments. 1. Iran has officially complained to the security council. It may have political elements, but it's a big step away from condemning the US on state run TV. 2. The US has acknowledged that the Iranians "may have" the drone, and that one definitely crashed. . Not the same as shouting out "hey give us back our super secret spy drone" but still significant. 3. The video. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I'm slightly hesitant because of the lack of details and verification, but regardless of that, this controversy has clearly become international in nature. This event is probably the last chance we have of having a somewhat representative blurb about the entire controversy.  JimSukwutput  06:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Jim's rationale to the very letter. —WFC— 08:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can see both sides of this story and its nomination. We should be careful to show good faith with a story like this. The blurb is a bit clumsy. There is a growing number of potential headlines to come from the region and it might be good to put on the front page a development now rather than wait doktorb wordsdeeds 10:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Jim does indeed hit the nail on the head.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 18:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment So far, the information in the blurb is not in the article. --  tariq abjotu  22:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  10:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

EU treaty talks

 * The blurb should probably say what the treaty is about. The BBC has more details  Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, however, the blurb should indeed be clearer and the article would be better-off with some more prose since this is a rather complicated concept. --Tone 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Leaders of Eurozone member states agree to a new treaty restricting government spending and borrowing"? Although the treaty is not yet ratified, I think this is important to post soon. If the treaty is not ratified everywhere, that too will be news. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Provisional Support But the blurb needs changing. "Leaders of 26 European Union member states meeting in Brussels agree to a new treaty, which is vetoed by United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron". It is important and changes for ever the relationship between the UK and Europe. It doesn't matter that the ITN at the moment is euro-heavy, there's not been any worthy stories outside of Europe for a while. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just on a point of fact, the UK hasn't vetoed the treaty, it has opted not to be part of it. It actually vetoed an alternative proposal to not have a new treaty but instead make amendments to the Lisbon Treaty. That aside, I certainly don't object to improving the blurb. --FormerIP (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per FormerIP. Way too Europe heavy right now, would have to be more significant. Beyond495 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to concerns over whether we can be factually accurate and succinct at the same time. It is not an EU treaty because the UK has refused to sign it. Equally it's not a Eurozone treaty, or a treaty for states that are or will be in the Eurozone, because Denmark appears to have agreed in principle. I would prefer that we report this when the treaty is ratified, because apart from the UK's position, at the moment a lot of things are as clear as mud, not least whether the countries obliged to have referenda or parliamentary votes will ratify. —WFC— 16:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. ITN is Europe-heavy these weeks because the entire world economy hinge on current actions taken by governments in Europe. Refusing to post important events because of their geographical location makes no sense to me. What is this, affirmative action for continents?  JimSukwutput  17:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we have an "age affirmative action" if ITN hasn't been updated in awhile, some may support "lesser candidates" to push the older ones off the page. Look hard enough and there will be trends. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm totally fine with that. That's not "affirmative action" per se; it's just attempting to maintain a constant flow, which is important. But here it seems like we have an attempt to push for candidates from certain geographic regions and neglect others. That just makes no sense to me - if a lot of important things are happening in Europe right now, then of course there would be more European items, and we ought to evaluate them on an equal basis with items from other regions.  JimSukwutput  06:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I stress that I remain opposed due to concerns that haven't been addressed, I do agree that being European should not automatically rule this story out. We're heavy on political items, and we're heavy on European items. That is a good reason to try harder to find worthy stories outside of that field and region, but not a good reason to reject a worthy European political story (which at this specific moment in time this agreement-in-principle isn't). —WFC— 08:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until it is a ratified deal; looks like this may not be the done deal the Euro would like everyone to think (see Irish referendum risk hangs over EU deal (Reuters)). Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a done deal. It's merely an event of enormous historic significance. --FormerIP (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The "event of enormous historic significance" is the ratification not the announcement. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  22:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There is now a European Fiscal Union which should probably be the bold link in the blurb. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the treaty is drawn up and ratified by the member states, until then it's just a bunch of stiffs in suits making promises. I understand the importance just fine, but this has the real potential to collapse just like the European Constitution. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Unless the treaty is drawn up but the importance is great. --Katarighe (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this is really significant in Europe; making people aware of the treaty's details is certainly interesting. How Sarkozy and Cameron snubbed each other at the summit is making the headlines of many news outlets. --Tachfin (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The new deal is still in the works, most likely the EU Treaty itself will not change because of UK's veto. So far, they only agreed to have the deal by March. Crnorizec (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait until an agreement is made. At the moment we just have Cameron throwing a hissy fit and the rest of Europe doing some serious negotiating. Once there are some actual results we can consider posting. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CIA secret prison uncovered in Bucharest

 * Support. This has been suspected for some time but not confirmed until now. Hugely controversial in Europe.  JimSukwutput  19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An investigation has found what it believes to be a CIA secret prison. I don't think we're in a position to say that a secret prison has been found. The BBC is exercising caution in reporting the story. This isn't an oppose. It's a note to be careful with the blurb. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tentative oppose. I really don't see how this meets our significance criterion, especially considering it hasn't been in use for nearly six years. "Tentative" because I'm happy to reconsider if someone can explain how this is significant&mdash;I'm not seeing it though.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notability? The existence of the blacksites in Romania was never in dispute. The sources don't say media has "uncovered" secret sites - rather, they have learned details of what goes on inside them. Just read the links. Wikifan Be nice  20:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless I'm blind, the bolded article has no mention of Romania or Bucharest, and neither does CIA transnational human rights actions. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I think I really don't know about this. --Katarighe (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now; as per Mkativerata caution should be taken here, the story lacks hard facts at the moment. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  02:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is territory for other websites and is really not an event that Wikipedia should parade on its front page as 'news'. As Swarm says, it has not been used for nearly six years. I can't see a good reason to give front page prominence to something like this. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Black sites are not new. Beyond495 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Football isn't new either but we get a sticky for it every four years. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because it's an ITNR topic. Maybe black sites should be part of ITNR, as long as they're recurring enough. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And occasionally football is significant. If there was a significantly different blacksite than what has been shown in that past, that would be newsworthy here. Beyond495 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] End of NBA lockout

