Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2012

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

[Posted] June 2012 Mid-Atlantic and Midwest derecho

 * well i certainly learnt something new today...and it is in the news. Havent tagged as a minority topic, but it could be construed as a tech topic..
 * I would suggest a "background" section for the terminology, etc.Lihaas (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I failed to notice that this article was already mentioned yesterday under "Disasters". FWIW, I found the news coverage of the event
 * frustratingly silent on the causes for the severe weather. The original version of the Washington Post article I linked characterized the weather system as
 * a Bow echo, which led me to Wikipedia. The NOAA Mesoscale Discussion for the event describes
 * it as a Derecho. These two appear to be types of Mesoscale convective systems, but are not linked from that article.

c 22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Small number of deaths, and the power outage is temporary (It would be more significant if it exposed a weakeness in the aging grid, ala Northeast blackout of 2003). --M ASEM (t) 21:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the weakness of the communications systems interesting. In addition to the Amazon outage that made Netflix go dark, the 911 system is down in Northern Virginia. I don't have an article for these, though. --Eggsaladsandwich (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is the type of news story that would fail WP:NEVENT in that we have no idea of its long-term impact. Yes, there were deaths, but the numbers are small.  Tehre was some damage, but I've seen tornado strikes with more monetary effect than this seems to have.  It's a notable storm that should be included in something like Tornadoes in 2012, but not as a ITN or standalone article. --M ASEM  (t) 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Except this wasn't a tornado, or a tornado outbreak. See derecho. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True, suggesting at least to me that it would make sense to have some type of series of articles "Severe Weather Events in 2012". Certain events (hurricanes that make landfall, or the like, that have millions/billions in damages) would likely get separate articles, but for this current system, it still doesn't seem to be a long-term significant though arguably there's people that aren't expected to get power back for a week.  I feel its not far enough in terms of total damage (both in human losses and financial aspects) to make it an article to start with. --M ASEM  (t) 17:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The "blurb" listed before wasn't really a blurb at all, so I've written a new one. I'm not very tied to it however. Not sure whether the main article should link from "An intense progressive dereco" or causes. Standard form would be the former but I think we need a link to derecho in the blurb as most people won't know what that term means. LukeSurlt c
 * I've also removed "derecho" from the list of articles to update, as this is a general article about the phenomenon that does not require updating with regards to this event. LukeSurlt c 22:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Lack of power in a large chunk of the US alone is a significant event in my opinion, especially when the temperatures in these areas has been in the 80's - 100's (Fahrenheit). 3+ million people losing power for a lengthy time period (over 24 hours) is a big deal. Front page media coverage in the international edition of CNN, as well as on BBC and Reuters, so this is getting coverage around the world, not just in the US. --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 06:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Did we post, or even nominate, the giant snowstorm that hit the northeastern US last fall (where 1-2 feet of snow fell well before snowfall usually occurred)? I can't find it, and can't remember when it happened. That had similar effects as this storm for the New England area, with many people losing power for more than a week. Edit here it is: 2011 Halloween nor'easter; it was added to Did you Know, but not to ITN, unless I'm missing something. Despite that storm not making it, I would still support the posting of this. Does anyone remember if this was even nominated? --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 06:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support per Anc. Khazar2 (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - notable and unusual weather event; comparing it to the snowstorm doesn't work because you get snow every winter. You don't get storm complexes like this (I've seen it called "Chicago's Breath Weapon" in forums) very often. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I doubt a posting admin will consider deviating from standard practise in response to this comment, but I think it needs saying anyway. I consider it problematic to post this whilst the US Supreme Court ruling on healthcare is still there. Not because both stories are about the US (that is rightly a common occurance, given that the US is huge and this is the English-speaking Wikipedia), but because a convincing case can be made that neither story would have made it onto the page if they related to any other part of the world. The healthcare story in particular falls into this category, because it relates to the preservation of a status quo that we previously reported on. I would recommend that if this is posted, we at least seriously consider retiring the supreme court story early. All that said, I personally consider this to be postable: a highly unusual weather event resulting in major human and physical loss/damage, generating non-trivial headlines far outside of the region. —WFC— 22:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: WFC, I gather both from your comment and your spelling that you are not American. I'm also guessing that you know little about American politics, because you've completely misjudged the notability of the health care ruling.  Common wisdom in the US is that this is the most important case heard by the Supreme Court since Bush v. Gore, and many scholars think that a ruling that went the other way would have seriously, perhaps fatally, damaged the reputation of the Court and set up a collision course between the Court and the executive; hence this news is highly significant in the US.  The case is likely to be remembered for decades, and in fact is quite similar to another famous case from 1936 (the so-called "switch in time" case) where a similar dramatic shift (also by a Justice Roberts!!), saved FDR's signature New Deal social legislation and averted an all-out war between governmental branches.  In fact, the health care ruling is far more significant than this piddly storm (and I say that despite having experienced it first hand) -- the latter will be forgotten about in a few months but the former remembered for decades. Benwing (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think this is significant enough.  Lots of similar events happen every year in the US and most get forgotten about within months if not weeks.  Doubt there will be any significant long-term repercussions. Benwing (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of similar events happen every year in the US er...no. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's kind of like saying that a tsunami isn't significant because the ocean always has waves. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted I'm sure I'll catch some heat for this, but days were given to discuss this news item. The quality of the article has been sufficient for awhile, there was enough support for this to be posted, and the oppose points weren't compelling enough to overturn the support. --  tariq abjotu  19:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shamir

 * The orange tags in the Political career section would need to be dealt with. LukeSurlt c 20:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is sorted...we usually go by that, no?Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The admins can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought stuff posted on the main page had to be fully orange-tag free? The fact there are no citations for the section about his premiership is problematic, especially as WP:BLP kinda.. still holds for the very recently deceased. LukeSurlt c 22:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it is a problem, particularly for a political, and possibly controversial, article. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose even if the orange tags are resolved. He was 96. People die at 96. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Died of natural causes in old age. Thue (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? Nora Ephron dint have a sudden death and she wasnt exactly young either. (71 is way past retirement (a decade off)) and we posted the first Lithuanian premier..Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And none of them should have been posted either. Two wrongs does not make one right. Thue (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose he was not particularly notable among Israeli ministers, and Israel is sufficient on ITN without deaths of politicians. Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not notable among Israeli ministers? How much knowledge of Israeli politics do you have? Shamir served longer than any other Prime Minister but Ben Gurion. Shamir was critical in keeping Israel from getting embroiled in the 1st Gulf War (e.g. by not responding to Iraq's bombing of Israeli cities). Benwing (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support I agree with the nomination reasons but the article issues must be addressed. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If we are going to put the IMO significantly less notable news about the Church of the Nativity here, we should certainly include Shamir's death. As an example of notability, the IHT (global version of NYT) had Shamir's death front page for over a day but never had the Nativity issue anywhere on the front page. Shamir was one of the main leaders of the "old guard" secular hard right of Israeli politics, which lived through the Holocaust and the 1948 war and which chose to react by refusing to compromise in almost any situation. His passing is symbolically important in that there are probably none of that generation left any more (Begin, Rabin, Meir and now Shamir all dead, Sharon basically dead).  Benwing (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- One of the most important Middle-Eastern politicians. Old-age is not a death criteria. The only thing that matters when considering deaths is significance of the person unless DC #3 comes into play.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Like Bzweebl and some of the above.

Minitel

 * Comment: The article is not updated yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Last sentence of introduction. -- RA (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We normally require at least five sentences and three sources. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone will need to comb through much of the article and put in into the past tense e.g. "Minitel is a service..." > "Minitel was a service...". At what exact time is it being switched off? Midnight? LukeSurlt c 17:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Midnight, I believe. -- RA (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support in principal, but on the proviso that the references to it as the web's forerunner are removed from the blurb, simply because there are any number of technologies that predated the web and many that have a much greater commonality with it. This is ultimately the withdrawal of a telephone service and while I'd oppose the inclusion of such a story ordinarily (e.g. Telex, X.25, even Frame Relay) this is a widely recognised and distinctive service. That's just about enough to make it worthy of inclusion in my opinion. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Yea, I wasn't sure how to capture its relationship with the WWW in so few words (while still explaining its significance). Technologically, it is essentially unrelated but at a use-case level it captured a lot of what we today take for granted in the WWW. Any suggestion? -- RA (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per the comments by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (nominator). --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 06:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Milestone for hugely important technology. Thue (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but still needs updating and has an orange tag. In terms of the blurb, how about we avoid mentioning the WWW altogether:
 * Minitel, the groundbreaking French online service, is discontinued after 30 years. ?Formerip (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've modified the proposed blurb. -- RA (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems a nice, neat tech story. I'm a little surprised the article merits the big, general "Citations missing" tag. Sure, not every fact is cited, but there's nothing terribly outrageous or contentious there. I think that it would be better to cut that tag and have people place tags where specifically they think the lack of citation is an issue. LukeSurlt c 17:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no associated talkpage discussion, so I boldly removed the tag. Formerip (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support if sufficient update is made (which it still hasn't been). Khazar2 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: What sort of update are we looking for here? It's been turned off. Can anyone describe what more needs to be said (or, better yet, add it to the article). LukeSurlt c 18:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The decision to shut down the service will not have been made in isolation - there will be some business case behind it. Explaining that would be the update.  All we have at the moment is a single figure that 810,000 terminals were still in use at some point this year.  How much were they being used?  How does that compare to former times?  How much revenue were they generating?  How much was the network costing to run?  That would be a sufficient and well developed update.  "It's been turned off" and not exploring why it has been turned off isn't. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC).

[Posted] Church of the Nativity

 * Comment. Whether this is the first Palestinian WHS is probably highly debatable (although - please - let's not), since East Jerusalem is on the list. Formerip (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its been recognised as the first, and is the first attributed to "Palestine" according to sources and the UNESCO. And thats whats in the news. /(not my words)Lihaas (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that debatable, if worded correctly. The State of Palestine became a member of UNESCO only last October. The admission of Palestine was noted in ITN then. --  tariq abjotu  20:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- What's special about it- that it's the first Palestinian World Heritage Site (not notable: we don't post every country's first WHS), or that the Church of Nativity was selected (not notable unless we have a precedent to post every time a new WHS is chosen)?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- per Bzweebl, but might be willing to change if this announcement gets major international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support based on the underlying controversy and growing news coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support I'm satisfied the blurb is factually accurate based on the official UNESCO treatment.  Ordinarily I would oppose something like this as pretty routine but Palestine's status does add a little notability.  I'm still not madly enthusiastic about it but it seems worthy enough of a weak support.  Update is good, this isn't a case of fudging the issue at or around the level of a minimum update but something considerably better developed. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Support Opposing routine recurring events which do not appear on ITN/R and are not notable in their own right is not actually a valid argument. In this case, the item is actually notable since it's the first UNESCO heritage site attributed to "Palestine". Palestine is a loaded term, expect harsh words from Israel and the USA. Further, we post firsts and largests all the time. First Spanish bank to get a government bailout, largest bank fine in the UK. Lastly, most nations with UNESCO sites had them long before WP existed, so the argument that we didn't post other first UNESCO WH sites doesn't exactly hold up. --IP98 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * However, it isn't like UNESCO just recognized Palestine. I don't think it has a such a large impact nor will US and Israel care greatly, unless it is the case that this is a way of recognizing Palestine.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Israel and the U.S. strongly opposed the emergency bid, arguing that the church is not under threat, a position backed by a U.N. experts committee." . First googled result, don't feel like finding more. Laptop is slow and old. We post other firsts all the time. --IP98 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the following sentence "Israeli officials have said they don't object to the church being listed, but reject the "endangered" label which implies culpability of Israel". The suggestion is for the listing of the Church as a World Heritage Site, not as an endangered World Heritage Site, be posted to ITN. --  tariq abjotu  20:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I concede. Lots of other valid points. --IP98 (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not their way of recognizing Palestine; they were admitted as a member eight months ago. --  tariq abjotu  20:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I think their points above are perfectly valid. --  tariq abjotu  20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome (and encouraged) to participate in the long and confusing discussion here. --IP98 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no need to. I don't need to put Bzweebl's comments into a category or a box to determine their validity. There is nothing that he said that struck me as invalid. --  tariq abjotu  20:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support Kinda interesting, some controversy, and besides the robot that never loses rock-paper-scissors and the possibly notable very recent earthquake in China, there's not much else in the news. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support for the robot that never loses Rock-Paper-Scissors! -- RA (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The update is obviously excellent, but I think it would be better if there were a little bit more support before posting. --  tariq abjotu  22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support, much as per Unique Ubiquitous. It's an interesting place, a story with a few odd facets, and a very good article update. LukeSurlt c 22:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose UNESCO's recognition of Palestine was already on here, this is far less important than that.  Hot Stop   04:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted I was waiting for some more remarks about this and Hot Stop's came after I already began posting the item. Nevertheless, the update seems exceptional (although a paragraph break or two would be nice) and the support appears sufficient. --  tariq abjotu  04:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whats notable is that its listed as "Palestine:" and NOT the of-controversial "Satate of..."Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is of utmost importance that the church is listed as in Palestine, NOT the state of Palestine. Please change it to Palestine with a pipe to the incorrectly titled article State of Palestine. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think the way articles are named on Wikipedia is wrong, initiate a move request. (If I recall correctly, this has been one of those perennial move requests, so I'd check out the history before doing so.) Palestine and the State of Palestine are the same thing in this context, just as Israel and the State of Israel are the same thing in nearly every context. But unlike with Israel, with Palestine that's often not the case. Palestine links to the article about the geographic region that includes Israel. As a result, we are to interpret that as meaning that "Palestine" primarily refers to the region on Wikipedia. We should not use Easter Egg links, especially when the meaning of the text would be ambiguous and misleading. Perhaps that's fine in the article, where more background is provided, but it's not fine for the Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  14:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its fine to link it to the Satte of.., but the wording should read Palestine as that is what is notable about this event. What Tel Aviv criticises as a move towards and what the Ramallah leadership are toasting it towards. Therein lies the controversy...note the monument on the list was not opposed by tel aviv as is, the circumstances made it so.Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, if UNESCO had stated the church was in the Palestinian territories or west bank there would have been no controversy, it was that UNESCO listed the church as being in Palestine, the state, that caused the uproar by Israelis and Americans as they refuse to acknoledge the existance of Palestine, the state. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a serious misunderstanding of the situation. Israel and the United States (among others; note that six countries -- none of them the U.S. or Israel -- voted against the church's listing) objected to the fact that this was fast-tracked, bypassing the normal eighteen-month listing process. They objected to the Palestinian claim that this needed to be listed immediately because it was under threat from the Israeli occupation. As our article concurs, the U.S. and Israel both thought the church was worthy of World Heritage Site status; they just objected to its endangered status. That being said, nothing in your comment contravenes my decision to write "State of Palestine" in the blurb; if anything, what you said supports it. --  tariq abjotu  00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "circumstances" being that the site was listed as endangered. --  tariq abjotu  00:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Finally notable news.-- GoP T C N 10:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Notable event of international interest. P.S. I'm posting now just so you don't feel it was too early to post.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I notice this is already posted but I don't agree. The problem here is that the I/P area is the worst battleground in Wikipedia in terms of POV warriors (sorry not sure what the nicer term for this is) on both sides pushing their viewpoints in opposition of neutrality.  One way this is happening is by taking stuff of questionable relevance and getting it on the front page.  I/P issues are oversensationalized in general and so I think we need especially strong proof of notability when I/P  "news" is proposed.  Is this news front page on very many newspapers?  If so, I haven't seen it.  Benwing (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support since it is the first heritage site chosen in Palestine, which isn't a fully recognized or sovereign country/territory and the decision is also surrounded in heavy controvery. On the side, the Church of the Nativity is one of the holiest sites in Christianity, so I think it being chosen as a UNESCO site is an ITN-worthy item itself. -- Plasma Twa  2  02:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Leap second