 * This also affects European teams, such as those playing in the Euroleague, since teams there agreed NBA players to return to the NBA once the lockout is over. – H T  D  16:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To hopefully quash the argument that this is a US-centric story on a sport nobody cares about, consider these:
 * In the 24-team 2010 FIBA World Championship, the NBA was the league that had the most representatives with 41 players.
 * In that championship's all-tournament team, four of five players were on NBA rosters prior to the tourney. Only Miloš Teodosić was the non-NBAer in the all-tourney team.
 * In EuroBasket 2011 (that's like basketball's UEFA Euro 2008), four of the five members of the all-tournament team played in the NBA, with Juan Carlos Navarro no longer playing in the NBA when the tournament happened, and Macedonia's Bo McCalebb (naturalized, originally an American) that only player to have never played in the NBA.
 * In the EuroBasket 2011 Final, the entirety of France's and Spain's starting lineups were playing in the NBA (the sole exception was Navarro as stated above).
 * In the 2011 FIBA Americas Championship (the U.S. did not participate), four of the five members of the all-tournament team were playing in the NBA.
 * Furthermore, in these continental championships, the national federations had to put up the burden on providing insurance on the players if they're injured. If the lockout didn't happen, the NBA would've taken most of the costs. This led to some players to skip the championships entirely, the best examples of these were the Australian Andrew Bogut, GBR's Ben Gordon and Poland's Marcin Gortat
 * ETA: The Guardian is surprised that the NBA, not the Premier League, has the highest payroll in sport(s). And the list at the bottom tells you why NBA owners are losing money. LOL at Iverson and Marbury, two players that hadn't played in forever, being paid the most in the 7th and 10th highest payroll in sport(s). – H T  D  19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * – H T  D  17:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support pretty big news that this is officially over. Main page could do with something that is neither political nor European in any case. —WFC— 16:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Whilst it would be good to have something newsworthy from outside Europe to post right now, this isn't it. HTD, I'm afraid your arguments why the story has international significance do not hold water. Basketball just isn't a popular spectator sport this side of the puddle. It's interesting that NBA is somehow connected or affiliated to Euroleague, but mainly because it's the first time I've ever come across the word "Euroleague". --FormerIP (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it surprising to know that 2011–12 Euroleague has twice as more page views than the British-centric 2011–12 Heineken Cup? It's a safe bet they're not Americans checking out on how Sonny Weems is doing on Kaunas... – H T  D  18:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FormerIP--Basketball may not be popular in the UK but its a major sport in many continental European countries. It's not as popular as football but certainly much bigger than Cricket and Rugby on the continent.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose while I'm glad I can get back to watching my beloved Raptors lose sixty games a season, the league is still going to have 3/4 of a season and it is essentially business as usual. The problem is nothing truly notable happened. A bunch of rich people had a fight and it cost the league sixteen games of the season. If the entire season was lost a'la the NHL, that would have been a different story. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 19:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is worth mentioning. It may not be a catastrophic event, but the loss of season is significant. Mamyles (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The season was not lost. Only a handful of games were lost; three-quarters of the season will still be played and the playoffs will go on as normal. Really, the only major development is that if the Heat win the championship we can all continue to hate on Lebron because he didn't play a full season. --<font color="#FF0000">Plasma <font color="#FF4500">Twa <font color="#FF0000">2 20:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support per Talk page. We need more variety at the moment and article is not bad. Otherwise ITN/C will just wait till another election nomination shows up. -- Ashish-g55 23:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd hardly call 25%, or two months, of the season a 'handful of games'. It's a major chunk of the season; as I posted below, I think there'd be strong support if something similar happened in the Premier League.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I've decided to slightly soften my view on this stuff. This did affect my country a little bit. Some decent players came home to play locally for a while, rather than being stolen by American money. (Maybe this strike will have helped the US economy!) So, while I still find basketball to be one of the silliest and most annoying games going around, I will add my support. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for lack of significance, and not wishing to set a precedent for posting the end of every other strike; because this is what it is really. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  21:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mtking makes a good point, at the end of the day it's just a labor dispute, albeit high profile. It didn't ground any airplanes. I may be biased against it though, since I hold professional sports in the same regard as mindless celebrity prater. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - significance? As the IP says, this is a labor dispute with few practical consequences. Sports is a zero-sum game; even if the entire season was not played, people are just going to look towards other contests or other sports.  JimSukwutput  03:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As has been said already, there needs to be an alternative story. This is not the alternative we are looking for. It's not because of the sport per se, it's the detail - I am not convinced that this is significant enough in the grand scheme of things. This is not my area of expertise though the 'sell' in the OP has convinced me to buy doktorb wordsdeeds 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. A major league being such as the NBA being stopped for 2 months is pretty significant.  I think if the Premier League season were shortened by a similar amount over a labor dispute it'd be posted.  This year there was a strike of some sort in La Liga but it only affected one week of matches IIRC, and the games will be played--this is much more significant.  We did post the Quantas strike so there's certainly precedent for posting strikes.  Finally, this is of interest to our readers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. For reasons stated by others above. This is major news for basketball fans all over the world, including for countries who have no representation in the NBA. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per HT's global reasoning. This will also help fight the systematic bias on here. I would not be surprised if the NFL Lockout wasn't included when that was resolved, but I would be very surprised if a similar story related to a European sports league was not included. Beyond495 (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't because no games were lost. – H T  D  19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (acknowledging that this is already up), I'd be stunned if a protracted Premier League, Football League, La Liga, Bundesliga or Serie A lockout wasn't covered. NBA is on a par with at least one of those, probably more. Had an NFL, MLB or NHL lockout spanned a number of games they would almost certainly go up too. —WFC— 09:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pull immediately. Please don't post items with balanced votes, without consensus.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disgraced Israeli President Katsav goes to jail for rape

 * The article was featured in December 2010, when we ran the conviction. Don't think it's necessary to run it again. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not of any interest or notability whatsoever doktorb wordsdeeds 20:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Yulia Tymoshenko got posted to ITN, but according to NW Katsav was posted a year ago, and I'm generally opposed to incremental updates. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Tymoshenko is (was) current opposition leader, Katzav is retired politician who stepped down because of this case, which we posted in ITN at the time. Crnorizec (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - already ran on ITN for essentially the same thing. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If NW is correct, then oppose. Not worth a second post.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose; he was convicted, and we ran it. If he had managed to get out of his sentence, THAT would be news, I think. But starting to serve a sentence for a conviction is not really big headline-worthy. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Not really important as a second post. --Katarighe (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above regarding it already having been on recently. Beyond495 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

70th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor
Beyond495 (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Better suited to OTD. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, agree with Jenks24, I don't think an anniversary has ever been posted on ITN. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 05:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This would certainly be in OTD already, except that Today's Featured Article is USS Arizona, which is a Pearl Harbor related article. This event already has prime placement on the main page. Resolute 05:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew the Americans were late to join the War, but 1951????  (Congratulations on the 3 previous responders, who I'm sure knew that it was 70 years ago, but had the self-restraint that I lack and did not draw attention to it.)  Kevin McE (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Significant anniversaries are almost covered somewhere on the main page, and this is no different today. No need, it's today's featured article.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Obviously not covered by ITN.  Lynch 7  14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Dumb nomination.  JimSukwutput  15:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please have better reasoning in the future. Beyond495 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Croatia enters the European Union

 * Neutral Overarching European Union changes are newsworthy on a global scale, but not sure if this registers compared to the crisis over the Euro. Beyond495 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, pencil it in for July 1 2013, when it is scheduled to actually become a member. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Kevin. They will only enter the EU in 2013. This is, like the new elements story, a case of an announcement prior to the main event doktorb wordsdeeds 07:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose until official. Though unlikely it could still be defeated in the referendum. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait. I suggest posting both the referendum result (which should be a resounding 'yes') and the actual ascension in 2013. Also, have the border issues with Slovenia been worked out yet? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The border issue has been passed to an arbitration court, it will take time to resolve it. However, we have election in Slovenia and Croatia waiting to be posted at the moment ;-) --Tone 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Kevin; let it actually happen, and I'll be happy to support it.  Lynch 7  15:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, when it actually happens - big news for Croatia and the EU, but let's wait until 2013. Crnorizec (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Let's nominate this in 2013, it would be a great coverage. --Katarighe (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Ted Hughes memorial