 * Oppose this has been done 25 times since 1972.  Hot Stop   13:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is poorly source and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leap_second&action=history not update]Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "not update"? What information is lacking? It has all the information it needs, and huge sections on the recent proposals on abolishing leap seconds. Thue (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, that article has a healthy "References" section. How do you argue that it is poorly sourced? Thue (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Inlin citations needed + IN updated need a couple of sentences ofprose to be updated as relevant to the current issue, NOT the topic as a whole.Lihaas (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While not every sentence has an inline citation, there are plenty of inline citations in the current article. Unless you have a specific claim in the article which you dispute, I think the article is well enough sourced. And the article has the perfect amount of content for the current event - any more would be Recentism, and following ITN guidelines for no other reason than to follow guidelines (and specifically not to make the article better). Thue (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thats what an ITN update consistuties and has been asked for here too man atimes.Lihaas (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not follow from "this has been done 25 times since 1972" that it is not newsworthy. Many newsworthy things have happened 25 times since 1972. Thue (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - how many of us were here in 1972? But Wikipedia was a lot simpler in those days. (One might just read a whole news item in 25 seconds!) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or 26 seconds if you did it around midnight. Formerip (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To me this follows the same logic as perfect games in baseball, which I oppose each time too. It's a notable enough concept but the fact that any individual occurrence isn't particularly ground-breaking or different from the numerous other occurrences means I doubt its worth as an ITN entry. GRAPPLE   X  14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think that leap seconds are in a whole other class than baseball games. On a slightly related note, I think ITN is way to sports-focused, compared to the real world news events that are happening. Thue (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not directly comparing leap seconds and baseball (for a start, I understand leap seconds); but my reasoning for opposing both is the same—one individual leap second isn't really that consequential and has no lasting impact or fanfare; the same is not true of the concept of adding leap time in general, which is much more important. GRAPPLE   X  15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, whadaya mean they're in a different league?  ! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment if well linked this sort of item shines a light on a whole region of interesting areas such as Horology and Astronomy far more interesting than the sporting factiod or death of a celebrity or obscure general election typical of ITN. Leaky  Caldron  15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too procedural and, to be honest, dull. The only update to the article in question in relation to this story is an extra line in a table. If the system for adding leap seconds was removed or significantly altered that might be a good (minority topic) item, however this is simply the established system proceeding as clockwork (pun intended). LukeSurlt c 15:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The theory of timekeeping is not dull! Thue (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Have we included leap days? Those are rarer. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Leap days are entirely routine and predictable, and as such not really news. Leap days are also not problematic with regards to clocks and computer systems, because they are predictable. Thue (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support pending update 25 times since 1972 is still pretty rare. Last one was 4 years ago. As I understand, opposing a recurring item which is not on ITN/R on the grounds that it is not on ITN/R and is not notable in it's own right, is actually not a valid reason to oppose. As such, this item must be posted. --IP98 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is completely updated as far as I can see. What "pending update" are you referring to? Thue (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The banner says needs update, and I couldn't find the minimum 5 sentences about this occourance in the article. Should be easy to write "A leap second will occour on X. It was decided by Y-body on Z-date. W organization has prepared for it with.... blah blah blah". --IP98 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Focusing on the consequences for this specific update would be recentism. But there are large amounts of information for the recurring issues for updates, which also holds true for this update. Thue (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- This piece of news has little effect on anyone, so I doubt many people will care to click on the article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will they give a tick? ;)Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Who gives a tock" :( Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ‘Leap Second’ Bug Wreaks Havoc Across Web. Thue (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose For the reasons given above. It's something which gets the 'isn't science weird' treatment on the news every so often, and then it fades again. I know scientists think it's something which demands attention but, really, it's nothing far removed from administration. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as has already been noted this is a routine procedural matter. It was announced on 5  January so hardly qualifies as "news" now. I'm also struggling to imagine what we can include that would possibly bring this up to the required update: proposals to abolish  leap seconds are a different story to this proposal. Finally I note that the nomination  statement is incorrect - UTC  is not the basis for all  local timezones. The UK still  officially uses GMT for example. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The second sentense of the GMT article is: "It is arguably the same as Coordinated Universal Time". Thue (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is only true in looser usages. GMT tracks the Earth's rotation and as such has no concept of leap seconds which exist to keep atomic timescales in step with GMT (technically now UT1, but that is essentially a more rigorously defined GMT).  This source explains the area reasonably well. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Interesting. But doesn't everybody in GMT follow UTC in practice (or perhaps UT1)? There doesn't really seem to be a real source of GMT time for setting your clock after, other than going to Greenwich and seeing when the sun is directly overhead. Thue (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Greenwich is a lot less tropical than you might imagine. Kevin McE (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, I mean overhead in a east-west sense :). Thue (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a nom for a future event is shot down because it's only the announcement, not the event. Now you're arguing that it was announced in January so it's not news now. I'm confused. --IP98 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Many (but not all) of the opposes to this item was of the form of slinging mud at the wall, and see what sticks. Especially Lihaas going to the article and randomly putting a "Citations needed" on the article, seemingly without having the slightest knowledge of the topic or having actually read the article. Really depressing lack of debating skills, really. Thue (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * discuss the content thats otherwise NPA.
 * At any rate, where are the sources then? Per WP conventions (and every debate has conventions lest it be a slanging match) sections need cites!Lihaas (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where do you the "WP conventions"? According to Citing_sources, the main rule is "In particular, sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Nowhere does it say that every section has to have cites. Thue (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Grapple X and lack of prominent international coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Similar mention on OTD today...that should do good. Time to close this?Lihaas (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, just hang on a second ... Martinevans123 (talk)

[Posted] SCOTUS on Health Care Act

 * Already included below in US Supreme Court decisions. --M ASEM (t) 14:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's hard to be sure not being in the US, but isn't that a bit of a slanted blurb? Might we not equally say ...providing access to health insurance for millions of previously excluded Americans? Formerip (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Confirming comment A highly slanted blurb. "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which required Americans to hold insurance, reformed the insurance industry, increased coverage for pre-existing conditions, and expanded access to insurance," or just lose "requiring" on forward. Hipocrite (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. We could also just not comment precisely, e.g. "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforming health insurance in the USA." -- RA (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2012‎ (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by this, do you support the form in your comment or oppose it? I think it is neutral and provides just enough more information that non-US readers will understand. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the primary purpose of the legislation can be succinctly described then we could include that description. But I find it highly unlikely that the US legislature passed the bill primarily so as to impose fines. Formerip (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have been a bit confusing, I was referring to the blurb directly above my post "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforming health insurance in the USA." I feel that it describes what the Act did well without slanting to one side or the other. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, apologies. Yes, that sounds like a neutral blurb. Formerip (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. As discussed earlier, a fairly big deal in a large, wealthy country. Cut the "requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty." part of the blurb, brevity is nice and it avoids accusations of bias. LukeSurlt c 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree, we need to explain it in more detail for non-US readers.  S Pat   talk 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the purpose of the linked-to encyclopaedia article? LukeSurlt c 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I feel that leaving the information out would be like if we, in the current current events just said for Nora Ephron, to just say "Nora Ephron (pictured) dies at the age of 71.", leaving out information about her.75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article to focus improvement efforts on would be National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a bit tricky, we have been focussing on the article Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, but it seems that the court has decided on NFIB v. Sebelius and mentioned Florida as a footnote (see here). Should we just merge all three articles (corresponding to dockets 398, 400 and 393) into the article on Sebelius?  S Pat   talk 15:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support merging, as this is what SCOTUS has effectively done with the cases. LukeSurlt c 16:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think both articles need the focus, since the decision does impact the functioning of the law. --M ASEM (t) 15:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unslanted. Strong oppose to the current blurb "requiring..." and "...Providing access to health...".  Slight appose to the version presented by Hipocrite as too long and confusing. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant. Would have been significant if it had not been upheld, and is just as significant that it is. -- RA (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support* STRONG SUPPORT FOR INCLUDING "REQUIRED" Please do NOT cut the mentioning of the requirement, as it is one of the main reasons it is controversial. It requires most citizens of the United States to have insurance but as a penalty if one does not, an added tax based on a percentage of ones income will be applied or a fixed amount set by the government will be used, based on whichever is higher.75.73.114.111 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not Wikipedia's place to legitimize the concerns of those who oppose the act. Wikipedia should remain neutral and allow readers to create their own opinion based on what they read in the article.  It is non-neutral and not encyclopedic for us to do anything else. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not for the purpose to legitimize concerns against the act, those are not opinions that I said, those are just facts. They are in the bill. To leave out the facts would mislead readers who have not read the bill.75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can be neutral but still point out how critical this was by saying "SCOTUS upholds the controversial PACA" (maybe "impacting health care in the United States"). We're not taking a side in that, simply hallmarking the law as one that is very diversive.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that as a replacement75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would pointing out that it was upheld in a 5-4 decision adequately show that it was controversial? Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me!75.73.114.111 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support A landmark decision. Major domestic and international coverage. --   Luke      (Talk)   16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support a slightly shortened blurb. Huge decision that received life updated coverage from the BBC and other media sites.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Keep the blurb as it is correct.--WaltCip (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though it is not neutral? Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The blurb as is may be correct but it is also unnecessarily picking and choosing (correct) facts. Best to keep the blurb to the absolute minimum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment should we link the reader directly to the decision? The article is incredibly long as it stands. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The verb ("upholds") should link to the decision, which was National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (SCOTUS have slightly wrong-footed us by deciding this rather than Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services as anticipated!) LukeSurlt c 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforming health insurance in the USA." then? Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we need to link SCOTUS in this (the back to back links are nasty)? Or you could make it passive to break up the links: "The PPACA, which reforms health insurance in the US, was upheld by SCOTUS." (with the same linked terms as above). --M ASEM (t) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The back to back links are nasty. I doubt readers will want to navigate to SCOTUS from the main page so removing that link will probably be the better option. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Marked as ready seems to be overwhelming support above and update is sufficient.  Hot Stop   16:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it ready, there doesn't seem to be support for the current blurb. Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd take the blurb from below that states simply that the court upheld the constitutionality of the mandate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support this: The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, strong oppose to this: ...requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty.-- В и к и  T   16:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think of "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act reforming health insurance in the USA."? It is neutral but provides slightly more context? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  16:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest this, from below... – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The United States Supreme Court rules in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, informally referred to as Obamacare, is constitutional.
 * Not accurate, as they ruled on the entirety of the law, not neutral, as "Obamacare" is what one side of a two sided debate calls it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reform" is a bit slanted as we still have not seen the effects of the plan and whether or not it constitutes a positive change. I support the structure of Muboshgu's blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reform" does not imply positive. The old form was old, the new form is different, it is reformed. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merriam Webster does state that reform implies positive. Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The OED is a bit better IMO. The motivation is to improve, whether it is actually an improvement or otherwise is to be seen. -- RA (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have italicized the decision, what in the above, would be bolded? Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the blurb should be as minimalistic as possible. Leave out words such as 'reform', 'penalty' or any mention of the individual mandate.  Definitely don't use the word 'Obamacare'.  The court upheld the entire Affordable Care act, not just the mandate.  I think Wikiwind's blurb is good, or something similar.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't fault BorgQueen for posting this, given the support this time around. On that note, this article's success should serve as a reminder that timing is everything in ITN nominations. But while I'm not for a minute suggesting that this article should be pulled at this stage, am I the only one uncomfortable with the precedent this could set? Ordinarily we only post more than once on ongoing situations where the facts change substantially, such as the Bahrain protests or the recent conflict in Libya. Fundamental healthcare reform in the US is obviously worthy of posting, and I'm sure even the most sceptical about ITN balance would concede that. But we did post the law's passing, yet now we are posting it again despite (to my knowledge) no change to the status quo. —WFC— 19:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that it is the Supreme Court Decision that is in the news. Perhaps National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius should be included and bolded since that is what occurred. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with WFC, it's not a change to anything. Unlike WFC, I'm still concerned with the US-centric nature of this kind of "nothing has changed but we belong in the news" article, (e.g. fifth story on the BBC homepage after multi-million pound indiscretions of Barclays, after flooding in the north of England causing death, Bomber Command being recognised in their part in ending the Second World War etc). This story doesn't change anything in the United States, so why should Wikipedia consider it be the most significant news item of the day? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that an American story is even on the front page of a British website (not to mention a Canadian one, an Australian one or Chinese one) means nothing.  Hot Stop   19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We always have US "news" posted on the BBC website, but it's behind many other less significant issues. It seems this is a non-starter outside the US.  Who cares?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, damage done, we've "posted" it based on the consensus. It means nothing to anyone outside of the United States, it means nothing has actually changed in the way the United States works, what a disappointing candidate for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this actually (as I've read the analyses) a major change in core US democracy is that because this was determined constitutional, this means that Congress can pass mandates like health care as a tax. (No comment if this is good or bad, just a comment). This does have influence above and beyond health care for future congresses.  It also, as most political analysts are asserting, going to be a key issue in the upcoming elections as the Republicans are going to try to do everything in their power to vote out the Act.  It's a small cog in the larger picture, but its one that the world has been watching for. --M ASEM  (t) 19:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the considered response, much appreciated. I still fail to see how this is internationally (or "in the news") significant.  Firstly it affects just "some" of the US, secondly it isn't any different from what it was yesterday.  I know there are small cogs, big wheels and all that, but we're just here to represent things that are significant to the English-speaking world, and this, really, isn't.  But that's my opinion, and I'm not American so no-one will really care, I accept that.  Best to just let it run its course on ITN and move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WTF? Three hours and three minutes from nomination to posting? In a global encyclopaedia where many editors were asleep during that period, on an item that could hardly be regarded as rapidly changing, hold the presses, must-know-now, breaking news, that's ridiculously indecent haste. There was no need to rush. Much better to get perspective from people all around the globe. Oh, and I completely Support this nomination. But please show some patience. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This nomination was posted on Monday originally, scroll down to see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we still need much better editing conventions here. There was no formal link between the threads. How is any casual reader to be aware of the connection? Why wasn't this thread made a continuation of the earlier one? HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a standard US-centric pseudo-significant approach. "You don't get it, go look".  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted the note that this was covered in the SCOTUS stuff from Monday (right at the top there) but people added to this instead of there. I think that's just an accident that we had both.  We should definitely close out one when duplicates like this occur. --M ASEM  (t) 20:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support-As the nom for this, I support the change to more neutral wording than my original suggestion "The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requiring nearly all Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty." Additionally, the blurb's "health insurance in the USA" should link to Health insurance in the United States.Smallman12q (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh floods and landslides

 * An updated article without an article? Seriously?Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

[Attention needed] [Posted] Battle of Gao/UPDATE: Destroyed World Heritage Site

 * Would need a better blurb, as it simply says "Azawad, Northern Mali" without explaining the unique status of Azawad. Maybe replace that with "in the breakaway region of Azawad in northern Mali". --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. I was also at a loss adding too much info (though necessary for context)Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nomination moved to 27th, the date on which the battle occurred. LukeSurlt c 15:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question- Is this the biggest conflict since the Azawadi declaration of independence?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In combination with the others (asmenioned in the article) yes. Though the Gao one was particularly violent. It had casualties and regional takeover (which was why the Azawad was posted)Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless we have a source. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have multiple sources, see the update.Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Weak Support per Khazar2. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support The biggest fighting there since April, and a notable milestone in the conflict as the first time that the Islamists clearly have the upper hand. (Previously, the Tuareg nationalist forces were assumed to be the dominant force). But the situation remains fluid, and this would be our fourth or fifth Mali conflict story in as many months--hence the "weak".Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Khazar2 and Lihaas.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure yet. We have just two supports and two weak supports. Let's wait to see what an admin thinks.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * updare is ready though for the article ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: 3 of the 16 sites in Timbuktu have been destroyed by Ansar Dine (who allegedly said they will go after the others too). That is notable akin to the Buddhas in Afghanistan...except that this is a Muslim structure taken down by Muslims.Granted well not have 2 WHS stories, but still..
 * The article is fully ready and updated and the AD are heading to take down more mosques/mausoeleums as we speak. Its all over the news.Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, with mention of the WHS destruction in the blurb and article. LukeSurlt c 11:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the part about the World Heritage site; BTW Gao is a further WHS. Khuft (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE AD have confirmed (in certain terms) that the destruction was related to UNESCO's action. May want to include that.
 * This has been ready for over 24 hours and its not even stale as the destruction have renewed today and probs going on as we speak...can it be posted??Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  14:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Phew! But can we move it to the top as this is still ongoing.
 * Its ongoign today too . Should at least be above Palesitine if not euro cup.Lihaas (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not going to keep getting moved up and up. It needs to be set at a date and stay there. The article puts it at between June 26 and June 27, so it seems to be in an appropriate location. --  tariq abjotu  19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Barclays bank handed record fine over interest rate manipulation



 * Oppose A bank in Europe is sure to garner heaps of "obvious support", but the FSA is only 11 years old, so the largest fine in the history of the agency isn't exactly a stretch. The update doesn't explain how the FSA fined £59.5 out of a total fine of £290 (who got the rest??). It's a big number, but consider that Goldman Sachs paid $550 USD 2 years ago in fines, it's not spectacular. --IP98 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per IP98 and thin coverage (no mention on front pages of NYT, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc.). Khazar2 (talk)
 * Support A record fine, which usually ticks our boxes. Front page of the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, the I, The Times. Leading news bulletins at the time, and still high up in post-discussion shows. Remember, this is a bank which didn't just send out a few badly worded emails, it was manipulating figures for its own gain. Highly notable doktorb wordsdeeds 07:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. From what I've read, the market they were illegally manipulating had a theoretical value of greater than the entire total GDP of the world, it's certainly a big deal. The economics behind it are fiendishly obtuse though - which means it is exactly the sort of thing an encyclopaedia should be looking to explain. If someone who knows what on earth is going on can write either an article or a decent section for this scandal I would support posting it on ITN - currently I don't think this update is sufficient. LukeSurlt c 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per LukeSurl above. If the 'record fine' isn't considered that important, then stating '£290 million' would be fine. Modest Genius talk 12:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree it would be excellent to have a full explanation of the technicalities, but the article is already sufficiently updated. This seems like one of the biggest examples of banking malfeasance in history. If the fixing was successful (which does not seem clear), then it appears to mean that the banks were effectively stealing from everyone in the UK with a loan. Blurb is too wordy, though. Formerip (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggested shorter blurb: "Barclays is penalised with a record fine for its attempts to manipulate the Libor and Euribor." I think I agree with FormerIP, we have sufficient detail to post as is. Hopefully an economist will see the post and improve the relevant articles to explain what this all means! LukeSurlt c 14:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wangdue Phodrang Dzong
--61.245.26.17 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd think that Wangdue Phodrang Dzong would need its own article before it could be mentioned on the front page. LukeSurlt c 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to support this one, but I tentatively agree with LukeSurl. Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but the article needs an update and the blurb is awful.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Lost by fire'? Did the fire own it or something? 'Burns down' maybe. Modest Genius talk 13:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but I'd say "400-year-old", leave out who it was built by, and say "lost to fire". -- RA (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with changed blurb per RA. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] European Union Microsoft competition case

 * Comment. This is a minority topic (business/economics and/or technology), I have flagged it as such. LukeSurlt c 11:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once updated. Formerip (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Major business found guilty of a major crime. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Neutral significant case, but this is the rejection of an appeal, rather than the initial conviction. LukeSurlt c 23:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill wasn't on the hook for actually paying the fine until the appeals process ended, right? --IP98 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he wasn't. But paying this fine after the appeal was rejected is a must for Microsoft, unless they don't like to proceed with other sanctions or even to lose the market in the European Union.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This is the end of the case, and is quite a significant blow to Microsoft.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - (Likely) end of a major legal case and business story. Article is now updated and ready to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sinn Fein meets British queen

 * Support. Admittedly an oddity, but the backdrop makes this seem a grand gesture on a geopolitically significant scale. __meco (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Significant for all manner of reasons - the killing of Lord Mountbatten might be of interest if people aren't sure why, for a start-off. HOWEVER, I would consider a better URL to justify the nomination, maybe the news story of the meeting, when it happens? doktorb wordsdeeds 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment which part of the encyclopaedia has been updated/added to as a result of this story? The point of ITN is to highlight how Wikipedia has been updated as a result of recent events. I'm not a fan of these "no article specified" nominations. LukeSurlt c 08:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, there's any number of articles. Sinn Féin, Martin McGuinness, British–Irish relations, even the article on last year's visit. Choose one. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 10:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a bit of trivia but nothing more. What possible long term impact could there be from a handshake? No bold link to check for update. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, because "(bits) of trivia" make the top headlines across the world (CNN International, CBS, Irish Independent, El Mundo, El Pais)… —Strange Passerby (t × c) 11:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of stories at the top of headlines are rejected. Treyvon Martin is a great example of this. Maybe we should add a please do not for "Support a nomination just because it is in the headlines". --IP98 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the current blurb per IP98. There's no lasting international impact from a handshake. Nixon's handshake with Zedong in his visit to China in 1972 might have symbolic, but the trip itself had far greater ramifications.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We're not even talking about a meeting of heads of government here. It's silly enough to me that the 'jubilee' was such big nwes. Once Elizabeth II can negotiate with Northern Ireland, I'll change to support. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is actually a head of state meeting a head of government; the Northern Irish Assembly is led by a diarchy including McGuinness. GRAPPLE   X  13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I know McGuinness is a head of government, but I was focusing on the Queen in my opposition and failed to delineate. If he met with David Cameron, I'd consider it. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What if Barack Obama shook hands with Ayman al-Zawahiri? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Mub. He has met with past and present British PMs many times, as has Gerry Adams. I'm not certain you know UK & NI politics that well if you think such a meeting would be more notable than meeting HMQ. Leaky  Caldron  14:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly no expert on UK/NI politics. If he's had frequent meetings with UK PMs in the past, then I don't see why his meeting the Queen now means anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It is undoubtedly major news, although purely symbolic in itself the entire history of the Northern Ireland peace process, which is the appropriate article for linking, has always been noted for acts of symbolism and grand gestures. That article however seems to be badly out of date.  Leaky  Caldron  13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This hasn't even been a major story in its place of origin, with papers such as The Irish News relegating it to short mid-paper articles. The feeling here is that it's little more than a PR exercise and not anything truly groundbreaking. GRAPPLE   X  13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be foolish of me to suggest that, in order to read about things that are happening today, you need to read tomorrow's edition of the Irish News? Formerip (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Biggest news story by far in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is where the event took place. You may be thinking about Republic of Ireland, a different country.  Leaky  Caldron  13:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of the north, where I'm currently sitting, having read the week's papers. GRAPPLE   X  13:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nip out and get the evening edition of The Belfast Telegraph, or better still put BBC News, Sky News or the radio on. Leaky  Caldron  13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but only once there is a complete update compliant with NPOV. Are editors opposing for lack of significance just passing through on a visit from another planet? Formerip (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Symbolic, but only symbolic. Unless anything interesting happens during the visit, this will be recorded in encyclopaedias as only a minor event in the story of the gradual improvement in the politics of the region. While it makes a fairly decent story (on a slow news day), it isn't of massive encyclopaedic importance. LukeSurlt c 14:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Please try and see this in its context, it most certainly is a mile-stone and important. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain the dubious notability of the handshake. For instance, United States President Barack Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama on February 18, 2010 was struck down unilaterally as an ITN candidate. Notability is not inherent - that logic is circular reasoning..--WaltCip (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, how does a royal figurehead and a deputy minister meeting improve diplomatic relations between two populations, which is what seems to be claimed here?--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at it this way: it wasn't merely a meeting between a "royal figurehead and a deputy minister", it was a meeting between the commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and a once-high-ranking IRA commander. The very definition of "never in a million years". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Added to which, on a personal note, the IRA was responsible for the murder of the Queen's husband's uncle when MM was a leading figure in the military wing of that organisation. Leaky  Caldron  15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose- Although I get upset when nominations are disregarded because they are merely the high point of an ongoing, gradual event, such as the present improvement of relations, I have not been convinced that this handshake itself was notable.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Even a few years ago, the idea that the Queen would shake the hand of a former IRA commander would have been fanciful. Her cousin, Lord Mountbatten, was assassinated by the PIRA in the 1970s. The long walk to the Good Friday Agreement was littered with dead bodies and blown up buildings. Every newspaper in the UK tomorrow morning runs with the photograph - it's not something, I concede, which might resonate around the world, but I suspect there are Irish Americans who didn't believe they'd see this as much as Irish and British people. It's notable, trust me on this doktorb wordsdeeds 22:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this just isn't resonating around the world. It didn't make the relatively large US edition NYT Home Page, or even the US edition politics page.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have not supported this, in part because the relevant article Northern Ireland peace process needs to be updated. However, with one notable exception, LukeSurl's, the opposes here should be disregarded by the closer. They are one of the worst collections of totally misinformed, non-encyclopaedic, ignorant statements. If people don't understand the topic at a sufficient level of detail I see no good reason for their opposes to be taken into account. Leaky  Caldron  16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Most of the opposes show an understanding of the topic at hand.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which ones and in what way? Leaky  Caldron  16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that all except maybe IP98's show an understanding of the topic, but that isn't to say IP98 doesn't understand it, just that he didn't express it clearly.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I have read the news article and briefed myself on the history of the IRA and Irish-British relations. Any alleviated tensions between these two long-feuding parties would most definitely be newsworthy and notable. A symbolic handshake is just that - symbolic. It does not show that there is any trend towards unity, because the Republicans are by and large bemoaning McGuinness' act. More likely, this will go down in history as an obscure and long-forgotten PR move. If that is not so, then significant events will occur that are newsworthy and merit posting on ITN. That you lump in my oppose among "totally misinformed, non-encyclopaedic, ignorant statements" is woeful.--WaltCip (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, your extended explanation simply further justifies my comment. Yes, it is symbolic. But symbolism of this kind is precisely what so much of the peace process has been based on. Sinn Fein pointedly refused to agree to this gesture last year on the Royal visit to the ROI. It is being described by reliable sources as "history in the making" and "a powerful symbol of reconciliation". While it may be POV, I prefer their's to yours. Leaky  Caldron  17:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose A gesture that is possible because of what has happened over the course of many years, but not the goal to which those changes were oriented. Peace treaties are ITNworthy: the leaders of entities previously at odds with each other having a non-decision making encounter many years later is not.  McGuinness is not the leader of the party, and other Sinn Féin representatives were involved in the Dublin visit last year.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Provisional (fnarr) support if mention is made that McGuinness was also a former IRA leader; in this context, it's very newsworthy. As Huw Edwards has just said on the News at 10, it'd have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Sceptre (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - A day after the event, "Handshake Wednesday" pops up on the BBC Northern Ireland page as an editorial.--WaltCip (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is significant, but it needs re-writing to put it in context and for factual accuracy (he was not "the first Sinn Féin politician to do so", the Sinn Féin Mayor of Cashel broke party ranks to greet the Queen in the Republic of Ireland last year). -- RA (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but I think that McGuinness should be described as a 'former IRA leader' as well as a Sinn Fein politician. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggested rewording:"Former IRA commander and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness, shakes hands with Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in a act of reconciliation."-- RA (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is not an important event, some people following protocol. Speciate (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nora Ephron

 * Support- Article needs an update, but this meets DC #2.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A much higher quality candidate than most of our literary postings. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't see much evidence that she meets our death criteria.  She never won an academy award, for example, which would be a basic benchmark for criteria #2.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, only a BAFTA. And is her being noted as an author, journalist, and award-winning playwright all zilch compared to the winner of that Irish literary prize we posted but which no one can remember? μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Irish literary prize you mention is evidence that a writer is 'at the top of his/her field' and recognized as such.' In the field of screenwriting, I don't see evidence that Ephron is more notable than dozens of other screenwriters. --Johnsemlak (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take that back; she's definitely getting news coverage. Still, the update needs to be ok.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The news's current top placement on NYT, CNN, and BBC testifies to her legendary reputation. Few screenwriters receive such treatment. Khazar2 (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support probably one of the most influential and well-known screenwriters of all time, especially in women's rights. A huge literary figure as well, beloved essayist. New York Times has a three page obituary written on her and discussing her impact which is an indication of clear notability. She was also active in her field until her death (Julie & Julia), and it was completely shocking as she kept her illness private. As for the Oscars, the movie industry has always been dominated by male figures and the Oscar voting usually aligns with them so it's a bit irrelevant, but she was one of a select few females who was on equal footing with them. As qualified of an entertainment candidate for ITN it can possibly get. Secret account 05:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would consider the lack of Oscars 'irrelevant' if there was a widespread consensus that she was denied Oscars because she was a woman. Is there such an opinion that she should have won an Oscar for, eg. When Harry Met Sally?  Otherwise, I don't think the lack of such recognition can be ignored.  The lack of Oscars has been cited as a reason not to post deaths of other Hollywood figures.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm persuaded by Secret to support this nomination. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Her name seems to have been very big primarily in the United States. Her international impact seems much less significant. __meco (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that she won a BAFTA seems to say differently. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. This seems to be getting a lot of press around the world. It's possibly because its an otherwise relatively slow news day, but still, as per Secret above, this death is a sufficiently big deal for ITN. LukeSurlt c 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending update Secret is right, but there should be some reactions by other prominent people in her field to back it up. --IP98 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support once updated. Rightly or wrongly, we celebrate screenwriters less than actors or directors and 71 is not young. Formerip (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Fairly big news here even, honestly it is not everyday we post about someone of her profession dying. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose how many people have seen any of her movies? Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is that a reason to oppose? And anyway, I have seen one of her movies.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just the three oscar nominated scripts grossed about US$405 million in the United States; so probably a few folk. That said it's not exactly a shock that a gravely-ill septuagenarian has died. Ephron's more than notable, but I wouldn't say her passing is. GRAPPLE   X  15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering her movies have made over a billion dollars at the box office alone, quite a few. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support and please note this is a B class biography. Somebody who made a difference but didn't try to get famous. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Algo Centre Mall collapse
A mall roof collapsed in northern Ontario, Canada. One is dead, one was alive as of Monday, but there's ten missing currently. When they manage to get crews or robots into the mall's centre, and confirm causalities, can this qualify? There was no article on the mall before the collapse, and the article has 36 references so far, including an extensive section about previous issues in the mall, with the roof and parking on the roof.

Searches on Google News for "Algo Centre" in quotation marks bring up 12,100 results. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, once they do confirm the casualties, the news story will have gone stale. And it's a nice article, but the cleanup tag will need to be removed. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  00:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's two other editors actively maintaining the article, and one of them just removed it, having made some additional changes. Would it be within parameters of ITN when the number of casualties remain unknown? --  Zanimum (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose- The magnitude of this collapse is too minor for ITN, but the article is very good.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good update to the article (though I think that the collapse should be a subsection of prior issues, not the other way around). Wide media coverage. A rare event for the industrial world. Their Prime Minister has offered the armed forces, which has made it a national story. No minimum threshold for disasters on ITN. --IP98 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll certainly take that reordering comment under consideration. The last 24 hours have seen a great number of changes to the article. --  Zanimum (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The collapse was a subsection of prior issues, but I reversed the order, as the collapse is more notable than the prior structural issues, which would not be of note should the collapse not have occurred. I was also following precedent on other structural collapses articles which usually state the results of an investigation after the collapse, including prior problems in that section. But with all decisions, there is room for argument. I will look into the MOS for some guidance. Acebulf (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I seem to have a new idea for the layout that should fix the problems. It should take about an hour. Acebulf (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool with me. (I have also asked for comment on WikiProject Disaster management, previously.) --  Zanimum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: New layout, same great taste. I just finished the new layout, which is more of a timeline of the mall's history rather than focusing on the collapse. Acebulf (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a single casualty. Nergaal (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support based on the quality of the update. Khazar2 (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not enough casualties, which sounds crass I know, and the blurb is hideous doktorb wordsdeeds 05:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand that logic. There was a major structural collapse of a large public structure. Deaths aren't the only thing making this notable. --IP98 (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt I should strengthen IP98's comment: not only is this structure public in the sense of a community landmark, but many governmental functions run out of this building. --  Zanimum (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Magnitude of this accident is too limited. __meco (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - making international news. The number of deaths is not important as the attention this has received. It is unique both because of the remote location (nearest city of any size is 100 miles away, nearest significant city is a days drive), the politicking in the rescue effort, the severity of the collapse (how often do we hear of cars crashing through a roof?), and the humanitarian effort to rescue people and ignore the meek orders of the Ministry of Labour. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I've changed the blurb to something more standard. As those missing are now unlikely to be found alive the magnitude of the disaster is larger than a single fatality, though still relatively moderate on an international scale. As per Floydian, there's more to this than simply a casualty figure, and the article update is very good. LukeSurlt c 12:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose imagine all the flak this would get if this happened at a US mall?  Hot Stop   15:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support As IP98 meant, mall roofs don't collapse that easily, especially in such a developed country like Canada so this is clearly a unique case for ITN. I don't know if it's front page notable though thus the "weak". Secret account 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too localised and not really notable enough to be of a worldwide impact. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 22:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