 * Why not "A memorial to Ted Hughes is unveiled in Poets' Corner at Westminster Abbey, London." ?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to that, but I still think it could be made more exciting. --FormerIP (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on the nom, but I've marked it as a minority topic since it involves culture. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Extra comment. For people who may not know what this is about...Poets' Corner is a part of Westminster Abbey where many of the greatest figures of British cultural history are either buried or memorialised. Chaucer, Dickens, Kipling, Tennyson, Handel, Samuel Johnson, Macaulay, Browning, Sheridan, Dryden, Laurence Olivier and Edmund Spenser are among the people buried there. Hughes is only the fifth person born since 1900 to have received the honour of a memorial (the others being John Betjeman, Peggy Ashcroft, WH Auden and Dylan Thomas). It really is a big deal. --FormerIP (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per FormerIP. The update seems as complete as can be for something like this. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on precedent. We opposed the unveiling of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial earlier and that was far more significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still undecided, but I disagree that the MLK memorial is "far more significant". They seem to be on par to me. Jenks24 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MLK is a far more notable figure. Ted Hughes, like, who's that? (I know, but most people don't; everybody knows who MLK is).  Obama spoke at the memorials' opening.  The MLK monument has become a highly  visited DC attraction.  I can't see this being more than a minor footnote attached to fairly popular attraction in London.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are stupid things we have posted and important things that we didn't post, but this nomination has nothing to do with Martin Luther King. --FormerIP (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll strike my oppose as I agree that precedent shouldn't be binding. That said, precedent is worth noting.  The update should be a bit more robust btw.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I'm not a fan of memorials, but Ted Hughes is an important figure and, according to what FormerIP says, this seems like quite an honour.  JimSukwutput  02:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Johnsemlak. This person isn't newsworthy worldwide. You talk about Kipling and Chaucer getting statues there, if someone of that caliber gets another statue, then I'd say weak oppose unless there's something on top of it. Beyond495 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, Chaucer was buried there in 1400, but his tomb memorial (set against the wall, it's not a statue) was not erected until 1556. Kipling has a gravestone there (not a statue), and a burial service took place there. A distinction is usually drawn between those buried there and those memorialised there later. Most of the memorials take the form of wall-mounted memorials or busts or memorial stones set into the floor (as opposed to gravestones). Some of the larger (tomb-type) memorials have statues incorporated into them, but most don't. Part of the honour here is being accorded a space on the floor, rather than in the memorial window. The most recent additions before this one were the Royal Ballet stone in 2009 (a group commemoration) and a panel for Elizabeth Gaskell added in 2010 to the memorial window. This memorial window (which was erected because the floor space was running out) has space for 20 names and 7 used so far, so deciding to put Hughes on the floor has some significance, though that may be partly because they wanted to put him next to T. S. Eliot. It is about the 7th memorial added here since Maitland in 2001 (four floor stones, three window panels). It doesn't happen often, and is a great honour Carcharoth (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alot of things don't happen often, that doesn't mean that they're globally noteworthy. Beyond495 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Johnsemlak. I'm not sure how we could post a blurb about a memorial to a great figure Britain, shortly after solidly rejecting a similar memorial in America. It would be stupendously hypocritical. No.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 11:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment 4 things. 1 - MLK is not going to rise from the dead and demand vengeance for not being on ITN. 2 - There are no times machines, we cannot right the wrongs of the past. 3 - There are a number of memorials to MLK but only one for Ted Hughes and 4 - this has been flagged as a minority topic and for good reason. ITN cannot be driven by precedent, each nomination has to be considered separately. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We don't have strict rules or guidelines to determine what we post, so we should absolutely rely on precedents to provide for a level of consistency. Our readers don't see these discussions, they just see what get's posted (and what doesn't). We'd make ITN look absolutely terrible if our postings appeared inconsistent, selective or even biased.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our postings are all of those things. But what are we supposed to do? There's no story we could ever post which will not be inconsistent with our failure to post some other story at some time in the past. --FormerIP (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our postings are inconsistent, selective, and biased? Totally news to me, but if so, that's a bad thing, and we should still try to avoid that as much as possible. That doesn't mean we must always consider every similar candidate from the past, and use that decision to determine whatever's being currently discussed. We're not a bureaucracy. However, we should still try to make an effort to maintain a basic level of consistency. For example, we shouldn't decline to post a significant memorial one week, and then post a completely different memorial of similar significance the next.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you consider them to be of similar significance should have only relevance for your own vote - so if you supported the first one, you should support this one; and if you opposed, the same. It is perfectly possible for other people to come up with different measurements of significance. Personally I find this one to be more significant than the one we did not post (although I voted support in both cases, I believe). The point of having a discussion is that we can probably have a pretty good measurement of its importance once our comments are summed up - that's why the process works. If everyone voted as you did (asking for perfect consistency), it'd be impossible to post anything on ITN.  JimSukwutput  03:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. My first comment clearly explained my thought process as to why I didn't vote the same for both items. Also, I don't, and have never voted asking for "perfect consistency", and my previous comment clearly explains that I'm not remotely doing so now! Frankly Jim, you're utterly misrepresenting my position. Yes, you're correct people have different perceptions of significance. So I'm confused as to why you're attacking my viewpoint rather than simply respecting the difference in our opinions.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, just isn't significant enough for me. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree strongly with FormerIP, something from nearly every category has been rejected at some point. There can't be an endless "tit for tat" in the name of some bland consistency. ITN/R covers precedent IMO, everything else is up for grabs. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, though I'm biased here as I supported the other memorial, and I generally support stuff on notable memorials in general, and I had a Google Alert set up to tell me about this ever since it was announced in 2010, and I updated the articles recently and am about to go see what updates have been done following the actual unveiling ceremony. Which is probably more than most people commenting here will do... Oh, and I also support cultural topics in general appearing. It makes ITN less dominated by sports and violence and elections. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Question Can someone give me a link to the discussion to the MLK memorial? I want to find out what were the arguments used then. – H T  D  04:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the news/Candidates/October 2011. The main issue with that nomination, however, was the fact that it had been open for two months already. --  tariq abjotu  06:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Russia Protests
Guardian BBC Ok, I had thought that the Russian elections were done and posted, but I'd say we should now update the blurb to mention the protests afterwards. 8000 anti-Putin protesters reportedly gathered in Moscow. A larger pro-Putin party also gathered in opposition. A huge police force was deployed in response. Hundreds of arrests have been made, including opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, a notable Yeltsin-era reformer.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe there were larger protests in Europe and the United States in the recent months, and not posted on ITN. Also, seems the today's event scaled down significantly, compared to yesterday's. Most people arrested were already released it seems, including Nemtsov, though some were sentenced for 15 days, a typical punishment for hooligans in Russia. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Greyhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond495 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Protests after elections are a fairly common sight in countries without a strong civil society; each party makes some exaggerated claims, get a mob on the streets and try to hurt the credibility of the other side. Unless anything tangible comes out of this, this is just another political show.  JimSukwutput  01:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anti-government protests of this size have not been common in Putin era in Russia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- Not relevant for now. --Katarighe (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Update -- Now Mikhail Gorbachev is calling for the results of the election to be voided[1 ]. That could be significant.--WaltCip (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It does seem to be getting more heated than usual. Let's wait and see.  JimSukwutput  15:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In Russia Gorbachev has very little credibility, so I'm not sure his statements carry much weight. I'd agree with Jim at this point, let's wait and see.  Protests are apparently being organized for Saturday.  If significant ones transpire we can revisit. But i do think the protests which occurred on Monday were pretty significant.  Yes, larger protests haven't always been posted, but one OWS mass arrest was posted; Also, this was the largest anti-government protest since Putin come to power AFAIK.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants an example of how the Russian protests have been grossly exaggerated in the Western media, see this. I'm not quite sure yet if the protests are going to be notable enough for ITN, but I say that we ought to be very cautious with it.  JimSukwutput  04:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Russia Today, a Russian state outlet, quoting Fox News. That's news slanted times two--I'd ignore it. Anyway, the protests are significant enough that Putin is blaming them on the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you are looking at there is propaganda, Jim. I don't claim to have an accurate picture of what's going on in Russia, but it's definitely something other than democracy. --FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Russia Today has a lot of crap, but not any more so than what is in the typical Western report on Russia. And in this case it exposed the fact that Fox News used fake video tapes to depict the Russian protests. I can come up with different news articles from different countries reporting on the same thing, but what's the point? Just because RT has been unreliable and controversial in other cases doesn't mean their report is incorrect here. Why do I even have to explain this shit to you? Do you have anything of substance to say about the article, or are you just going to hold your hands over your ears and cry propaganda?  JimSukwutput  03:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Christ, take a pill! I didn't say anything in defence of Fox News. Why would I do that? But RT is state media, and the videoclip portrays events as the Russian government would like them to be reported, not as they objectively are.--FormerIP (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] New Belgian government

 * Nom, although not yet official. --bender235 (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when they are sworn in. --Tone 12:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Obvous Support when the government is sworn in. Di Rupo's formal designation as Prime Minister is likely to happen on Saturday and the the government is likely to be sworn in Monday. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very obvious support. This is a world-record by some distance, highly significant development for Belgium to finally have a government. Of European interest but also of world interest too. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait until sworn in. You never know before... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not familiar with the parliamentary system, but I don't understand why we have to wait. We tend to post election results and agreements, not their inauguration/sworn-in ceremony, correct?  JimSukwutput  20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because most inaugurations tend to be foregone conclusions. In the case of Belgium, it's very much a "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of deal. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - so we should post when we can believe it - i.e. when sources are stating it as fact. We don't necessarily need to wait for some ceremonial act to be performed. Does Belgium even do a swearing-in ceremony? I have no idea. --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support but Wait major development, but wait until it becomes official. Crnorizec (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for the swearing in: very obviously meets ITN importance criteria, but I think Belgium officially having a government would be a more poignant time to post it. Having consensus to post the second the swearing in ceremony happens will be an added bonus. —WFC— 06:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Elections are notable, but in Belgium it's particularly notable due to the length between governments. Beyond495 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Government sworn in today, though Di Rupo I Government needs improvement.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Time to use a different photo? - File:Elio Di Rupo 3.jpg.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation of first potentially habitable extrasolar planet

 * This discovery is one that has long been anticipated and that should be interesting to people all over the world. --Orlady (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We had a Kepler nominated here earlier in the year, specifically Kepler-16b, but that did not pass muster. Comments stated that it was more of a "curiosity" than an actual astronomical discovery of importance and significance. The scientists who made the press release admit that this is "building up" to the discover of a habitable Earth-sized planet; I suggest waiting until that time actually comes.--WaltCip (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We have previously had this flagged up in February; we have also claimed Gliese 581 g, Gliese_581_c and a martian crater as potentially habitable. Such claims are beginning to look like attempts to remain in the public eye to justify funding bids rather than secure new knowledge. Kevin McE (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No habitable planet has actually been discovered. Speciate (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The news has no clear evidence. --Katarighe (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would support with a better hook. The planet is in the habitable zone, that's not the same as being in fact habitable. Our Moon is in the habitable zone, too :) --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is just confirmation of a small planet from transits. At the very least it needs a radial velocity follow-up. But perhaps more importantly, there's going to be a flood of these over the next few years - we can't go posting every 'potential' Earthlike planet. No major new milestone has been crossed with this one. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don Pollacco agrees with me (BBC). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The planet is almost certainly not inhabitable by usual standards - given that it has >10 Earth volumes, it's very probably a gas giant ("warm Neptune"), not a terrestrial planet. It's the smallest exoplanet known that's definitely in the habitable zone, though... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As mentioned above, this planet simply just lies within the habitable zone but there are myriads of other factors that determine whether the planet is habitable. If I'm not mistaken, I think there has been a few other planets recently discovered that also lies within the zone but was unconfirmed by NASA. YuMaNuMa Talk Contributions 02:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Scientific American calls it "First Planet in the Habitable Zone". Personal theories aside (and there seems to be a lot of those around here) this is how it's being described in reliable sources. Lampman (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's wrong: the source you give (as well as others) correctly call it "Kepler's first habitable-zone planet", which is a much weaker statement. There are several gas giants known to be in the habitable zone already, see Habitable_zone. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This planet is 600 light years away. Even if were inhabitable, and in fact inhabited, we would have virtually no prospects of figuring that out. In other words, this is a practically useless discovery and one of those showcase projects that NASA uses to attract public support and funding (there's nothing wrong with that; it's just not significant for ITN).  JimSukwutput  05:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Lampman on this one. Too many WP:OR in here, by the way. --bender235 (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where?  JimSukwutput  02:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This article has great news coverage. --Katarighe (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This story is not what we think it is. As has been commented before, this planet might be habitable, it might not, and we only need someone to live 600 years or allow to be impregnated every so often in flight to prove it. It is scientific curiosity but not enough for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Whne I first read this on BBC I did vaguely think it might be ITN but thinking further it's not really that big a piece of news, and I'm not sure we'd add much deeper value to the casual reader at this stage. Pedro : Chat  21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support once there's more on this and less WP:OR. For now, Weak Oppose Beyond495 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] ICJ Rules against Greece in the case Macedonia-Greece