United States Supreme Court rulings
These nominations have been broken up into sections for the purposes of clarity. I'll leave it to the posting admin to determine whether they should be re-merged on the template if more than one goes up. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The idea of ITN is to alert users as to how the content of the encyclopaedia has been changed or added to as a result of recent events. At the time of writing, none of these nominations have an associated article. These need to be assigned before the candidates can be assessed. LukeSurlt c 19:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am assuming the articles will be the cases themselves. That would be the only possibility that would make sense.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka. Obamacare on Thursday. There are many individual articles on these related cases, such as Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. I don't see why any of these should be posted before the Obamacare ruling, which obviously overshadows these others in notability. --hydrox (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support ACA ruling, oppose S.B. 1070; the Arizona case only has really national significance, slightly international. The ACA ruling will have international significance, and will change the tenor of both presidential campaigns no matter the ruling. Neutral on juvenile life without parole. Sceptre (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support SB 1070. Sets important precedent for other US border states, got wide attention in the USA and in Latin America. Waaaaa if no one cares in Europe. --IP98 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And as for the rest of the world...? HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the far more important healthcare ruling is coming, and even that is US-centric. Speciate (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose is this blurb even in English? What does it mean to anyone/anything?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No more confusing than "The 7th G-20 summit is held in Los Cabos, Mexico.", "The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt dissolves the country's parliament.", or "Jon McGregor wins the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award for his novel Even the Dogs.". You click the link, it's the blue text in the paragraph, and you learn about the thing you clicked. You didn't care to click the link, that's your problem. --IP98 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is heading for the main page. It should be intelligible beyond clicking on abstract blue links.  It's not "my problem", I'm asking what this actually means because we're a global website and this is not accessible at all.  Please revisit the blurb and let us understand why anyone outside of Arizona should give a damn.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Every year there are rulings more important than this.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Of purely local significance and ITN is not a legal digest. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support of these three nominations this one strikes me as have the greatest long-term repercussions. The US is virtually unique in having permitted juvenile life with parole and has attracted criticism for the practice over human rights concerns. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose total 180 from Crispmuncher. Describes a small number of capital cases committed by juveniles in the US. Only of international interest as a way to pejoratively laud the US for finally catching up with the civilized world. Zero international repercussions. --IP98 (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the far more important healthcare ruling is coming, and even that is US-centric. Speciate (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose really not that significant in a country with bizarre sentencing regimes where people can be sent to prison for hundreds and hundreds of years. Another (albeit positive) glitch.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Every year there are rulings more important than this.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per my oppose above. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - iff the article gained +1000 words, rationale- the US maybe "finally catching up with the civilized world." Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See also Sceptre's comments on this on the Arizona immigration case (comments made before section broken up). Crispmuncher (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment: It would seem that SCOTUS has delayed ruling on this until Thursday. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support when it happens on thursday, the appropriate article would probably be Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services.  S Pat   talk 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose what does this mean? What is the "affordable care act"?  Why is it newsworthy?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Of all the nominations, this is the most worthy of the front page. There's depth, breadth and history which works very well and this nominations ticks far more 'world wide' boxes than the others. Whilst accepting that the blurb might need a tad translation, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be put onto the front page. The other two are, in my opinion, just a tad too 'domestic'. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But what is "affordable care act"? If someone could improve the blurb so this made sense outside of those interested in it in the USA, it would be beneficial to this nomination.  What's the significance, I don't see this anywhere on the BBC website for instance.... Is this really "in the news" or is this just "in the US news"?  I strongly suggest reviewing admins allow 24 hours (or at least time for Europe to wake up and read this) before posting, the blurb at least offers no indication to the significance of this story to anyone outside USA.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The decision won't be released for a couple more days - that is why it is not "in the news" much yet. When it is announced, I guarantee it will be covered around the world, likely as the lead story on BBC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked the blurb to the article for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I have half a mind to add "sometimes known as 'Obamacare'" right after the page to the law. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, i don't usually do this, but why are you setting the bar higher for U.S nominations? I don't think anybody is ever this aggressive in discussing non-U.S items.  I don't think Gary Speed was particularly well-known outside of football circles but users here were so charged up they were going to be "ashamed" or disgusted or some other strong emotion if Wikipedia didn't feature him on ITN. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this really a higher bar for U.S. nominations? I cannot recall us ever posting decisions by any other country's supreme court or equivalent. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dissolving of parliament by Egypt's supreme court. Kidding, of course, that is a seriously big deal.  I totally understand the need for explaining this to non-Americans, but I object to the idea that this going up would make ITN an "In the U.S news" ticker.  To me it feels that every U.S item needs to be raked over coals to make it on the list and is subject to way more due diligence than others. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- A landmark case in US history.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with Bzweeb. Thue (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The ruling on universal health care is, to quote Joe Biden, a big fucking deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: how's this for a hook?
 * "The United States Supreme Court rules in CASE that [part of/the individual mandate in] the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, informally referred to as Obamacare, is [un]constitutional."
 * Obviously can be edited. Sceptre (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it. The hook should link to PPACA, the specific court case, and the individual mandate pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The case is Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Again. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again what?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - major "rich, developed, and democractic" nation refusing to care for their own people Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if it's ruled unconstitutional (similar logic to Unique Ubiquitous) but Oppose if it is ruled constitutional as 'not news'.EdwardLane (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose if the act is ruled constitutional, support if it is ruled unconstitutional. I agree with Muboshgu for the most part, but assuming no change to the status quo, we rightly reported the "big fucking deal" when it was signed into US law. —WFC— 10:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Unique Ubiquitous. Not news except for attacking US policies. PS: the "nation refusing to care for their own people" isn't on it's knees begging for EU handouts, so sucks to your socialism. --IP98 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait. We're putting the cart before the horse here. Let's see what the verdict is, see what the ramifications are (esp. in regard to the changing or updating of encyclopaedic content), then decide whether it is an ITN item. LukeSurlt c 21:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update. Ok, the decision is out, but as we now have prove of not trying to parse complex opinions in 5 minutes, it will probably take an hour for the affirmation of the result. Preliminary reads (after the first 5 minutes) says the ACA is upheld, which is rather significant (it involves powers of congress + taxes, apparently), so this is likely going to be significant news. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the blurb accordingly, but as more details come out, we may need to alter it some more. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose a law not being overturned is not news. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Lonesome George

 * Support: Highly notable in its field, I cried when I found out he had died :( --Τασουλα (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, a species visibly going extinct, highly notable, widely known. --Golbez (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * George was iconic enough that I won't oppose, but he is assumed to be the last of a sub-species, not of a whole species, and the article does hint at the possibility that there are others, either in Prague or among the tortoise population of a neighbouring island. Intra-specific hybridisation means that the Pinta Tortoise is not so much extinct as re-integrated with sister subspecies within C nigra.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Besides being the last member of a now extinct subspecies, Lonesome George was a well-known animal and emblematic of conservation efforts. This should be a simple YES decision to make. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Crispmuncher. Khazar2 (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I have nothing to add other than agreement with everything written above doktorb wordsdeeds 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There is clear consensus and article doesn't seem to have any problems. We don't have to wait for the timer to post this, do we?  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons mentioned. Also, George was something of a symbol for the Galapagos Islands and his death is a big shock. When can this be posted? -- Peter Talk page 07:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support - the epitome of an encyclopaedic event. I suggest also linking the name of the subspecies, and including the word 'extinct' in the blurb. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 09:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The posted blurb doesn't actually link to Lonesome George. --LukeSurlt c 10:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lonesome George redirects to Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni. —David Levy 10:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that when drafting the blurb which is why my proposed blurb was only single-linked. It would have been nice to get "Lonesome George" in there somewhere if only for name recognition purposes- it is probably what people are going to be looking for - but I'm not going to start kicking up a fuss about it. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC).


 * An important tortoise(Lonesome George) dies which Wikipedia correctly refers to as Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni. Some news agency uses a previous little used English name of the topic, someone edits Wikipedia to use the news source, someone seeing the article contents move the article ignoring relevant guidelines and then ITN copied new article name because ITN articles defers to the supporting article. Reversal of page move takes 7 days, leaving ITN error on main page for potentially 7 days. CrazyRegards, SunCreator (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I know what Lonesome George was, but Pinta Island Tourtise sounds like a layman response to "Chelono-what-is?". Mention the name of the tourtoise in the blurb and move the article back to the scientific name. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than complaining about this all over Wikipedia, why don't you just move it back? --  tariq abjotu  18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't move it back since, I'm not an admin. I did open a move request however. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you since your were the admin to create the problem in the first place? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I am 100% not dealing with SunCreator on this matter, as (s)he has made it very clear (s)he prefers complaining and pointing out a mistake rather than just fixing it. SunCreator's characterization of this has been consistently wrong. I didn't just decide today that I wanted the article to be called Pinta Island tortoise. The version of the article was clearly an article that should have been called "Pinta Island tortoise", as this common name was the primary name. And this was not just put in the article yesterday; it has been the primary and sole common name in the entire article since July 2010 (well before even the scientific name was changed and updated in March 2011). It has been the primary and sole common name in the body of the article since September 2007 (before the article was renamed from Lonesome George). Not until today did SunCreator make any effort to correct this, even though it's apparent s/he looks at and edits the article from time to time. And yet, for some inexplicable reason, (s)he has portrayed this as a mess I generated on my own for no reason.
 * Look at the date on the diff you posted - it's today. I've had no reason to get involved before as the article title has been for years in line with WP:FNAME guidelines. Where is your WP:AGF and why as an admin do you choose to ignore a main page error when it's pointed out to you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And, even still, when SunCreator contacted me on my talk page, I said I don't particularly care if you move the article back. And guess what he said? My issue is not with the page move so much. I told him that what's on the Main Page should match the article and even after being told that again on WP:ERRORS, he still didn't initiate a page move (and, once again, claimed that my move was a response to something that happened yesterday). If SunCreator wanted this fixed, it would have been fixed. He either doesn't or is dragging his heels to gain more unwarranted criticism of my move and create an unneeded shitstorm. Either way, as I told him, if he wants to insult my intelligence, as he did in the discussion on my talk page, I'm not interested in helping him. There are hundreds of administrators on this site -- and he didn't even need one until an hour ago to reverse the page move -- and he chose to go this least productive route. I'm not sympathetic to him at all and, as I said to him hours ago, I don't give a damn where the article is located . --  tariq abjotu  18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You got the sequence of events incorrect, I posted the error on the main page and later tried to talk to you and once you did not help opened a page move. It's not the article title that is the issue, rather that the main page is in error. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or rather, rather than complaining about this all over Wikipedia, why didn't you just move it back? I see as of an hour ago, you couldn't move it because someone else added an edit to the page of the scientific name. However, since you dragged your heels about this and (oddly) continued complaining about it when you were told that you could move it back, it hasn't been done yet. A bit strange, but as I said, I'm not helping you with this. --  tariq abjotu  18:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you acknowledge that you screwed up in moving this prematurely and/or without investigation, but stubbornly refuse to actually do something about it? Sounds pointy. I'm not sure about SunCreator, but this is the only venue I have raised this issue at. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I said. But I see that, like SunCreator, you like mischaracterizing actions to raise drama. I have more important things to do on Wikipedia, and in real life, than sit around and be a target for shit like this. So bye. --  tariq abjotu  19:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually trying to show that you were being a dick by acknowledging that you created an issue while refusing to correct it. You can take your balls and go home, but you've only proven the point and made it easier to correctly characterize you at future appearances. Good day to you sir. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the redirect. I am ambivalent about the article's title, but I didn't want my well-meant edit to stand in anyone's way. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Mohamed Morsi

 * I was just nominating. I suggest blurb is modified to "The election commission officially announces Mohammed Morsi has defeated Ahmed Shafik in Egypt's first free presidential elections."  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the original blurb. It is simpler, yet factually accurate. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It also makes it seem like normal/regular elections. This wasn't the case when Obama was elected . Mohamed CJ  (talk)  15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

contribs) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Meno25's blurb.  B zw ee bl  (talk •
 * Support I hope it is put without delay. It is very significant.Egeymi (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support & Question: Is he instantly the new president or only president-elect right now? --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * He is still president-elect. He will take office on the 1st of July. --Meno25 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - first free-elected president.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously notable, it's just a question of getting the articles/blurb correct. One thing of note, when the expansion of the military powers was announced a while back, it was nominated, but not posted, with some calls to incorporate that story into the election results story (this was before the results were delayed). So, the question is, do we add any extra details about the political situation in Egypt to this blurb, or simply stick to just reporting the result? LukeSurlt c 16:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - why does it say "article needs updating"? The whole article is the update (100+ line update :) ), and seems fairly up-to-date to me. Thue (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it does need an update. Very little information is provided on the outcome of the election. --  tariq abjotu  19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a huge section named "results" with a detailed table of votes. Plus some text both in that section and in the "results" section. Surely you can't call that "Very little information"? Thue (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You frequent ITN/C, so I don't feel the need to elaborate further on why what is currently there is obviously insufficient. --  tariq abjotu  21:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support First democratic election in Egypt the largest Arab country, major episode in Egyptian revolution and Arab Awakening. --17:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Al Ameer son (talk)
 * P.S. Prefer blurb that includes fact that this was Egypt's first democratic presidential election. Very important detail. Suggest "Mohamed Mursi elected President of Egypt in first democratic elections." --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Egyptian_presidential_election,_2012 needs to be filled in before posting.  Spencer T♦ C 17:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but urge restraint in claims of this compared to previous elections. In conversation, I would happily describe this as the first democratic presidential election in Egypt, but in an encyclopaedia the standard of examination and neutrality to which such an absolute claim is subject should be very high.  The election on 2005 was apparently flawed in many ways, but the US monitor certainly didn't denounce it as non-democratic. For us to say that this is the  "first democratic election" requires us to assert that there has been nothing democratic at all about the previous ones: we might do so in conversation, but I believe that we can't do so to an encyclopaedic standard. Kevin McE (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's also arguably far from entirely clear that this election has been democratic. Formerip (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A much more objective point (that implies the same conclusion) is that this is the first presidential election following last year's Egyptian revolution. I never was under any impression that "first free election" or "first democratically elected president" would or should be in the blurb. --  tariq abjotu  19:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Al Ameer son, an administrator, had proposed it, and no-one had countered: many people had included it in their support comments, and reasons for suport are sometimes is reflected in the posted blurb. That's why I added the reservation.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Elections such as this should always be posted. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: A number of reliable sources support that Morsi is the first in a number of things. "first freely elected president Egypt has known" Reuters. "first freely elected president" Washington Post. "Egypt's first democratically elected leader" - BBC. "his nation's first democratically elected president" - CNN. "first president of Egypt since a popular uprising" "first time Islamists have taken the presidency of the Arab World’s most populous nation". France 24. "Egypt's first Islamist president on Sunday after the freest elections in the country's history" "The country's last four presidents .. all came from the ranks of the military. This is the first time modern Egypt will be headed by an Islamist and by a freely elected civilian." AP. It is also the top news story.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  05:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mohamed, if you'd like to see this on ITN, do something about this section please. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish to help, but I don't know the norms of election articles. Thanks for posting this anyway :)  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  07:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Mohamed Morsi article meets the minimum, so I'm going to bold it instead and post. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Ashton Eaton

 * comment on my reading of ITNR it says the record must be broken after a very long time with a very large margin OR highly publicized, not long time and highly publicized. The prior record was 9026, this one was 9039.  Some context for how big of a margin that is would be welcome. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not ITNR A very long time probably means decades, margin is not huge, and the event is not highly publicised in the same way as the 100m record is. No opinion on the notability of the story - couldn't care less about athletics - but it is highly inappropriate to assert ITNR so definitively on so shaky application of subjective criteria. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
 * The record was set before WP was around. How long do you want? This was one of the longer standing records in track & field.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Whether this is ITN/R or not is a big gray area, but regardless of this, I don't see it as being significant enough to post, because as Crispmuncher mentioned, it's not a highly publicized event. Notable sports websites either have it buried into their Olympics sections, or have it as a little blurb on their homepage, and that's it. You have to search for "Ashton Eaton" to find it on NYT, Reuters, etc. (not on the homepage). According to Google Trends, Lolo Jones is a trending topic right now, but Ashton Eaton doesn't seem to be getting attention outside of Eugene, OR (his hometown) and for some reason he's popular in Estonia (maybe Google Trends is a bad reference), but anyways it doesn't look like it gets a lot of social attention. Unless someone shows me that he blew the previous record out of the water, or that it is more significant than I really think it is, I would oppose it. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I want to oppose this as sports trivia, but Bzweebl is right, it clearly passes ITN/R criteria for a broken record. If we can post some footballer scoring 60 goals in a season, we can post this. To the objections above: 10 years is a very long time. How is it not? What would be a very long time? 15 years? 20? The counter for this event is now reset to zero, do we have to wait another 20 years to consider posting to WP? The last one was in 2k1, there was no WP to post then, so a mens decathlon world record has by definition not been posted to ITN. We're not flooded with them. Since it clears the first hurdle, objections based on coverage are moot. --IP98 (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Interesting. Over the years that this record has been broken, the points increase (See article) has increased by a pretty clear margin, which indicates when someone breaks this record, they really DO break it. I believe all records being broken in major sports should be posted anyway. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm pretty neutral about this, but the update does not yet look sufficient. I'm also confused, from reading the article, as to whether it is the decathlon world record that has been broken or the 1500 metres record. Formerip (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The update is eleven sentences. That is sufficient.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support New World record in athletics that broke the previous one standing 11 years is a notable news. Moreover, news related to athletics usually receive decent attention worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see how breaking an 11-year old world record isn't newsworthy. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   14:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Newsworthy record. The update looks sufficient.  I have copyedited it for style and clarity and fixed the lead.  As such, article is ready to post IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Syria shoots down Turkish fighter aircraft

 * I'd support updating Syria-Turkey relations as opposed to creating an independent article about this incident. It seems to be a relatively minor occurrence in the grand scheme of things, so I'm opposed to putting it up on the main page.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 07:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but my position is almost entirely reversed to Master&Expert. Providing enough coverage to meet normal update requirements inside of Syria–Turkey relations would be disproportionate coverage in that article.  I would suggest a fresh article is the better route although that does mean a much bulkier update than tacking it in somewhere that it doesn't really belong.  I've not had a look around but I'd be surprised if no-one has done any work on this. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose for now. The incident doesn't appear to have had major consequences, and Turkey is taking a cautious approach in its response. Khazar2 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support given continued media coverage and growing consequences. Khazar2 (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- This is having a significant impact on the already suffering relations between the two countries. The article has now been updated.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a cassus belli for NATO, although it doesn't seem to have legs. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unless this turns into a major conflict, it seems to be very minor dispute, despite the fact that it's a hot topic. Both nations are trying not to enrage the other after what happened, and it doesn't look like they will start to clash as a result of this. Might become more of a tense situation if the pilots were never found or were killed as a result, but both sides are out looking for them now. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no retaliation seems to have occurred. Speciate (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Penn State sex abuse scandal

 * Support. One of the biggest sport stories of the previous year coming to a close today. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Lots of Media Attention. The scandal caused a chain of events that resulted in the firing of Joe Paterno and major damage done to the reputation of Penn State University, both of which were top sports-related stories throughout this year. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support major criminal case. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support conclusion to one of the biggest sex abuse scandals and sports scandals in recent memory, we posted (though controversially) some of the fallout of the case before, but now that the trial is over the effects of it is clearer. Needs some updating though. Secret account 04:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's certainly not see this go up without more than three supports. This is a rather commonplace local story regarding a minor player with no international import.  I watched the verdict announced myself and wept in joy when I saw it but it has no lasting import other than the pleasure of a well-deserved mob lynching. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Now that western Europe is awake, let's take another perspective. This story has not been reported anywhere, by anyone here, and as was the case when the nomination was railroaded through last year, there is almost no greater perspective. It's a sex scandal, yes, but there are (unfortunately) sex scandals of this kind all over the place without being put on the front page of Wikipedia. There's a story like this on the front page of my local newspaper, incidentally, and only WP:POINT is stopping me from nominating it just to prove the point. Let's not be so US-centric that a minor event concerning just one State in a country the size of the US is put on the front page. It would be highly biased of us doktorb wordsdeeds 04:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, it's the second top story on the BBC News website when viewed from Asia. So I wouldn't say that it "has not been reported anywhere, by anyone here" — the BBC clearly are. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 04:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There have also been print articles about it in The Guardian, for what it's worth. GRAPPLE   X  21:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I imagine there is an update, but I'd certainly like to see more support than this. There has been only about two hours since the story broke, so there wasn't exactly a long window to comment. This article was already posted back in November, so it's not like we haven't covered this story before. And, given the controversy about posting that last story, I'd like to see strong consensus to have a continuation of that posted again. --  tariq abjotu  04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am curious if we would ever hear an argument that a state court's legalizing "gay marriage" would ever be opposed except by a US conservative on the grounds it just involves one State? The fact that local stories happen locally is hardly an issue. To call stories from the US US-centric because the US has 50 states is simply special pleading. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely you're not responding to me. --  tariq abjotu  06:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. μηδείς (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Coverage in Australia, United Kingdom, China, France, Japan, Ghana, Canada, India, Singapore, Mexico, Czech Republic.  Spencer T♦ C 04:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like AFP reposed the Reuters post. LOL! That's not international coverage, it's the blogosphere! --IP98 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This has already been posted once and nominated who knows how many times. This is primarily a US domestic story of little wider significance.