 * This is a very significant development in the dispute by which Macedonia is blocked by Greece from many international organizations. Crnorizec (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, though the blurb needs to be improved, and the article updated properly (it still says that judgement will be announced). How is this a minority topic? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the article. I think it's a minority topic because not many people know about this issue. Crnorizec (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what the 'minority topic' field refers to. See ITN. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to remove this being a minority topic, but as you've explained below, this is about MKD's economy, so it passes the #1 criterion: "Business and economics". – H T  D  17:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Greece actually have any economic sanctions in place against Macedonia? They are not mentioned in our article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the obstruction to NATO and EU membership are economic sanctions per se for a small country like Macedonia. Also, there are frequent closures of the borders and limited access to the Thessaloniki port, which are also breach of international conventions for landlocked countries. Crnorizec (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm reserving judgement for now, but it should be noted that this doesn't seem to be a ruling about what Macedonia is or isn't entitled to call itself, only that Greece had broken an agreement not to block Macedonia from NATO membership. And Macedonia don't even seem to get redress about that, just a statement from the court that Greece was in the wrong. I wonder if it's really that big a deal. --FormerIP (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Macedonia doesn't have a problem with the name, it has a problem (economic, social, political, diplomatic) with the Greek blockades, which allegedly occur because of the name, and affect all involved, including NATO, EU, etc. This ruling will help to overcome those blockades because it formally-legally bans them. Crnorizec (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are any sources approaching the story from that angle though. The ones I've seen seem to be portray it as being just about NATO. I haven't seen anything about blockades being banned. --FormerIP (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you look at Guardian's article. Also, the ruling of the ICJ says that it rejects the third request of Macedonia (to order Greece not to block the membership in international organizations), because it is understood from the second ruling (that Greece broke the accord by doing so). Crnorizec (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Crnorizec, I still don't see anything about blockades in that article. Are you clear about the meaning of the term "blockade"?--FormerIP (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Crnorizec (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - a ruling in favour of Macedonia in the conflict with Greece is important.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't like the blurb. It doesn't explain what happened, and when I go to the article it doesn't explain it very clearly either. It says Article 11 of the Accord, but not what Article 11 is. Speciate (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Agreed with the nominator. Katarighe (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Judgement of a prosecution in the International Court of Justice is a very big deal. I also agree with nominator that it's a significant story concerned with the relations between the countries, but is not entirely addressed to the naming dispute.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The update in the December 2011 consists of a single sentence. I'd be glad to post if someone is willing to write a couple of sentences more, at least about the reaction of both sides. Shouldn't be too hard. --Tone 09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Paragraph with reactions on the both sides is added.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Death of Sócrates
We're a bit late on this but I'd support. I would have chosen this over Gary Speed; Socrates was much more notable worldwide and his death was more widely reported outside the UK. --Johnsemlak (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. It's not stale yet. --FormerIP (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  Support I don't see a reason why not, since he was one of the leading players in his time and his death is unexpected.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Captain of what?  I don't think it should be assumed that everyone knows what sport we are talking about.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but let's hope it doesn't lead to an argument over whether the sport should be called soccer or football or association football or...? HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Did anyone else think of The Death of Socrates when they saw this section title? In any case, I think this is a good choice to go up; we certainly haven't had a great number of nominations these past few days. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the painting, but I did think this nom was 2400 years too late when I first read it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This happened days ago, and in any case, I cannot except the notion that this death is suitable for front page inclusion doktorb wordsdeeds 20:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably mean "accept" not "except". Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being good is not the same as being important. No question he was a great footballer, but what makes him more notable than scores of other greats? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I supported the Gary Speed nomination, and on the same principle support this as long as the update is sufficient. On a general note, there is far too much comparing between similar nominations. ITN doesn't have to be consistent, and people trying to attain consistency will end up driving things to the lowest common denominator as oppose votes come in purely because people are trying to restore some unattainable goal of consistency. If this does go up, can the wording please reflect the fact that it is going up late. i.e. Use the most recent news (presumably present in the article update) to write a suitable blurb. One caveat: he died on 4 December. It would be reasonable to require the ITN nomination to made within 24 hours of the initial article update. That should be a requirement in future. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would see no issue with placing this below everything that was posted after December 4. It doesn't have to go on the top of ITN. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved to the correct date. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per doktorb. He didn't die while he was still active so the death is of minimal impact, and he wasn't so groundbreakingly notable during his career (like, say, Pele) that his death should go up in any circumstances. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Mk above. We're not talking about an internationally heralded footballer like Pele or Maradona, but a national team captain. A nice title, but there have been a big number of those over the years. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

U.S. drone shot down in Iran

 * Puzzled This one seems to score some points on the notability front, because I've heard it mentioned on the news here in Australia, but I'm still trying to work out why. Exactly what is the significance of this event? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Violating Iranian airspace is newsworthy, if it was intentional. I saw this while browsing Google earlier, but I can't see any sign that it's turned into a fiasco yet. If it leads to a wider incident (diplomatic bickering, street riots, acknowledgement from the US that it deliberately violated Iranian airspace, some confirmation it shot down, condemnation from anyone other than Venezuela, etc) then I think it deserves to go up. I was a little surprised to not find any sort of consolidated "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles of the Unites States military" which a paragraph or two about this would slot in nicely. Somehow it just doesn't seem to fit in the platform article. Just a few cents worth anyway... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is way too tenuous for now; all we have is a statement from Iran, and a denial from the US. Iran has actually made statements like this before, with no basis. We should wait to see if it's confirmed. Lampman (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now it is not an important coverage. Katarighe (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not now If this actually happened I'd say it is notable, in the context of what has been happening recently in Pakistan. But at the moment we're in the realm of claim and counterclaim by two sides renown for trying to tar one another. —WFC— 03:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Beyond495 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The drone was shot down in Afghanistan and sold to the Iranians. Speciate (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Source? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As valid as the Iranian claim. A drone vanished over Afghanistan a week before the Iranians said they shot one down of their airspace. So it was shot down (or cybered down, or crashed) by parties unknown, and the wreckage becomes a valuable commodity. It takes awhile to get in contact with buyers, then ship it to Iran. About a week, no? Speciate (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * source? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that none of the sources are any better than my speculation. Speciate (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Speciate. The Iranian government's word has never exactly been trustworthy, and it wouldn't be wise to post this without independent confirmation.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 23:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The US goverment have confirmed the drone shut down on Iran is Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel. the Iranian gov't have realsed photos and videos showing the drone. sources: Fox News U.S. Military Sources: Iran Has Missing U.S. Drone

[Posted] Slovenian parliamentary election, 2011

 * Positive Slovenia, led by Zoran Janković, wins plurality in the parliamentary election.
 * When the final results are known, but this seems to be the blurb. --Tone 20:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Crnorizec (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Elections are generally notable IMO, however, Russia has more global significance. Beyond495 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support All exercises of democracy by sovereign nations are notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ITN/R and does not need a discussion on notability. From what I see, the article is ready to be posted.  JimSukwutput  05:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some more prose about the responses added. Marking ready. --Tone 09:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted by Tariq Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Zoran Janković 2008 - SqCrop.jpg might be useful. Can someone with an OTRS account check the ticket on File:Karl Erjavec and Zoran Janković.jpg before putting this cropped version on MainPage, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Croatian parliamentary election, 2011

 * Kukuriku coalition, led by Zoran Milanović, wins plurality (probably even majority) in the parliamentary election.
 * When the final results are known, but this seems to be the blurb. --Tone 20:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Crnorizec (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Great coverage. Katarighe (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Elections are generally notable IMO, however, Russia has more global significance. Beyond495 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support As above, all elections by sovereign nations are notable. This article is also of an exceptional standard for its subject. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This one is ready as well. Someone please post as the timer will be running red soon. (I'm the nominator, therefore I feel uncomfortable posting myself) --Tone 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No prose in the results section. --  tariq abjotu  19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now there is. --Tone 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Russian legislative election, 2011



 * Oppose unless radically expanded. At a whopping 7 sentences of prose, it should be maybe moved to List of Russian legislative election 2011 poll statistics. Among others the failure to even mention the widespread allegations of violations and fraud render the article a bad stub. Definitely not for the main page. --hydrox (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some expansion needed, yes. Anyway the results will be clear only tomorrow. As for the allegations of violations and fraud, no, there should be no WP:Speculation and WP:Propaganda. Grey  Hood   Talk  20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourced mentioning of such allegations (who said and what) would be hardly neither of those. --hydrox (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. There is a problem with sources. Most of the accusations of violations are connected not to the election itself, which seems to be found OK both by domestic and foreign monitors, but to the pre-election period of electoral agitation. The lion's share of the reported violations was published by the so called GOLOS Association, funded from abroad, openly biased against the government and leading party (as the videos with their director show), and itself fined by the court for the violations of electoral law (they published information on any reported violations, even fake ones, directed against all parties except the UR, and they suppressed a large share of anti-UR violations; also they were issuing fake journalist accreditations for their workers). Therefore, when the information comes originally from marginal, controversial and biased sources, its redistribution in encyclopedia is dubious. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a great majority of the news outlets in the West mention the election being unfair (most serious allegation being the insufficient press coverage of the opposition parties), so as long as the allegations can be sourced to e.g. BBC and The New York Times it is definitely not "redistribution of marginal, controversial and biased sources." A working, free press is generally seen as a prerequisite for a democratic election in every Anglophone country, including the UK and the US. So although an election might have taken place without vote rigging as claimed by the Communists, it can still be seen as undemocratic by the foreign press. --hydrox (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Catch a fraudster' – the state-owned RIA Novosti publishes detailed reports of irregularities/vote rigging across the country. Think we can safely rule out conspiracy theories of CIA-backed propaganda at this stage :) (referring to NTV report on GOLOS) --hydrox (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're confused. The article mentions electoral irregularities and the usual fraud, which is commonplace in any political system (transparent or otherwise) outside the few developed, prosperous countries in the First World. It did not accuse UR of systematically oppressing political opponents to gain an unfair advantage, which is what some users here seem to suggest/believe. In fact the article states this: "According to United Russia observers, the Communist Party, which is considered their main rival in the elections, accounts for the largest number of violations." Just because there is fraud does not mean it's worth mentioning; it's only worthwhile if the fraud has a chance of significantly affecting the election results, and there doesn't seem to be that possibility here (see the last 5 paragraphs of the article you linked to). JimSukwutput  04:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's pretty worthwhile if the state news agency is reporting voting irregularities. They are now included in the article, but I still think it could still do with lots of more prose before its ready for the main page. --hydrox (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny how we reported the complaints from the parties that lost the election but not from international observers who mostly praised the electoral process. I added some of that.  JimSukwutput  17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support; the article will be expanded once election results are in. Obviously there is no prose to be written when the election results aren't out. And I do not agree with adding further "allegations of violence and fraud". It should be clear to anyone with a basic knowledge in Russian politics that there will be allegations of fraud (mostly from Western-funded groups) regardless of what actually happened. While there likely is some form of fraud, as in every election in the world, we should not be giving credibility to specific politically-motivated accusations, or "propaganda" as Greyhood puts it.  JimSukwutput  20:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per ITNR when updated. I'd leave out any allegations from the blurb but if sourced they ought to be in the article, just as in this article.  One of the groups alleging electoral fraud is the Communist Party of Russia, hardly a Western-funded organization (and hardly unbiased).--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a tradition in Russia, that losing parties allege electoral fraud. They always do it, but they never were able to present a proper evidence to the court. And there were no such scandals like the Florida story in the 2000 U. S. election. Given due weight and neutral coverage, mentioning of such stuff in the Russian article is OK of course, but I just wanted to say that these allegations is too ordinary and speculative story, and certainly mentioning them should not be a condition for the ITN post. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- Great election coverage. --Katarighe (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Elections are generally worthy of inclusion IMO. Beyond495 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support after article updated . While acknowledging that this is the equivalent of trying to group the United States, Venezuela and Jamaica, I would nonetheless suggest a combined posting for Russia, Croatia and Slovenia. —WFC— 03:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- This is huge for CPRF. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   08:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support All elections by sovereign nations are notable. And in the context of the forthcoming presidential elections this is a must for front page inclusion. The state of the article is only of minor concern, to be honest. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready? So, the results are known and unlikely to change since most votes are counted, and the article has been minimally updated. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: The article has some pretty blatant WP:FU violations. – H T  D  15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which exactly? Grey  Hood   Talk  15:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Every logo on the page? – H T  D  15:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose they belong there. Just need fair use rationales. Grey  Hood   Talk  16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any rationale would've been invalid. Not that it'll preclude inclusion on the Main page. Just saying... – H T  D  17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just commented out all the logos until someone tries fair use, and now no any are visible. Hope that's OK and we can post, the timer is pretty much in red zone. Grey  Hood   Talk  17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support until the candidates are actually correct (Putin instead of Medvedev; Levichev instead of Mironov)-- ♫GoP♫ <sub style="color:red;">T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 18:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posting. However, using the word plurality instead of majority, as they won under 50%, as it appears at the moment. --Tone 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * United Russia won more than half of the seats. – H T  D  19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does seem to be an error - perhaps the article should have been updated to fill in the seats table before posting. They did get more than half the seats, so that's a majority. --FormerIP (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to change the picture. The current one is there for almost a week. Grey  Hood   Talk  21:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Indian actor-director Dev Anand dies at 88

 * Support. Although a natural death, it's difficult to overstate how big he was in Bollywood. Let's face it, we're not awash with alternatives. —WFC— 06:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a three time Filmfare winner. I'd say he's fairly notable. The update may be an obstacle.  Neutral.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose On two grounds - world-wide notability, which I think is tenuous at best. And the decision to reject the much more well known Ken Russell last week doktorb wordsdeeds 06:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per WFC.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 06:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. While I am sure there are people who haven't heard of him and hence regard him has not notable, as WFC, it's difficult to overstate how big he was in Bollywood. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean a user besides WTC.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per Doktorb. Couldn't have said it better. Beyond495 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral doesn't meet ITN/DC, and the update is pretty thin. Neutral because if the update is expanded (history of illness, reaction, circumstances of the discovery of his death, announcement, etc), then posting this would push Gary Speed out and there would still be only 1 relatively insignificant death in the template. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely he meets DC #2: The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field..He's won three Filmfare awards--including a lifetime achievement award. Those are the Bollywood equivalent of Oscars.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 20 years ago. I guess it depends on how broad you make the field. Motion pictures, or motion pictures in India, or breakthrough Indian actions of the 50's and 60's.... I don't care either way. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He has national notability, but I don't see the international significance. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the diversity of coverage above. —WFC— 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Wizardman and also the old age of his death and the lack of impact it will have on current events. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While admittedly beyond his heyday, the age argument implies that the current generation isn't overly familiar with him or his work, which is simply not the case. As an aside his last film was released in September. —WFC— 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- I think this is a great coverage. --Katarighe (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not valid reasoning for anything. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I don't think opposing on the basis of lack of international notability works. He's among the biggest names in the history of Bollywood, which does have an international audience. Even if you only want to talk about the countries where it is most popular, they contain about a quarter of the world's population between them. --FormerIP (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Using national notability to dismiss anything Bollywood is questionable at the best of times, out-and-out systemic bias in this case. This isn't someone who you might consider A-list if you happened to be an Indian in your teens or twenties in the right decade. We're talking about an Alec Guinness or Elizabeth Taylor here. Nor are we talking about someone who hasn't been active for two or three decades . —WFC— 03:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Many exclusively American things are argued for here on the basis of there being an awful lot of people in America (maybe 300 million) who would be interested in the topic, Well, in India they have a billion more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment America also has alot more money, geopolitical and global cultural influence. Beyond495 (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * no shit?! -- Ashish-g55 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise. I was going to reply with the slightly more polite "Yes, and...?" or "So what?", but "no shit?!" will fit my purpose too. What, really, was the point of that post? HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would personally contest the "has alot more money" part...--WaltCip (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain withdraws from presidential election