 * Yes, I say that even taking account of Spencer's comments - for a start you can always find an obscure international page nowhere in the site's running order covering a story internationally, that is simply the nature of the web. Here, the BBC's coverage is not British but in the US and Canada area of their international site.  Many of the others are simply recycled newswires and two point to exactly the same page.  A couple of the other appear to be little more than content scrapers of the form we wouldn't accept as sources.  If this is the top international coverage such a lack of investment in covering it is actually indicative of a lack of international notability. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Oppose of no significance outside the US. LukeSurlt c 10:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose reposting a wire story on bbc.co.uk does not make the coverage or interest international. I found a Times of India article for the Miami face eater. Oppose this story because while sad it's mundane and unimportant. Even in the USA the only reason the TV cares is because of some college football coach "Joe Pa". If it had been Ted Smith in Kansas city no one would care. --IP98 (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The major impact of this story was back when this shook up the football staff back in Nov (IIRC). This is followthrough without any major expected repercussions (compared with, say, the Rodney King trial where heightened issues of race were raised). --M ASEM  (t) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral but I think that, if this were to go up, it'd be much better to wait until he is actually sentenced. -- Plasma Twa  2  14:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem (though I continue to be disappointed in how many editors apply a "front-page international coverage is required" rule exclusively to US stories). Khazar2 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It was already posted, and its current scope is minimal. A guilty man gets convicted of a crime. This happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Sandusky himself isn't well-known outside of the scandal, so the importance of this isn't far from an ordinary case.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Fernando Lugo

 * Strongly support, an impeachment of a sitting head of state is certainly ITN relevant. Khuft (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, it is certainly significant. Egeymi (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've added the succession of VP Federico Franco to the blurb, as we typically post the appointment of new heads of state. However the Federico Franco article is pretty light, with only one ref (currently inaccessible and probably in Spanish). LukeSurlt c 22:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, but the newsworthy one is Lugo, not Franco (as this is not a regular change of heads of state due to expiration of mandate, but because of an impeachment of the leaving one), all main news reports will have Lugo in the headlines, and his article is the most obvious one for anyone seeking information about this event. It should be important to improve Franco's article as well, but that's secondary for this nomination. Cambalachero (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I translated the Spanish article about Franco, so at least it's not just an infobox. I will see if I get more specific info about him somewhere else (that article contains no info about his political career). Cambalachero (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done: I added more info about Franco's political career. Considering that we are talking about a politican who had not received any attention before some hours ago, I think it is reasonably acceptable. Cambalachero (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. This is noteworthy. Plenty of international coverage, too. ComputerJA (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Although the update is adequate in size, I would still like to see more. There are no reactions, for example. Formerip (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done I mentioned a pair of international reactions. However, there's no official position of the UNASUR yet (everything is being discussed and talked while we write here) Cambalachero (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Formerip (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Impeachment of a head of state is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Damn... Guess this will be the last we see of Lugo on the front page.--WaltCip (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How very unfortunate. What will we do without Lugo to refer to as our own meme? :( —Strange Passerby (t × c) 03:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support For reasons given above. 122.167.122.147 (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh god no not that picture again...  Spencer T♦ C 04:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose photo. This is the wrong picture! — howcheng  {chat} 06:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support That was a bit of a shotgun impeachment. What's the deal with the photo anyway? I guess I wasn't around then... --IP98 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This might help?  Spencer T♦ C 21:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of, doesn't explain the original meme though. *shrugs* I'm over it. Thanks. What's with the ! people put in front of vote? --IP98 (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turing
Richerman ''  (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Highly influential but historical figure. ITN worthiness has to be assessed on the notability of the events themselves, it can't be inherited from the figure they commemorate. On that basis this is well short. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC).
 * I note this is being added to OTD for tomorrow in any case. Surely one main page mention is enough? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC).
 * It doesn't appear to be on the main page at all - you have to click on June 23 at the bottom of the page to get to another page to see it listed. And are you really suggesting that at least 13 events over the next two days to recognise the centenary is not newsworthy?  Richerman ''   (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's newsworthy but minor news. Not front page stuff and not ITN stuff.  The threshold for memorials of any kind is historically very high: the tenth anniversary of 9/11 comes to mind of one that was front page news worldwide and still didn't make the grade.  ITN isn't bound by past precendent of course but this strikes me as orders of magnitude less significant than that. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Also, yes, it has made the main page for today. On This Day means exactly that - not that things gets posted the day before they occur. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. Actually, I was looking at the proposed main page for the following day when I made that comment but the inclusion of Turing's anniversary was tacked on as an afterthought and not very prominent, and I missed it. Richerman ''   (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- Celebrations, especially anniversaries like these, are usually not newsworthy and do not belong in ITN.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Bzweebl. Khuft (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Bzweebl. LukeSurlt c 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - a 100th birth anniversary would not normally qualify, but the fact that there are many events planned to commemorate him makes it more notable. Also his affinity with computer science. And his appearance at other ubiquitous net locations - he has pride of place at Google Search. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His status within computer science is what makes him noteworthy, not what makes these events noteworthy. In any case why should we post specifically because of his status within the field?  That, or the fact that other tech-orientated websites are marking this, does not mean we should.  Almost the reverse in fact, we have to be careful over issues of systemic bias in an area it is generally acknowledged we tend to over-represent.  Is this the top story on any general news website? Crispmuncher (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree - his status within computer science is what makes these events noteworthy. So, slavishly follow the trend of "general news websites" and avoid at all costs copying our techy pals (so that we look more serious)? As I said elsewhere, when will we get the opportunity ever again to see him in the news or to celebrate him in person? It's not as if there were distinct dates for notable events in his life that would ever be the subject of news again? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a question of "slavishly following the trend", it is about differentiating between items of general interest and specialist topics. The anniversary (not the events that mark it) is being covered in the sci-tech and IT press but is attracting comparatively little interest generally.  We post perhaps 10-15 items a week.  Is this one of the biggest 10-15 news stories of the week on a worldwide basis?  No.  In fact it probably wouldn't even make the top 100 in terms of its actual significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The anniversary (not the events that mark it) is being covered in the sci-tech and IT press but is attracting comparatively little interest generally. Your propensity for making sweeping statements that show your complete ignorance of the subject in question (as in the recent Transit of Venus proposal) is astounding. The centenary has been featured by every major news agency in the UK, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail etc. and it was announced on the ITV and BBC and Channel 4 television news programmes. And in case you think that's a bit parochial, it was also the editorial feature in yesterday's New York Times see: And as for "Is this one of the biggest 10-15 news stories of the week on a worldwide basis" I could ask the same question about the NBA championship. Is that the one of the biggest stories of any newsagency outside of the US?  Richerman ''   (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NBA Finals has been reported prominently in all newscasts in the Philippines. – H T  D  11:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the influence of Turing, probably more than you are. Like all CS graduates from the old Victoria University of Manchester I can assure you I was made fully aware of the unparalleled contribution of that institution to early computer science, including the SSEM, MArks I & II, ATLAS and notable pioneers from the University including a certain Mr Turing.  A position based on knowledge of the particular subject domain and ability to put it into context is not an argument from ignorance, quite the reverse.
 * If you want further illustration why not try comparing your mainspace contributions record with mine: you'll see extensive contributions to computing articles on my part, and a significant secondary block of astronomy and astrophysics. When I look at yours all I see are edits to the two particular stories you cite, this and the transit of Venus.
 * As for news coverage, yes, it made the BBC's ten o'clock news last night. 15 minutes into a 20 minute programme.  For a story marking a British national hero that is basically nowhere. It's a similar story across the board. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
 * I was referring to your ignorance of the fact that it was being reported by every news agency in the country. As for your dismissal of my contributions you should try reading my userpage to see what articles I've created, and in some cases taken to FA or GA and then compare it with yours. In all your time on wikipedia you claim to have created one article which is a stub that is tagged as unreferenced four years after its creation. Typically, you are trying to rubbish my contributions based on a totally false premise. You haven't actually looked at what I've done or you would know that over the last few years I have made over 15,000 edits with contributions to articles in many different fields. How you have the gall to come on here rubbishing other people's work and opposing their suggestions within minutes of them being proposed is a complete mystery to me. And, as I worked at Manchester University for 7 years and UMIST for almost 30 years I'm really not impressed by you waving around your superior knowledge.  Richerman '' (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to be drawn in this kind of "Mine's bigger than yours" debate, particularly one based on out of date and inaccurate information. If you care so passionately about your little trophies take them back to FAC or DYK, putting work into an article about an upcoming event does not automatically make it newsworthy, particularly for events that are forecastable years in advance.
 * You asserted I was ignorant and I pulled you up on it. You melded that into ignorance of coverage, "just like" the transit of Venus.  That doesn't ring true either, hell, it wasn't even a point I raised there.  It is clear to me that you are now more interested in attacking me than discussing the merits of this non-story.  That's fine, I can handle it, but it doesn't help this get posted in the slightest. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Support - Front page of Google (the #1 web site in the world) with a unique interactive Google Doodle of the Turing machine Woz2 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As Bzweebl said, celebrations and anniversaries should go to "On this day" unless the celebration itself is an event that is newsworthy. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Arbitrary celebrations are not the same as people or their accomplishments. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Celebrations and anniversaries, for a person of such notability in their field, are newsworthy doktorb wordsdeeds 04:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support There is no need for any precedence when this person is in question. It's true that the events held across the world are only anniversaries, but this is something that receives significantly more attention than the previous cases. Moreover, the current year is dedicated to Alan Turing which is the fist case of this kind I've ever seen. I really don't like to stick on the criterion that anniversaries are automatically dismissed from inclusion, when there is another reason to support something.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Prime Minister of Pakistan

 * Support Yousaf Raza Gillani's case is still in ITN. So it can be given as an addition to the event.Egeymi (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Just update the blurb. It's already close to the top, so this will stay up for enough time.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - good one for itn,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's a pretty thin article for a Prime Minister. LukeSurlt c 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable development in the dramatic chain of events in Pakistan. Will this guy also be thrown out by the supreme court if he refuses to investigate the corruption cases against the president ? Anyway, we can update the blurb and bump it up to this date. Article's decent enough IMO. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support updating the existing blurb (to a double bold if necessary) and bumping it to the top of the list. Raja Pervaiz Ashraf is now updated to a degree adequate for mainpage bolding. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  02:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 NBA Finals

 * Support Someone's very quick on the draw, 4th quarter just started! Anyways, ITN/R, the most significant championship in professional basketball, and very large media and social attention. Although the blurb should be more like "In basketball, the Miami Heat defeat the Oklahoma City Thunder in the NBA Finals (Finals MVP X pictured)." so that the Oklahoma City Thunder get some credit for getting this far, they definitely deserve it. (Nevermind, you got it!) -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support No rational needed, this is the NBA final after all. Oops I just gave a rational. Silly me. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this nomination not showing up in the index for everyone or is it just me? IS this a formatting issue? I added a title+header so it shows up now. Hooray for me. Evidently the user WAS in a hurry to get this up because they missed it out. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn, you beat me to it! -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Game 5 will need a text update (after the game finishes, 1.21 to go, Miami 18 point lead as I type). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Game is Over! Just needs an update and it'll be ready for posting. - Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is unproductive. This already meets notability standards because it's on WP:ITN/R. How about working on the article instead? It doesn't even have the score for crying out loud. --  tariq abjotu  04:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, same with other editors I'm sure. Calm down. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 04:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Calm down"? I'm sorry, I didn't realize we weren't supposed to talk about the quality of updates here. I thought waiting forty-five minutes to mention the lack of progress on an update would have resulted in less defensiveness from respondents, but I guess I was wrong. --  tariq abjotu  04:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The game just ended 30 minutes ago. The MVP announcement came 15 minutes ago. The update is in progress, give it time! -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 04:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * [For the love of God, please use the Preview button.] Three quarters of the game were over by the time it was nominated. Most of an update could have been completed by that time or by the time the game was over. It didn't have to be, but there is no point to adding supports to or nominating an ITN/R item when there's no simultaneous updating. It's not a badge of honor to nominate articles for ITN. It's not about showing how excited one is about the game. And, frankly, the fact that the article didn't have something so basic as the score more than ten minutes after the end of the game is a sign of slow updating. --  tariq abjotu  04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of us enjoy actually watching the game, not spending it typing in front of their PC instead of watching the game on TV. The necessary update was given to the article, you posted it, and all is well in the world of ITN and the NBA. As someone who devotes as much time to Wikipedia as you do (I really do appreciate all the work you and the other admins put into Wikipedia, by the way), if the fact that the score of the game wasn't added as fast as you would have liked, you could have added it on your own. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 04:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the score that's important; it's that it's indicative of the speed of the update. People tend to jump over each other to be the first to update the score for big sporting events (and with the Super Bowl, commentary is sometimes updated in realtime), so when that hasn't been done -- yes, even after just 10-15 minutes -- it bears repeating that the article update is what's important. (Note that last year, the score was in the article before it was nominated here and before the game ended.) You waited until the end of the game, and that's fine, but others did not. And if they just decided during a commercial break to come to Wikipedia to nominate the item or offer up support (perhaps as a way of expressing excitement about the outcome or being first to "call it") and then go back to watching the game, that's really not helpful. It's already on ITN/R, so its notability is already established. It's great that you updated the article, but I don't want to encourage a culture where simply supporting the notability of an item on ITN/R is seen as moving an item a step closer to being on ITN. In some situations, even with such goading, it takes ages for a prose update (beyond just a score) to materialize, and then we get complaints about why the item hasn't been posted yet. To be honest, the fact that you updated it so quickly is a bit remarkable. --  tariq abjotu  05:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2012 NBA Finals Updated! Ready to go, but I'll continue to work on it! -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 04:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 Indonesian boat disaster

 * Support. My condolences to those who died in such an untimely manner and their loved ones.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, a notable maritime disaster. Article will need to be expanded beyond the stub it currently is. LukeSurlt c 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable disaster. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above with expansion and a different blurb.  I ♦  A  08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - with expansion on the issues that arise from the ABC blog - not yet mentioned in article SatuSuro 09:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article has now been updated with the latest info and is ready to be posted, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: While I don't disagree that this is ITN, I do have concerns when articles like this are created without considering long-term notability per WP:NEVENT. I'm offering more discussion on the talk page. --M ASEM (t) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Romanian Ex-PM Adrian Năstase

 * I've changed the blurb to indicate that the suicide attempt was unsuccessful. LukeSurlt c 10:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. A judgement over a former prime minister is notable. Thue (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Both the verdict and his unsuccessful suicide attempt are certainly notable.Egeymi (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments: The article has orange tags. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, and it's BLP of a controversial figure too. Really should be in good shape before being linked from the main page. LukeSurlt c 17:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- A good two-pronged blurb for an intriguing story.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when ready I agree with the above. Judgment + suicide attempt = ITN worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when article is better sourced - Agree that this is a fine candidate for ITN, but also that the article needs work in the sourcing. The tag is merited, in my view. Jus  da  fax   19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

 * This is ITN-worthy, but the post should either be associated with the start or end of the conference. As we've missed the former, I suggest we wait until the conclusion. LukeSurlt c 22:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if Anything actually substantial comes out of this. There's been loads diddy-daddling (AIN'T I SOOO TERRIBLY POASHHHH) going on with nothing of substance really being put forward, disagreements all around and a general lack of cooperation at such events among countries. If something rather special comes out of this, you have my support. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now as nothing has happened. If something does, it can be discussed on its merits.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   03:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * support major intl summit that is NOT just state parties...more noable than the ITNR ritualised crap.Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * support agree with Lihaas. Thue (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- The success of the meeting should not have anything to do with the importance of it. It is also the biggest conference in UN history. However, as FormerIP pointed out last week, the article is updated but of very poor quality.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you just found a new motto for the UN "importance doesn't mean success" <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  16:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. These conferences are huge but they mean less and less. Most Norwegian environmentalist groups abstain from traveling there this time for that very reason, figuring they will do more to protect the global environment by not expending the resources it takes to travel to Rio and back. __meco (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be more a comment on how much attention is paid to the groups in question, rather than the importance of the conference. Support posting at end of conference (if only to avoid the self imposed nonsense of declaring it's opening in the present tense). Kevin McE (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose What is the impact of this conference on the future of sustainable development? Any commitments from the global players? Any tangible outcome expected, besides the nice time in Rio on other people's money? Crnorizec (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is what those "people" get paid for. What editor here gets on ITN for showing up to work?  μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] 2012 Toulouse hostage crisis
Four people have been taken hostage in a bank in the French city of Toulouse by a man claiming to be linked to al-Qaeda. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  10:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This story is still developing, we can't expect Wikipedia to be a live news tracker on this sort of story. Suggest doing an ITN nomination once the situation is ended. LukeSurlt c 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if he claims to be al-Qaeda, is it really that notable? Far greater acts of violence than a four-person hostage-situation happen every day all over the world. It is just not important in the big picture. And al-Qaeda doesn't really exist as a card-carrying organization - everybody can claim to be a member of al-Qaeda. The fact that he only took the hostages when his bank robbery failed strongly suggests that this is just a random maladjusted person, and not a part of an elaborate al-Qaeda plot. Thue (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fully agree with Thue.Egeymi (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Incident now over, resolved without loss of life. Signs suggest al-Qaeda link likely a fantasy of a mentally ill man. All in all, a fairly unremarkable hostage situation. Article is also single-sentence, possibly even an AfD candidate. LukeSurlt c 15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak "clinically dead"

 * Oppose Not actually dead, simply in a coma. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Presidentman, not a current head of state either. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * support above: we posted the death of vaclav havel, who was not a current head of state...surely we can post this death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.130.119 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing Vaclav Havel to Hosnia Mubarek? The former was a poet, a revolutionary, and a Czech, beside being a prime minister. μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing to a 30 year long head of state and far more notable "in the news"? Hvel was notale no doubt, but his tenure in the news as leader of a country and more last a little over 10 years if that.Lihaas (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this guy has gone the full circle. Air Force Commander, President for 30 years, survived 6 assassination attempts, his government brokered the 2008 Israel Hamas ceasefire, then heavy state corruption, protests, violent crackdown, resignation, trial and humiliation and now this is where he is. In terms of notability I'm afraid Vaclav Havel will be overshadowed by a long shot. But yes, on the issue at hand, we can wait until something clearer emerges. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If 'clinically dead' If 'dead':
 * Oppose for reasons outlined above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose - Let's avoid a Francisco Franco is still dead.--WaltCip (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- That's not death. Why post that if death might be soon to follow?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Notable person in (recent) history passes our criteria doktorb wordsdeeds 21:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When Mubarak does actually die it should be a pretty straightforward, uncontroversial ITN item. However being in a coma is not the same thing, no item. LukeSurlt c 22:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Doktorbuk.--WaltCip (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Even though he is not a current head of state, his death would influence current events tremendously, hence fulfilling death criteria 3. However, to even be having this discussion is quite premature, as no news website is even considering that Mubarak may be dead right now.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If he has kicked the bucket. As in you know, dead. Like, really really dead. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose even though the press will squak and flail, in the end it doesn't matter. He was "convicted" by a "court", ousted, who cares if he's dead. Murdered in prison would be ok, but not this. --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? He's a significant historical figure that will forever be etched into the history of Egypt. The fact that he was or soon will be convicted by a court makes him even more notable regardless of your political views, his death is and/or will be of great note to millions in the Arab peninsula and northern Africa. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if actually dead, obviously. But oppose if it's anything less than that.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 00:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose He's not quite dead. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Query I haven't seen this in any source yet. Is he "Ariel Sharon' dead?  or "Peter Sellers' dead?  Or Monty Python 'dead' dead?  If he's as dead as Francisco Franco, I am in support. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To borrow a joke from Twitter, he's Schrodinger's Cat dead. --M ASEM (t) 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I literally laughed out loud on that one. Glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. His gangs have been touting his alleged bad health so many times, and he was reported to be in coma just after the revolution only to emerge just fine. I don't buy it until he is actually in a coffin. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that his condition has become uncertain, I suggest this nomination be withdrawn for renomination at a later date. --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, wait til they bury him. That will be ITNworthy whether he is live or dead. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Prime Minister of Pakistan

 * No comment on the nom (it sounds important though) but this isn't ITNR since he's head of gov't not head of state this is probably more a comment on the sillyness of ITNR than anything else <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  12:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * wait for repercussions...if it means anything a new PM will come up soon and thats more readilt ITNLihaas (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with an update. A serving PM being stripped of office in this manner is notable without wider repercussions.  Much more of an update is needed though. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Support, this is definitely a big deal, for Pakistan and the region. Nsk92 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Major development. The top news in the subcontinent now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This is no small matter for the region and could easily have repercussions, so post now. Article is updated and ready.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dramatic developments. Prez nominates textiles minister as new PM. Judge orders arrest of textiles minister a day after nomination. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Assange Seeks Asylum From Ecuador

 * Oppose Seeking asylum is not ITN worthy. We'd need something more significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose getting asylum maybe. Strong support though if he comments on freedom for Myanmar. --IP98 (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop soap-boxing.Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is nothing. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Assange is a scary example of how extendible a justice system can be in a Western democracy (Sweden, now UK). Also, there is allegedly a secret indictment against him in the US. Bradley Manning has been held in a US prison for two years without a verdict for the same case. Now, a fourth state is involved, Ecuador with the likely granting of asylum. So in my view, whatever happens to Assange is very important indication about the level of freedom of information and the workings of the Western legal systems. Crnorizec (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A secret US indictment against him? Citation needed. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, things that happen to Assange are important. This is not something happening to Assange, this is a request that may or may not be honored by Ecuador. At this point, it's newsworthy, but it's not an ITN-worthy story or update. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless actually granted, which would be notable enough. Otherwise this whole story is simply descending into soap opera. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose- Surely his request isn't as notable as it actually being granted.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is just another twist in an increasingly tedious soap opera. The entire story is notable and deserves front page coverage; these little incidents do not. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not worth a ITN post. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - fairly trivial on the grand scheme of things, just happens to be occurring to someone internet culture cares a lot about. --LukeSurlt c 21:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - when/if he is granted Ecuadorian asylum.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Close this discussion. It's premature to make a judgement on this, because of how unsure we are of the outcome. Furthermore it seems likely that Ecuador will take days to decide. The discussion of whether to post will be contentious and complicated enough for a posting admin, without the added complication of trying to work out whether early opposers were against posting if Assange is actually granted asylum. —WFC— 22:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stop feeding the troll. (Assange, not the OP, whose good faith I don't doubt.) As and when he's tried in Sweden, the verdict will be noteworthy. Until then, he can stay off our front page for all I care. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] G-20

 * Personally I'd prefer we wait for an end-of-summit statement. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support posting now but not at the end. I think we do a better service to WP readers by posting this at the start, so that anyone who becomes interested can follow as it progresses. --IP98 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Salman bin Abdulaziz

 * Support- Reasonable update to the blurb; we can just move it back up to the top with two bold articles. The article update is almost complete.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Seems sensible to update the item with this development. LukeSurlt c 10:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support yes, agree that the blurb should be updated. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's next? "Generalissimo Nayef Rancisco Franco's still dead"?  Is this the post everlasting?  At least move it back down to the bottom where it belongs.μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing so--and helpful of you to add back Nayef. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

IBM Sequoia

 * Support, as nominator. <b style="color:#660000; font-family:Andalus;">Bob</b> Amnertiopsis ∴<sub style="color:#FF9999; font-family:Tunga;">ChatMe! 17:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, I don't see why nationality is relevant here. Taking that and the nominator's comments into account, I would suggest
 * The IBM Sequoia becomes the fastest supercomputer in the world, calculating at a rate of 16.32 petaflops. —WFC— 17:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The American IBM Sequoia computer becomes the fastest supercomputer in the world, performing over 16.3 quadrillion operations per second.,


 * The American Sequoia overtakes the Japanese K computer to become the fastest supercomputer in the world, at over 16.3 petaflops. or some combination? K computer (Japan)? Support Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when article sufficiently updated with WFC's blurb (brevity is best). Wouldn't this be a minority topic? LukeSurlt c 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose If there was one 100m race every six months, and the world record was broken more often than not on these occasions, we would not post such records.  That is essentially the situation with the TOP500 ranking system.  It is of the nature of technology that it improves and supersedes its previous performance.  We frequently reject proposals of records simply because they are records, and this is no different. Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted by above, this is like a record that is broken maybe every two years (maybe even moore's law 18 months, but...) so it's not a frequent changeover. But importantly it is not a individual record but the fact that numerous agencies came together to fund and construct the computer, something that takes a lot of time and money to complete. To try to compare it to sports achievements is a weak analogy. --M ASEM  (t) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's 4 times in 6 meetings of TOP500 ( a little over 2 1/2 years), not "maybe every two years". The proposal is to post the breaking of a record; if the noteworthy achievement were the completion of a collaborative project (a claim totally unsupported by the article), then surely it should have been proposed when in went into use. Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To respond to your original post, this is every bit as big a deal in the tech world as Monaco and the Indy 500 are in the sporting world. Your other point is irrelevant. If this should have been posted a couple of months ago, and is receiving even more coverage now than did then, then it's a stroke of luck that we have waited until now, the optimal time to post. —WFC— 21:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So what newsworthy event occurred on 17 June? Certainly not this machine's "becoming the fastest supercomputer in the world", as it was no faster on that date than the day before.  So the news item is that a ranking list that is published twice a year has been published, and for the 4th time in 6 editions of the list, it has a different name at the top of it. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is In the news, not Important events. If a story is being picked up by many sources, and represents a milestone of some type, it qualifies for ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 14:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The nomination is a press release, not an event, and certainly not news. Yes, it's picked up my many sources, but a new flavour of coffee at Starbucks is guaranteed a dozen spots in tabloids, and we ain't touching them with a bargepole. I understand that this press release isn't even current, making the nomination even less likely to pass doktorb wordsdeeds 15:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, the Voyager I story a few days ago was all from a press release by NASA. Yet it gained wide coverage across numerous news sources because those sources felt it was a significant merit of human achievement, even though it wasn't a true "event". Now, I am well aware that press releases can be taken as commercial ads (for example, with Microsoft's introduction of the Surface tablet yesterday, I refuse to accept that that would be considered as an ITN since its basically an ad for MS), but we're talking about something far from a commercial endevour, but as a scientific advancement.  And just because its some time after its announcement doesn't mean its not "in the news" if other sources are just covering it now. --M ASEM  (t) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is such a no mark, mundane and flippant story. Technological advance in the 21st century as news has to be pretty more impressive than the computer equivalent of a horse race winning by a neck. I would have more sympathy with technological nominations were they not so much naval gazing and masturbatory. On the basis of what has been nominated, explained and considered, there's no way this should go anywhere near the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 20:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Commnet: fastest computer in the world could be linked to TOP500. <b style="color:#660000; font-family:Andalus;">Bob</b> Amnertiopsis ∴<sub style="color:#FF9999; font-family:Tunga;">ChatMe! 17:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think it is noteworthy news. -Abhishikt (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with a strong preference for my shortened blurb. —WFC— 21:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending update with WFCs blurb. --IP98 (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This is not just noteworthy but an important record as well. However, the update is insufficient, so I changed that in the template.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable development, decent news coverage. Article needs to be fattened a bit. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see any real milestone having been breached here: it doesn't represent any kind of order of magnitude improvement, nor is it revolutionary on a fundamental basis. Which computer is fastest is something that alters rapidly - 15 times in the last 19 years - as part of the regular performance gains seen by computers generally.  The "news" element here does not relate to a matter of substance - i.e. it becoming the fastest non-secret computer - but its place in the TOP500 rankings, which are only updated every six months. We have a tendency to post far too many computing stories here as it is: we should be more selective, restricting our coverage to game-changers or genuine milestones. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC).
 * If its posted let's drop the 'American' label and just call it the IBM Sequoia. Computers don't have passports.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose new technology is faster than old technology? Who knew.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   12:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand the opposition to this. These are exactly the type of items that the minority topic "technology" is meant for. Not some idiotic apple gadget, but a 16 petaflop super computer. It took years to develop, build and test. It's also not an incremental update of the previous K computer, it's completely different. These high speed computers are used in weather modeling, astrophysics and various geo-political struggles (ie cypher breaking) and have a substantially greater impact than 60 football goals in a season or 100 test cricket centuries. It will probably have a greater impact on the course of human events than the bailout of a worthless bank in a failed state. I thought this would be an easy pass... --IP98 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think HotStop sums it up pretty well. New technology > Old Technology is not front page news, is it? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The logic that "new technology is always better than old and therefore not news" basically means any story about science and technology - always advancing on previous work - should be incapable for ITN. And by similar logic, there will always be a winner in an election, or a winner in a sports event, so we should never cover those as well in ITN.  We need to get out of this mindset that ITN must be current events. It needs to be about current stories but that need not necessarily be about events from the last week or such.  We also have to recognize that when scientific progress is highlighted by non-scientific sources for the layperson that that means that there's more to it than just standard scientific progress. --M ASEM  (t) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A large number of stories involve some sort of quantitative metric, with the story being that X is larger/smaller/longer/shorter than has been achieved before. A similar example is reporting on the World's Tallest Building. Such stories need to be evaluated on their own merits rather than dismissed out-of-hand. In this case the computing record isn't broken that often, it represents a significant advance, and the machine itself will be used for significant things. LukeSurlt c 17:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The IBM Sequoia article will have to be improved significantly before it can be put on Main Page. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Incremental. Speciate (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this was ITN notable, we'd have to report this every six months. Because basicaly every time there is a new TOP500 No. 1. --bender235 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Seriously. What next? The new Number 1 in the Top 500 vacuum cleaners? Khuft (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Protest in Sudan

 * Oppose at the current time, Reuters report does not suggest a greatly significant protest. Worth keeping an eye on in case of escalation. LukeSurlt c 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, no update whatsoever to article. You made an empty section and expected others to fill it in for you. Bad form. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- However, no need to criticize the nominator. It could be that he didn't have time but wanted a potential updater to have a section and was concerned that the update would be put somewhere else. Or perhaps he was planning on doing it later, but didn't have time at the moment. Give him the benefit of the doubt.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Egypt: expansion of military powers

 * Support This is a major coup in progress that is occurring the one of the most important Middle Eastern countries. We may also want to mention the preliminary results of the election. Eiad77 (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Time to start 2012 Egyptian coup and get that ball rolling. --IP98 (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously if it is in fact a coup. We should avoid the temptation to post every new development in this. --IP98 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we post every major development, as long as each individual development is notable enough? We can just update and top any existing blurb; as long as we don't have more than one item about Egypt ITN, I don't see a problem with it. Being up-to-date is a feature, not a problem. Thue (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Military appoints X president. X suspends Y. Protestors gather and complain. Z people are killed protesting the suspension of Y by X. A suspends relations with Egypt. etc, etc etc.... --IP98 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as we post only the really groundbreaking moments, then I have no problem with that. I agree that the bar should be somewhat higher than if the event occurred isolated. The alternative is to keep historically important developments off ITN. Thue (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see where this coup goes first, if a major protest occurs and is met with a hostile military response then will support stickying this item otherwise posting(when it gets the adequate number of "supports") it as a regular ITN item should be fine - for now. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is calling this a coup? Surely not ITNC alone. That wouldnt merit a posting on its ownLihaas (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it fits the texbook definition of a coup - does anybody argue that it isn't a coup? And to quote the linked NYT article: "The military’s charter “really does complete the coup in many obvious ways,” said Nathan Brown, an Egypt expert at George Washington University, in an e-mail message. It brings back martial law and protects the military from any public, presidential or parliamentary scrutiny. And it perpetuates the generals’ dominance of the political system.”". Thue (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose to nomination. Thue has been around long enough to know what policy is, and there is nothing exceptional about this nom to suggest breaking that policy.  We don't post without an update.  If Thue feels so strongly about it there is nothing to stop him doing the work needed.  As it is official results for the presidential election are not yet known so how the hell can we post this? I would also be hesitant about throwing the word "coup" around as potentially problematic - how can the current government mount a coup against itself? Crispmuncher (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment - Although it quacks like a coup as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer to avoid enshrining that name in an article title until we've got a bit more hindsight to go on. So I say Wait and post something along the lines of X is declared elected President of Egypt, as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces restricts the powers of the presidency. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The BBC are slightly more qualified with their language. It would be worth taking a look at a wider range of news sources, rather than reflecting the editorial position of a single NYT article. LukeSurlt c 14:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The coup "editorializing" is just in my description. Note that the actual blurb I suggested doesn't call it a coup. 77.75.161.163 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a bit torn on this one, but I am currently leaning towards oppose until election.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Key elements of Egypt's new interim constitution. SCAF has move power than any elected body. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What's with the "Notability" and "Article and blurb readiness" sub-sub-sections here? Though I'm sure well intentioned, they've just made it difficult to track the chronology of the discussion. Let's not use them again. LukeSurlt c 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have left a note on Thue's talk page.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support it seems that the Egyptian revolution has been hijacked, and it is a very unfortunate twist of events. Crnorizec (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Coup overstates the action taken by the ruling military council. It is inevitable that opposition groups describe it in non-neutral terms. We must avoid the same mistake. No respected commentators (BBC for example) are referring to a coup. Leaky  Caldron  17:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * TIME magazine uses the same terms: "it may be one of the smoothest coups in history" . When the military suspends the civilian government and takes over controls of the state and writing of constitution, that's what it is. With tanks on the streets or without them. Crnorizec (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Incorporate into presidential results item - the story here is the definition of the office of president (undermining of the office?), and the linked article is Egyptian presidential election, 2012. The discussion of the presidential results needs to include a mention of this action, and by the time of the results declaration we should have sufficient hindsight to address this action and its consequences. Definitely don't use the word 'coup' as it's inherently POV. LukeSurlt c 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. It certainly looks like a coup, doesn't it? I think this is a good moment to address the situation of the Egyptian revolution having gone completely sour. __meco (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The sources don't call it a coup. Wikipedia relies on sources and doesn't make its own analysis. Period. --RJFF (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - I've removed the word "coup" from the section title, as we were having a discussion about a phrase that isn't in the proposed blurb. LukeSurlt c 21:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sticky This would seem like an obvious sticky if there were reliable updates and sources. I saw Mubarak's Ex-PM claimed to have won the election, but the source was th Sioux City Journal. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 U.S. Open - Webb Simpson