 * Oppose It may be breaking news but I don't think it is news of sufficient significance to post on ITN. The primary elections haven't started; his poll numbers had been tanking for weeks; his withdrawal will have little effect on the presidential race let alone current events more broadly. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose We need to know the eventual winner of the election next November: anything else is gloss. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The fact that he made it this far given his background was fairly remarkable in itself. Beyond495 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cain was never the favourite for the Republican primaries (his numbers never went above 10% on Intrade, though he led national polls for a week or two). By last week, after numerous sex scandals, he was polling at 8% nationally and his chances on Intrade was around 0.8%, lower than candidates like Bachmann or Huntsman, which is a good sign of how non-notable his campaign has become. Given that, this announcement is hardly unexpected and mostly irrelevant to the election results. (I also have issue with the blurb. While several of the accusations are about sexual misconduct, the latest and most damaging accusation seems to be a 13-year extramarital affair, which is not a form of "misconduct".)  JimSukwutput  21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cain was actually the favorite in a lot of states, and he polled high on Rasmussen during the height of his campaign. I would hardly call him "non-notable" - at least, prior to the scandals.--WaltCip (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose of zero significance outside his party. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  21:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a local issue with limited global interest (really, who outside a subset of Americans cares?). Agree with Jim Sukwutput, Cain was a long shot to begin with. This primary is shaping up to be interesting though, like a candidate roulette wheel, and the article might make a good FA candidate some day. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Zero interest outside US.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Of no notability and interest whatsoever, at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose - As Mtking says, not significant outside the Republican Party. This would have easily been significant if Cain was still a frontrunner (or near frontrunner) in the race (anyone who thinks US presidential elections are not internationally significant, even at the primary level, is kidding themselves). However, all of the accusations have already completely destroyed his campaign's chances, and him dropping out of the race at this point has little to no actual effects. Thus, while this is big news in the US, it doesn't satisfy our significance criterion.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't pass judgement on matters (significance without the US) that you do not have the perspective to judge. I would venture to say that there are very almost no issues on which the media coverage is more out of proportion to public interest, in the UK at least.  In terms of practical significance, nothing other than the November result matters in the least; in terms of public attention, it really is way, way below the horizon in what you might be inclined to call "watercooler talk". Kevin McE (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source on your measurement of 'watercooler talk'? I work in a British workplace and while it isn't of everyday interest, US politics certainly is on the radar.  I think it's a bit presumptive to assume that the topic receives media coverage in spite of public disinterest, particularly without sources other than your personal experience.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I think that it is more than a bit presumptive (sic) of Swarm to tell people outside of his country that they are "kidding themselves" about the significance elsewhere of things in his country. Comments on talk pages do not require verification, so I don't need a source, although of course it is valid for you to challenge my perception, as it is valid for me to challenge Swarm's.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Swarm's basic assertion that US primaries are significant to people outside the US is backed with verifiable evidence, in that they receive a large amount of media coverage. So while I might have used different wording I think it's a perfectly reasonable claim.  Though I respect your right to challenge the assertion even with only anecdotal evidence.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that we will have to disagree as to whether "reported" amounts to "significant". Kevin McE (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What other measurement do you suggest? If something is 'reported' at least it's gone thorough a filter of professionals whose job it is to decide what's significant and what's not.  Of course I often think the media 'gets it wrong' but Wikipedia has to defer to reliable sources.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - No, no, no, no, no, absolutely not. The dubious validity of the accusations notwithstanding, posting this would be in extremely poor judgment, and I follow the GOP debates like a hawk.--WaltCip (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the article should cover the allegations, I think putting them on the main page would be an endorsement of their credibility. And if we don't put them on the main page, we would simply be reporting that an underdog has pulled out in the race to be a presidential underdog. Even acknowledging the ITN drought and the influence American presidents have on the world, one way or the other I can't see a justification to post. —WFC— 03:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I know I'm in the minority here, but a lot of people are interested in this, the article is fine, it's in the news and it's non-trivial, so I think it's OK. Another option would be a Republican primary sticky. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This would've been an easy post if Cain was the Republican nominee already; he isn't. However, the no interest/significance outside the U.S. is complete and utter BS. It's on the front page (above the fold) of The Guardian's website, with extensive coverage, if I may add. – H T  D  05:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic has been on BBC's front page also. --   Luke      (Talk)   05:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's on the homepage of RTE News, ITN's "news source of last resort" (LOL) too. – H T  D  05:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely agree HTD. I certainly don't think this should be posted, but this has more interest outside the US than many postings at ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's true it's probably only because it's about sex. HiLo48 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nein, Nein, Nein This is weird coming from me, but I don't see it as being significant in the long run. He only ran to sell some books, and wouldn't have beaten Obama. Should we have posted when a couple other blowhards said they weren't running? Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We'll post the result of the election; there's no need for any further coverage. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, the winner of the primary will likely also get posted. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah, both were posted in 2008.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * the Democratic primary shouldn't be posted unless they don't nominate Obama... – H T  D  17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He's already the presumptive nominee.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Two new elements named

 * Oppose. The news story seems to be that the naming has been opened to consultation. --FormerIP (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per FormerIP. However, if it becomes "official", Change to Support Beyond495 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question I don't mean to challenge the technical complexity of these experiments, or the importance of updates to the periodic table, but it almost seems like this has become routine. Bombard element A with element B in a laboratory, get a few atoms with a very short half life, and determine the properties mathematically. None of these new elements are natural, and I'm wondering if the results of these experiments are truly newsworthy outside the physics community. Of course I could be utterly wrong, but if I am, how so? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when official per ITN/R. I didn't realize that this was already covered there. I'll read through the archived discussions regarding this. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per FormerIP. Besides, it's never a good sign when the entire story can be summed up in a blurb.  JimSukwutput  04:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now When they are confirmed as names then they should be added, as appears to be standard process now. I do take the point that is becoming routine, though that is no less an achievement for that doktorb wordsdeeds 10:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It would appear that ITN/R needs clarification. The report on Yahoo suggests that IUPAC's naming process is in two parts: announcing a name (as happened on Thursday), and "the official paperwork [getting] processed and [the names showing] up on the table" (some 5 months hence). I suspect that the intention of ITN/R is the last, irrevocable (as irrevocable as such a thing ever is) naming, in which case we need to postpone. We really need a queriable option as an answer to the ITNR field in the nomination template... As to the unregistered editor's objections (4 discoveries in 11 years does not seem excessively onerous for ITN to cover), they would need to be raised at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The names are just proposed. The confirmation will be 5 months later. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The news should be 5 months later. --Katarighe (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chrome passes Firefox
This is the first time in more than a decade that Firefox loses 2nd palce. 18.111.42.197 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A new program is popular? Not news. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose A large company using it's hegemony to attack on Gecko is also not news. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Microsoft is the one packaging its browser with Windows. All Chrome's downloads were done by the end-user. <font color="#21421" >Marcus <font color="#CC7722" >Qwertyus   00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Chrome passes Firefox, according to a collection of arbitrary measurements of a small subset of the Internet traffic, some of which reported this months ago and some of which are forecasting it in the future. The only thing remotely "new" about this is that an article from ecommercetimes summed up all the different measurements.  JimSukwutput  17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an end-of-the-week email sent round to make the office monkeys feel good over the weekend. It is not news doktorb wordsdeeds 18:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tit bit of news that's far to niche for a general audience on an enyclopedia. Pedro : Chat  22:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fine for the articles themselves, but not here. Beyond495 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight oppose, only because it may be better to see Chrome knock out IE from first place. May be worthy to mention it has already happened in South America... Google's basically taking everything over. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- This thing is not popular for now. --Katarighe (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Celac summit



 * The section in the article about the summit (Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States) needs expansion. Although it's the first summit, it doesn't really state what happened at the summit.  Spencer T♦ C 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does need expansion. --FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support only after update . I think the event is important enough, and if there is any doubt the lack of fresh ITN content takes this over the edge. However, the article is not in an acceptable state. The rationale section has a sentence about something that didn't happen in the past, written in the future tense. And as Spencer says, the article says nothing about what has happened at the summit. —WFC— 00:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Update done.  Night  w   13:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if update has occurred (looks like it has). Minority-ish subject and slow news day.  I ♦  A  13:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support now that it's updated. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Suggest to use a map as illustration, we need to change images regularly. Grey  Hood   Talk  14:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Not clear if this organization will have a huge impact, but I guess it's likely that it will have enough of one. Beyond495 (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  15:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Burma