 * Support Once Updated ITN/R and one of the four major tournaments in golf. Definitely ITN worthy. However, both articles lack a prose update. (Updated with the ITN Template prior to posts below, but there was an edit conflict and sent a message to the nominator about using the ITN Template in the future). -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 05:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Sorry Anc515 for the edit conflict! I agree with you - support not least because it's ITN/R. Get the article tided up and all is well doktorb wordsdeeds 05:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above rationales!HotHat (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons mentioned above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R, but there is no prose in the round summaries section, all tables. --IP98 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when either article gets an update.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- I have updated Webb Simpson.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Carlotta (2012) (2nd nom)
Re-nom per suggestion below. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Usually when we post a natural disaster, the storm had to be particularly noteworthy and I don't see it how this storm qualifies, considering tropical storms are extremely common in that area. Didn't cause a much of an impact in Mexico from the look of things. Secret account 07:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Close- This is hardly uncommon. We can't post every natural disaster in the world.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I wouldn't think we posted a hurricane unless it was a category 4 or 5. This storm wasn't even impactful enough to have its name pulled from circulation. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition Hurricane Bud (2012) hit roughly the same area 2 weeks ago and was stronger. One of the three people killed in Carlotta was killed in a car wreck. The other 2 were in the same house. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Carlotta was not a significant TC landfall and thus i question the motives of the nominator. As for when we should post hurricanes/tropical cyclones, it should only be when there is some really significant impact and not just when its Cat 4/5. I also note that we never know about the pulling (retirement) of the official tropical cyclone names, until a lot later on.Jason Rees (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose In agreement with the reasons above. It sounds cold and harsh, but three dead people isn't enough doktorb wordsdeeds 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very boring cyclone. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] 2012 24 Hours of Le Mans

 * Support- This is a significant event, but the update is currently unsourced.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support subject to necessary update criteria being met. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R, when the articles are updated. Crnorizec (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- References have been added.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Two corrections: Marcel Fässler needs a corrected link it currently goes to a disambig page, and it should be 'an Audi R18...' The359  ( Talk ) 21:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per above. The most popular endurance race in the world suffices posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The results section has no prose. Were there no notable incidents? Upsets? Seems a bit thin to me. --IP98 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with IP98. There's no real prose. --  tariq abjotu  22:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the already existent prose update to the results section and integrated a sentence with the winners back into the lead. It should be better now.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still doesn't tell me a whole lot about the actual race, but it's nice to have something down there. --IP98 (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but it is an update regardless, so I am marking this as ready again. Let's see what Tariqabjou thinks.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's better than previous years. I'm sure this will go up. --IP98 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rodney King

 * Support - historic figure I guess. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * most obvious oppose no way this meets death criteria. He featured on tv and was relevant for 1 month in his life? Wo! We dnt post Donna Summers wer aint posting thisLihaas (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose- He certainly doesn't meet death criteria 1 or 2 obviously, and he doesn't meet criteria 3 because his influence dissipated years ago. "A 'celebrity' whose death is widely covered and read about" is not a criteria.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He hasn't been relevant for a long time. Thue (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment1) Caused the riots and LAPD reforms. 2)Given credit for subsequent reforms 3) Non-zero possibility of foul play (though unlikely) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.33.151 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: an important event evolved around him: he was not important in ITN terms as an individual. His "acheivements" were being arrested while drink-driving, and appearing on some Z-list celebrity reality TV shows.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not often that I agree with Lihaas but tonight, we're speaking almost the same language. Yes, Rodney King has a very important place in history, and is one of the most significant figures in the US in the circles of crime, policing and race relations. In most ordinary circumstances we would put him on the front page. But - and this is the issue for me - he went from being a significant person in the fight against institutional racism into a spiral of abuse and criminality, ending up on reality television and dying, it seems, by his own misadventure. He was not at the forefront of the fight he had started. Whilst the beating by police was shocking and historically important, his life veered off-piste almost immediately afterwards. He was not a figure which could be used to show the best of humanity after adversity. As such, it would be illogical for us on grounds outside ITN's tick-boxes to give him front page prominence. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This obviously doomed, but ITN/DC needs a re-visit. Rodney King is a household name, and is probably of a broader interest to our readers than all the dead footballers, authors and Coptic popes combined. --IP98 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I had never heard of him until today.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandable if you live outside the USA or Canada. I agree that under the current guidelines that this should not go up, but if you ask 10 random people I'm sure they have no clue about the king of Tonga (or even that Tonga is a place). --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Cobblers. I was much more familiar with (for example) Shenouda III than Rodney King. Don't make such sweeping assumptions about what people consider important. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't oppose Shenouda III because I had no idea who he was. You don't know me, or anything about me, and have no right to judge my reasoning. The nom is doomed, but I've not attacked a single editor or their reasoning. Since 1/4 of the english WP readers are from the US, I think my observation is worth more than your derisive and hateful remark. --IP98 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not get too snappy (any of us, and I know coming from me that might seem a bit much). I would be more than willing to start a discussion on ITN/DC, however given that we've not been able to move much on elections as part of ITN/C or ITN/R, I am rather jaded towards finding a swift solution to any further criteria amendment drive. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support He's not a head of state, he's not himself influential in his field except passively, and he didn't have an international influence. But those are apparently irrelevant objections.  And his death was untimely and of more interest to 10 times as many of our readers as cared about the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.  So posting this is a no-brainer. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are those "apparently irrelevant objections?"  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AND on what basis is the comment "of more interest to 10 times as many of our readers". Seems this statement is more than "apparently irrelevant" as based out of fact.Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "10 times as many of our readers..." needs "citation needed" after it, to be honest. The objections have been pretty well phrased in my opinion - he was a victim who received world wide infamy, and from the beatings came a step-change and attitude shift amongst American police. But from that one frame in time he entered a very unfortunate 'spiral' into Z-list celebrity, drink addiction and criminal activity. There is nothing in his life after the incident for which he is known to suggest he was held in high enough esteem to meet our criteria. On that basis, he shouldn't be on the front page under ITN and you shouldn't be so eager to snap at those of us trying to make a broad case for our opinion doktorb wordsdeeds 22:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a bit confused, or perhaps this comment is in the wrong place. Lihaas was criticizing the statement that King is "of more interest to 10 times as many of our readers," not stating it.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What???? No idea what youre trying to say and dont want to rpresume its yet another attack ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was agreeing with you, I think the paragraphs are a bit wonky, but I was agreeing with you. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Silly boy, Airhead at your service ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Does not meet death criteria. Heights of bias when people compare this death to the death of the Crown Prince, Deputy PM and Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia. Some of the arguments (There are more Americans here, so things relevant to them are more important) here seek to perpetuate systemic bias. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bias If we are going to make having lived a morally upright life a criterion here at ITN, lets have some explicit standards. I hardly think someone being an alcoholic makes him a monster compared with being the fat and pampered son of a religious dictator and a supporter Al Qaeda.  But that's just me.  As for the 10 x 1 interest, I had been going by Google hits, but I see just now that Rodney King has garnered 423,233 hits in the last day without being on the front page, while the prince has garnered about 52,000 on average over two days.  I expect the editors who asked for refs showing our readers care more about Rodney than Nayef will change his vote?  But I am painfully American as Chocolate points out, so never mind. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Pae
 * Page view don't count. Of course there's going to be a 'boost' in page views, that's just how the Internet works. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont think anyone is making the argument that "having lived a morally upright life" is criteria. And obviously, Rodney King will always have more views than Nayaf (just like Max Payne 3 has 10x  more views than the serial bomb attack this month in Iraq that killed 90 people ). Isnt that the whole point about systemic bias? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Doktorbuk is right here. If King became a national spokesperson for police brutality or human right abuses or so forth this would have been easily supported here and posted. However he didn't do anything of note after the trial and the riots, and became mostly tabloid fodder which is sad, but not noteworthy. I'll support similar cases in ITN of figures that became internationally famous for a tragic event and made a notable impact afterwards e.g Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Secret account 03:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mild Oppose Per Doktorbuk and Secret (Also, updated this nomination with the ITN Template. If the blurb I added is bad, feel free to change it to something else.) -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 05:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Doktorbuk given the current circumstances however if the coroner's inquest confirms that foul play was involved then will most definitely support the posting of this item. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The Rodney King incident and the subsequent L.A. riots has become an important milestone in U.S. history. I also notice that there has been a lot of editing of his article since his death, which is more than can be said about many other ITN items that linger at ITN/C pending an article update. King may not be an important person by his own doings, but as an icon, still, and as a symbol of racial conflicts in the U.S., I think he's important enough for his death to be presented at ITN. __meco (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Meco for his (I guess begrudging) support based on actual stats and reader interest. For those now proven hypocrites who say hits don't count, what objective criterion is left?  Your strangely mono-directional mystical revelation? μηδείς (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per meco; I was on the fence but that pretty much sums up my feelings here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose he's pretty much been out of the spotlight for a decade at least. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   12:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Go, Rodney! Note that on the third day after his death, Rodney King pulled 96,457 hits, still more than Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and his dead predecessor have pulled on any day they have been featured on the front page combined. That's 905,193 hits for the offed alcoholic African-American in  this corner versus 181,044 plus 60,804 (241,848) for the two plump Saudi princelings this month, if you will pardon the pugilistic phraseology .    Is actual readership of any consequence for matters in the news at Wikipedia? μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't and shouldn't be.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it shouldn't be the sole criterion, just as what are our personal, biased judgments on importance shouldn't be the sole criterion. This tells us somewhat on how purpose #3 can be determined: "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Several ITNR items have really paltry view counts, even some non-US/UK/AU articles are getting more pageviews but have no chance being posted. – H T  D  02:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment was meant as a factual update, not a new argument. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Greek election

 * Support, and probably should be flagged as ITN/R, but I would suggest that the blurb should reflect the fall in popularity of X, who previously won several elections in a row. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, when results are out later today, and when the article is duly updated. Crnorizec (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question wasn't there one of these last month? --IP98 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, and they have a re-run because they could not form a government. Crnorizec (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless this election actually results in a government forming. This country is a mess, and it would not surprise me to see these results tossed out just the same as the first. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  13:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support - election came in with legitimate results. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ  <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not how ITNR works. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we should just post it and screw the oppose and support votes if they mean crap all. I gave my opinion; I am entitled to it; I have opposed this at this time. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  13:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Effectively, they do mean "crap all" when it comes to ITNR events. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The country is probably a mess, however, it is all over the world media and investors' worries, because it is part of the EU and of the Euro, so whatever mess they make influences everyone else. Crnorizec (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The main concern over the world is whether this election will end with the formation of the government or there will be the same scenario as several weeks ago. It's rare to see that the winning party and its political ideology are not the most important things related to this election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support in general, because it's probably the most important election in European politics for decades, but that blurb isn't going to be correct; no single party is going to win plurality and forming a government will probably depend on how the vote shares are split between the parties (and that might not happen for a while if it's very close again). Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One party will win plurality (i.e., more than any other party), it just hasn't has to be majority (i.e., more than 50%). Note the difference between the two. --bender235 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support even if no government is successfully formed.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question again wasn't there one of these last month? Didn't we wait like a year and a half to post the formation of a government in one of the low countries? --IP98 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was, and the result was so close that no government could be formed, hence this second election. The issue is not that though; the result of the election could be massive. The country could also effectively become bankrupt if the parties rejecting the EU/IMF bailout deal win a majority and carry out their policies - this would probably lead to Greece withdrawing from the Eurozone and/or the Euro, with associated massive implications for Europe as a whole (indeed, some commentators have said it could possibly lead to the collapse of the Eurozone as a whole due to the loss of investor confidence for countries with large indebtedness, notably Spain, Portugal and Italy). So the result of the election is a massively big deal for any country trading in Europe - which is practically all of them. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PIGS over ate? This will obviously go up, regardless of who wins. Depending on the outcome we can move this off to Talk:ITN to decide if every single Greek election needs to go up, or if we wait for a government to form. --IP98 (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Like! ☆☆☆☆☆ Crnorizec (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, blurb could by anything really, but may I suggest going with whatever the various media sources converge on as important/surprising? Speciate (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As it is ITN/R there's not a lot else we can do, BUT shouldn't the blurb mention the fact that it's the second election of 2012? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the blurb should definitely mention that this is a re-run of the elections held in May. Crnorizec (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, very important as Greece is currently the pivot of the financial crisis in Europe, and the outcome of this election was expected to cause havoc in the financial markets depending on the outcome. __meco (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the government is formed, which won't be a news at the same time. It seems that many other news related to the election in Greece are more important than this one, and I really don't like this one to be posted because there is a simple rationale that the elections automatically meet the criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, it is a re-run of the same election that previously did not end with the formation of the government. The latter one seems to be of greater importance in the world now, and that's the news that should be posted. It's nothing for me to know what was the party that have won the election if it is not certain whether they will be able to form a government or not. Sorry, if the winner is able to do it in most of the other countries, but it seems that this is a special case because of the well-known other reasons. I even think that is worth posting the cost for the re-election within the current financial situation of Greece, although it's hardly considered to be a news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Unexpected (if my sources are useful) result to a very important election. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- There are nine sentences of prose with three sources. Consensus is clear.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've long preferred some sort of actual prose on the results themselves, but I remember being told the last time I requested such an update that most consider the "Reactions" section sufficient. But, especially with all the updates recently, I'll defer this to someone else (at least for now). --  tariq abjotu  23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have left a message at BorgQueen's talk page.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] French legislative election, 2012

 * Re-worded blurb to english and mention of Hollands. If need be one can mention the prez election last month too.Lihaas (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ITN/R+excellent article+informative update=Support.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * meanwhile, the plurality turned to majority, so I updated the blurb. Crnorizec (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, a clear-cut case. Nsk92 (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- This has a tremendous update.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Voyager 1 reaches edge of solar system