 * Neutral. I'm not comfortable with promoting state visits and other forms of political maneuvering, especially over something as vaguely (and controversially) defined as "democratic reforms". Support.  JimSukwutput  17:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not promoting the visit, we'd be reporting it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * However, then the blurb should plainly say that Clinton is visiting Burma, and that's it. She also met representatives of the government. --Tone 17:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, I'd support if the blurb simply reports the visits and does not include terms such as "pro-democracy leader" and "democratic reforms". Despite her universal support from Westerners, there are democratic activists in Burma who do not identify themselves with her organization. (And I don't mean this as a criticism of her - every leader has his/her opponents).  JimSukwutput  17:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the blurb should be neutral. That said, Clinton's meeting with Sam Suu Kyi makes the visit more notable in many people's eyes.  She is a Nobel Laureate and a global icon, and the most famous Burmese in the world.  I think there's plenty of objective reasons to mention it.  I'd agree with cutting out words like 'pro-democracy'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the blurb based on this discussion. It sounds a bit weird; feel free to make any changes.  JimSukwutput  01:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word 'historic' as well.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've delinked United States Secretary of State and abbreviated United States to US. I'm sure the use of the acronym 'US' on the MP has been hashed out somewhere and may be against policy.  Let me know if it is, but it seems painfully unnecessary to spell out fully 'United States Secretary of State'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - high profile in the media, and shows the progress in Burma by itself - since San Suu Kyi was house-arrested and isolated from the public for the past twenty years. --Roent*genium111 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support if updated. It's a significant visit, given Burma's long isolation.  It's gotten plenty of news coverage.  And frankly, ITN's been slow lately and I don't see anything more notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can respect both sides here. It is an historical event and one which will have lasting effects in US and Burmese history. BUT it is a diplomatic meeting, one which will have 'off camera' goings on that underlines the overtly political elements, and I doubt many diplomatic meetings would make it on the front page were the US not involved. It's a nice....story....not...front page material, really. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a local issue with limited global interest. Obama touched Bali for the first time on the same trip. Politicians visit places. Not news outside of Myanmar. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd be taken more seriously if you don't copy and paste your rationale every time.  JimSukwutput  01:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Bali is part of Indonesia, which has a long history of diplomatic relations with the U.S. The Burmese diplomatic thaw on the other hand may have a long lasting impact on the Asian geopolitical landscape. Beyond495 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm utterly sincere in my objection. An American diplomat and politician visited a country, it's not a big deal. Myanmar has relations with Russia, the ASEAN, the UN, I don't think it's spectacular that the American government has sent someone for a photo-op. If relations are normalized between the two countries, that would be a big deal, but not this. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, at least you put up some debatable reasons. But this is not a photo op. A photo op is set up by a single party; this visit was agreed upon by three parties (the American state, the Burmese state, and the Burmese opposition) that generally do not see eye to eye. The fact that the visit occurred by itself signifies a major shift in relations.  JimSukwutput  04:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The government released San Suu Kyi from house arrest and it was covered on ITN, then San Suu Kyi announced she would register for the next election, and it was covered on ITN. Russia, China, Japan (off and on) and others had been dealing with Myanmar for years. I'm generally not in favor of posting every incremental update to XYZ saga, especially one like this with no measurable results. Elections: yes, restoration of civilian government: sure, this: no. If the story was "United States abandons failed policies of isolation and engages in talks with Myanmar" then maybe, since that seems to be the real story here: America gave up the hate. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly support the story, oppose the blurb. I do not think this would ordinarily be a worthy candidate for ITN, but we haven't updated in ages, the articles are in good shape and there aren't many other viable candidates on this page. However, I think the blurb should be rephrased to something more along the lines of "Hillary Clinton meets with Burmese government and opposition figures (pictured with Aung San Suu Kyi) to discuss democratic reforms." —WFC— 01:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I support that blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - A landmark in international relations and Burmese history.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support : Would not go as far as saying it is a "landmark in international relations" but it is significant. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  03:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Media's words, not mine.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 22:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. So a politician made a visit. What's the significance? What came out of this? There have been many major developments in those two subjects in the past month:, , , ... And we're going to post this? And where's the article? Any mention beyond a single sentence of this within either of those two articles would be undue to the massive topics they describe.  Night  w   07:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If the NLD application is accepted in the next few days, then that will be a story worth posting.  Night  w   07:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the age of things currently on the main page, being part of a significant topic alone is probably enough at this point in time. I wouldn't be in any way opposed to an update in a few days if necessary. —WFC— 07:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. When real democratic changes actually take place there, it will certainly be newsworthy.  Until then, a visit from a quite senior politician from a quite important country isn't sufficiently notable.  Interesting that no-one has proposed the visit of the Belarus PM to Burma, which local sources judged to be a more important event - .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The legalisation and re-registration of the National League for Democracy has already been noted at ITN. Thus we have established on this page that a "normalcy" of sorts in the political system exists in Myanmar/Burma.  So we have a politician with responsibility for foreign issues visiting a foreign country, albeit one where she would probably prefer to see a different party in government.  It is normal in most democracies (even very flawed democracies) for opposition parties to have access to visiting foreign dignitaries.  "Politician does one of the things intrinsic to her job in the normal manner" is not ITNworthy.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's a potential alternative story, because Burma has today legalised political demonstrations: . --FormerIP (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I somewhat implied above, I would support such a story being posted.  Night  w   15:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support protests the update should probably go in Reforms_in_Burma. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

New Belgian government

 * Nom, although not yet official. --bender235 (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess an Di Rupo I Government article would be nice, too. --bender235 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support when they are sworn in. --Tone 12:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Obvous Support when the government is sworn in. Di Rupo's formal designation as Prime Minister is likely to happen on Saturday and the the government is likely to be sworn in Monday. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very obvious support. This is a world-record by some distance, highly significant development for Belgium to finally have a government. Of European interest but also of world interest too. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait until sworn in. You never know before... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm not familiar with the parliamentary system, but I don't understand why we have to wait. We tend to post election results and agreements, not their inauguration/sworn-in ceremony, correct?  JimSukwutput  20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because most inaugurations tend to be foregone conclusions. In the case of Belgium, it's very much a "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of deal. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - so we should post when we can believe it - i.e. when sources are stating it as fact. We don't necessarily need to wait for some ceremonial act to be performed. Does Belgium even do a swearing-in ceremony? I have no idea. --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Prime Minister (Elio Di Rupo of the Francophone socialist party) will be sworn in on Monday.  JimSukwutput  04:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support but Wait major development, but wait until it becomes official. Crnorizec (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for the swearing in: very obviously meets ITN importance criteria, but I think Belgium officially having a government would be a more poignant time to post it. Having consensus to post the second the swearing in ceremony happens will be an added bonus. —WFC— 06:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Elections are notable, but in Belgium it's particularly notable due to the length between governments. Beyond495 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as soon as it happens. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support once it actually happens (supposedly on Monday). <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support -- Great coverage for Belgium. Katarighe (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- this is now official. Blurb should probably link to the Di Rupo I Government article. --Jfruh (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)