 * Comment I want to support this but the article needs work. Current status has a 2011 section which should be in events, and the last bolded update in current status is from Feb 2012. Also, not being an astronomer, I don't understand the heliopause/sheeth/sphere difference. I'm sure it's important, but I don't get it. Put a paragraph at the top of "Current Status" which makes it clear to the layreader like me and I'll happily support. --IP98 (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did add about this event, but I did reformat to the bold approach (note that current events are in chrono order). Mind you, this is the first time I've edited the V1 article, and I really don't think that format suits it well, but for getting an ITN item on it, its the simplest route. (And heliosphere explains all the areas, but the heliosphere is the volume that the solar winds reach; the -sheath where the solar winds slow as they meet resistance from the interstellar medium, and the -pause where the winds are equal in force to the interstellar effcts.) --M ASEM (t) 13:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support suggest linking to current status section from blurb. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * question is this a record, or just a voyage update? obvious support if hthe former is true and its a FIRST. then again, obviosu oppose otherwiseLihaas (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Record"? - don't think so, although every day, hour, minute and second is a distance record for V1. Not sure that this is all that newsworthy TBH. As the poster says, it is not a hard boundary but there may be better evidence of a significant change before the batteries run out in the next 10 - 15 years. Leaky  Caldron  13:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, somewhere in looking up (probably the NASA update) there are like 5 other man-made probes that may have gone this far. However, of those, Voyager 1 is the only one still collecting and transmitting data and thus providing valuable information about the kinds of forces and stresses interstellar travel has. (V2 is about 2 billion miles out from the same point). --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are only six man-made objects that have achieved sufficient velocity to leave the solar system; Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 2, Voyager 1, New Horizons, and the upper stage of the rocket used to launch New Horizons. Voyager 1 has overtaken both Pioneers and Voyager 2, New Horizons was only launched a few years ago, and is still closer to the sun than the orbit of Neptune. With regards this news item, I would support its inclusion, but not at the expense of the Shenzhou 9 item below. Since the inclusion of both would result in three spaceflight news items in ITN, perhaps the NuSTAR item could be removed. -- W.  D.   Graham  14:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is news of interest (and IMO, for ITN) but not news of timely interest, I'd see no problem holding it for posting until the current space-related topics filter out of the current list. --M ASEM (t) 15:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - If the article has been updated properly, then this is more than worthy of inclusion - this is a landmark event in the history of human civilization. It should also be noted, if possible, in the blurb, that this is the first man-made object to leave our solar system. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely a little overstated? All that has happened is that the various onboard detectors have observed a gradual increase in one type of radiation and a very small decrease in solar radiation. The transition to inter-stellar space will take years and more notable changes, including magnetic field orientation, will signal a more definitive transition state than currently observed. Leaky  Caldron  14:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And again, when researching, I think other man made probes have passed this point, but 1) they aren't active and therefore 2) we don't have any affirmative proof of how far out they are (NASA even clarifies this "NASA's Voyagers are the two most distant active representatives of humanity and its desire to explore.") That said, this is the first time mankind is measuring any type of interstellar medium.  There likely will be a definitive point where they pass the heliopause but that's an event no one is sure when will happen, but likely in the next 1-5 years. --M ASEM  (t) 15:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support a first for humanity--hope the Vulcans are watching. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Im a little scared that it'll come back in 300 years inside a giant cloud. --IP98 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I have nommed this before twice, but now there is clearer data. Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose See BBC article. This is essentially a non-event. There is no clearly defined boundary to the solar system, rendering the suggested blurb moot. --hydrox (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I noted that there's no hard edge to this, and effectively there will never be a hard "point" where NASA can claim the edge of the heliosphere or solar system exists. As such, there technically is no "event", but ITN is not about "events" but "in the news" and it has been reported around and a reminder of how far these probes have come. --M ASEM (t) 23:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no hard edge--there isn't one to the atmosphere either--but that doesn't mean the camel's back never breaks. This is in part why we celebrated the Queen's jubilee.  It didn't correspond to some more easily definable biological event like birth or death but we recognize it as a distance traveled (in her case around, rather than away from, the sun) nonetheless.  μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only significantly known event in the future of Voyager I is the end of its battery life and can no longer transmit to Earth. Non-events like these are instead moments of scientific progress. Granted, there might be a better point in the future if our theories on the heliosphere/pause are true, but we don't know. Instead, we have the first direct measurements that are leading to these theories' validation.  --M ASEM  (t) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support it is the first human-made object leaving the Solar System, albeit there is no passport control there to mark the border. Crnorizec (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support- ITN is not for milestones, it is for news. While this may not be the milestone some say it is, that is irrelevant to its newsworthiness. It can still be significant without shattering any barriers, and this certainly is. There is no reason to oppose just because you dislike the claim that is being made surrounding this event, as the notability is the point that the mission has reached, not what humans call the place it's reached.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another nomination I've found difficult to decide on. I agree, to an extent, with the posters above who are framing this as a milestone (or lightyearstone) in human endeavour. But then I see the other arguments and it all seems to click. There is no big signpost declaring "This is the End of the Known Universe". This 'claim' could be made next month or year, such is the way of science and space. It's a marker, yes, but it's not really an event I can see fitting onto the front page under 'news'. Maybe our DYK cousins can take a look? doktorb wordsdeeds 05:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The event of V1 leaving the solar system (by some definition) is certainly one of significance. The problem is that we have no idea what that mark is, whether it is this current point, reaching the heliopause, or whatever; all this has been only theory and even this point was a mark with a 3 year estimated window for when it would have been reached.  So our hands are tied if we are looking for a harder marker to report this as news.  Given that this "phase" of traveling the heliosphere is expected to take a few more years, we won't likely have any update for this for that time.  If it were the case that this was the first of several known events in close timing, then like other similar ITN items, we'd wait until the most significant point. We simply have no idea if this could be the case here. --M ASEM  (t) 05:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Death of Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud

 * $%#$!! Just came to nom it ;)
 * Anyhoo, would be nice to add his successor if knownLihaas (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The crown prince will be chosen by the Allegiance Council, an assembly of Abdul-Aziz’s sons and some of his grandchildren. It will take a few weeks. The most likely choice is Prince Salman.


 * Support. Heir apparent of a country where the king is the de facto head of government, and no obscure country either. And the death was not expected. Obvious support. __meco (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 line sis not an update.Lihaas (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a whole section about his health. Thue (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Supprt after update. Although he's 78, his death wasn't expected. It's definitely a big story worth INT.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose he was old and chronically ill, and is not an actual head of state, so what's the significance? Good material for Recent Deaths, but definitely not an ITN. Crnorizec (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He was a Crown Prince and heir apparent! And actually influential until his death. How is that not significant? Thue (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, him and some 20 others among the about 65 siblings and their descendants. Crnorizec (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Only Nayef was actually Crown Prince. I would not have nominated any of the others if they had died. Thue (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Crown Prince is an elective position, not directly received by inheritance. And he is so far the second crown prince to die during the reign of King Abdullah... Crnorizec (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Crnorizec. --IP98 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not unexpected, certainly not as important in world affairs as the recent unposted assassination of Abu Yahya al-Libi. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Death of a heir apparent in an absolute monarchy of a G-20 country is major news. I don't think he was expected to die but his brother, who died a few months ago, was. And it was posted BTW Tachfin (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment How many living heirs are there to this throne? How old is the next one in line?  Do we have a picture of the president of the US bowing to him?  We are going to have a whole slew of political news by monday and this just doesn't cut the cake. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The last one was Crown Prince from 2005-2011. So we have now had two Crown Prince deaths since 2005 - that is not excessive for ITN, for a country as important as Saudi Arabia. Thue (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support &mdash; The Crown Prince of an extremely influential Middle Eastern nation (the birthplace and center of Islam, the world's top petroleum producer, and the only country in the region in the G20 unless you count Turkey); we included Prince Sultan when he died, so in the spirit of consistency we should also include Nayef. But that's not the only reason I 100% support including this right on the main page as a front row story. Prince Nayef was Minister of Interior in Saudi Arabia, which means he was in charge of the country's national security. He had a hand in two very important aspects of Saudi society: 1) The crackdown against the country's al-Qaeda insurgency; and 2) The state of human rights in the conservative desert Kingdom (check out 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests for more on this, and other recent violations). He was a major proponent of fundamentalist Islam within the royal family. In addition to that, the ailing health of the King and the death of Prince Sultan has made Nayef arguably the chief decision maker in the country for the past eight months or so, if not even before that. This is a very, very notable individual who died quite unexpectedly.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 20:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What does this nomination have to do with Saudi national pride? It simply doesn't meet any of the normal criteria for deaths regardless of how up-and-coming the kingdom is.  The prince's death was not untimely, he's not a head of state, or important or influential in his field, or important internationally.  If it weren't for an accident of birth no one would have heard of him and tomorrow no one will remember him.  μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder how it is possible to be as ignorant about geopolitics and still voice an opinion on such an issue. Even characterizing Saudi Arabia as an "up-and-coming" kingdom makes me shake my head. __meco (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think Saudia Arabia is up-and-coming, or understand the meaning of "regardless", you'd do well to stick to a civil discussion of the merits of the nomination rather than accusing me of offending the birthplace of Islam with a little irony. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to pile in, I get the impression that μηδείς doesn't have the arguments to match his strong opinions, and should IMO be a bit more humble. Thue (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of "not a head of state, not an untimely death, not influential in his field, and not internationally important" have you or the previous editor countered? Those are not my "strong opinions" but valid arguments against this posting.  You have some nerve spouting your ad hominem impressions while talking of humility.  Don't give us your advice--explain how the nominee meets the criteria. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah... more flawed arguments from you, I see. Since you know enough about fallacies to accuse your discussion partner of personal attack, you might have been able to spot one other which is equally frequent: the straw man. I don't see an ad hominem in what Thue writes, but I can clearly spot the straw man you are attempting to raise in order to deflect the valid criticism against you. __meco (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One: He was influential in his field, as prime minister responsible for the handling of Al Queda. Two, a death is untimely when he is still in office. And anyway, the rules are not rules but guidelines, and can never be completely covering. Make real argument from first principles, don't cite rules. Thue (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How many ministers of interior deaths (albeit responsible for the national security of any nation) have made it in the ITN so far? Or 78-year olds ill of cancer? It is sad that he died, nevertheless... Crnorizec (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that he was also the Crown Prince, and he was the chief decision maker in Saudi Arabia for several months prior to his death due to the King's ailing health. As much as I'd like to agree with you regarding Nayef's death being sad, I have to be 100% honest and say what I really want to say about it &mdash; good riddance. This man had many innocent people killed over the years and was cowardly enough to facilitate the funding of al-Qaeda in exchange for their word not to stage any attacks on Saudi Arabia (check out The Eleventh Day: The Ultimate Account of 9/11 by non-fiction author Anthony Summers, the evidence is simply too compelling to ignore). I'm glad the Saudis are free of his corrupting influence. Hopefully now they'll have a real chance of fulfilling the "evolution, not revolution" mantra that so many people in the conservative monarchy espouse.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Medeis &mdash; I'm not sure where in my argument you derived "Saudi national pride", or anything of the sort. Nayef is notable for so many different reasons, as I've outlined above. Not just because he was Minister of Interior for 42 years (overseeing things like the Grand Mosque Seizure, for instance), or even because he was Crown Prince at the time of his death (albeit for 8 months, but regardless), but also the fact that he had such a strong presence in virtually all the day-to-day functions of Saudi Arabia. He headed the Supreme Council on Information, the Supreme Committee on the Hajj, and was arguably the most influential of all deputy Prime Ministers and of the Sudairi Seven. His influence was paramount in all corners of domestic policy, he had a major hand in the direction of foreign policy, and he even dabbled somewhat in state expenditures. This man is not insignificant in his country, which is not insignificant in the world.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Master&Expert: Thanks for arguing points, not personality.  I spoke of national pride because you said, "...an extremely influential Middle Eastern nation (the birthplace and center of Islam, the world's top petroleum producer, and the only country in the region in the G20 unless you count Turkey..." which seemed a rather obvious nationalsitic but not ITN death relevant argument.  But I also thought it irrelevant since none of the things which may make him interesting on the national stage bring him to ITN level.  You can't multiply his solid career in SA by the SA GDP and its theocratic aspirations to make him ITN worthy as a notable innovator, the top of his field, highly influential, or of international or multi-field world importance.  The nominee doesn't stand on his own as meeting the usual ITN death criteria. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for something that's "not important" it made an awful lot of headlines. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Was he actually officially regent? That might gain support if it were true.  As for making a lot of headlines, where?  I don't buy the times anymore, but not one the agregators I track even mention the story. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- This does not meet any death criteria, so it is ineligible for posting. Being the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia does not satisfy criteria #1 or #3.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've found it hard to come up with an opinion on this nomination. As stated above, he wasn't head of state and his health wasn't the best, so with strict adherence to our rules, he doesn't qualify. However both he, his position in Saudi, the role he was heir to taking over and all of that angle ticks the boxes we usually require. On balance, it's the death of an heir, which leans me just into the oppose side. Not an easy call, anyway. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: We can argue till eternity on the the line to the throne. But forget that, he was the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior. Death of a deputy prime minister (while in office) of a major power in the Middle East is in itself notable. I dont think there would have been this much resistance if the Deputy PM of UK or Australia died while in office. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I bet if their crown prince died it would be posted right away too. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Dear Tariqabjotu: Eventually, I couldn't care less if you post something or not, but 5-6 is not exactly a consensus, which is one of the basic pillars of Wikipedia. Crnorizec (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking solely on vote-counting, I see 8 (Thue, Lihaas, Meco, Mohamed CJ, Tachfin, Master&Expert, Hot Stop, and Chocolate Horlicks) vs. 5 (you, IP98, Medeis, Bzweebl, doktorb). That's generally enough to placate concerns about posting. But, then you can also add doktorb's obvious ambivalence. I would also think a couple of the opposes are a misjudgment of the Crown Prince's political significance (which seemed much clearer in October), but that's beside the point; there is enough support regardless. --  tariq abjotu  17:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Are you counting votes, or "perceived ambivalences and misjudgements"? Because, there are 6 support votes, not 8. Crnorizec (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever. --  tariq abjotu  18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There were 8 supporters at time of posting and 10 now: Thue (nominator), Lihaas (wanted to nominate), Meco, Mohamed CJ, Tachfin, Master&Expert, Hot Stop, Chocolate Horlicks, Tariqabjotu (comments imply he would support), and me (I would support if I could change because of DC 3).  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Liu Yang

 * Support and comment: Important milestone for astronautics, China and women. However I wonder if this is the best angle. Indeed this Shenzhou 9 mission is also the first time that the new Chinese Space Station Tiangong-1 will be occupied by a crew. We will have two crewed space stations operating in Low Earth Orbit at the same time, which hasn't happened often (Maybe at the time of Skylab/Salyut or Mir/ISS ???). Hektor (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Historic mission. First Chinese woman launched in space and first manned spaceflight to new Chinese space station. Modify blurb. Liu was already a taikonaut before the launch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.155.77 (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. First X nationality woman in space doesn't seem that important to me. Perhaps DYK instead? Also, the blurb is wrong. The current blurb says "Liu Yang becomes the first Chinese taikonaut in space", by that is clearly wrong according to List of Chinese astronauts. Thue (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Agree in principle with Thue, but since the Chinese self-launched, rather than hitch a ride with the USA (which is impossible now : or Russia, I'm more inclined to support. I would oppose first X nationality which doesn't have it's own manned space flight program. --IP98 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Fairly neutral on the "first Chinese woman" part of the story, but that aside this is the first manned mission to Tiangong-1, and spaceflights are ITN/R anyway. -- W.  D.   Graham  12:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I would suggest the removal of the word "taikonaut" from the blurb as it is redundant and of questionable accuracy. It should also probably mention Tiangong-1. -- W.  D.   Graham  15:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an interesting angle on a story we would post anyway per ITN/R. —WFC— 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Current population of space: Three Russians, three Chinese, two Americans and one Dutch. One woman and eight men. Hektor (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a RS source indicating that there are ONLY humans in space?Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't prove a negative doktorb wordsdeeds 13:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Posted, without the "taikonaut" word. T. Canens (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - China is becoming a significant power in space exploration, and the manned flight and docking to the space station proves their technological achievements. Crnorizec (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - major historic event.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update?: I feel the mission itself is more notable than the female astronaut (which is no doubt, also notable). Should we update the blurb to cover the docking? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree! Major event in space. First time a manned docking is done by China - the third country to do so. We have two occupied space stations now. As if not more significant as the first woman part 75.119.230.180 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nik Wallenda (crossing of Niagara Falls)
with 76.2.33.151 on nomination (below)--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On June 15, 2012, Wallenda successfully became the first person to cross directly over Niagara Falls on a highwire. Possible Wikipedia articles/details: The Flying Wallendas, Karl Wallenda, Niagara Falls, Charles Blondin, Tightrope Walking. Nominated due to live coverage, popularity, historical value, and uniqueness of event (57458 views in the last hour). Add toolbox and specific entry as needed. 76.2.33.151 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm interested in supporting this because of the rarity and uniqueness of the event; however, I would like to see more expansion at Nik_Wallenda, specifically references, a tad more expansion, and some clarification of the preparations.  Spencer T♦ C 04:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now well within guidelines, but much more to follow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a stunt, nothing more. As the nomination attests the novelty value is due to legal and procedural hurdles as opposed to any inherent difficulty.  Subject of article was never in any danger in any event due to safety line.  Ultimately nothing more than an entertainments spectacle notable only in an incredibly narrow field that it more or less defines on its own terms. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it was a "stunt" by definition. The harness was not by Wallenda's choice, but a requirement of the broadcast deal. Ultimately, it had no effect.  If he fell, his reputation would have been ruined, destroying his livelihood, so the risk was still very great.  Sure it an entertainment story - an entertainment story with global appeal and covered several dozen countries around the world (which is more than most entertainment [i.e. sports] stories we cover. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody forced him to wear the harness, it was his choice to accept the TV deal and by extension his choice to take the harness. The fact that he did shows where the real priority was: lining his pockets with silver.  Ultimately, that is almost a side point though, people haven't been eagerly anticipating the possibility of someone doing this for decades, it is simply something the media have whipped up a frenzy about and that ultimately changes nothing of any broader significance. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Considering the rig cost $1.3 million he kinda did have to have the financial support. Whatever the reason for the extreme interest in the stunt (and we disagree about what that reason is), the fact remains that it was a highly anticipated event around the world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Highly anticipated by exactly whom? The media, obviously. And...? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All the people who showed up live and/or tuned in to watch, obviously. The fact that you weren't anticipating it doesn't mean no one was (or that those of us who were lookign forward to it were only doing so b/c the media told us to). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am with Crispmuncher on this. There is 'advancing human endeavour' and then there is 'getting a sponsored publicity shot'. Nothing here really impresses me - people have been getting their mugs in local papers for climbing up walls since the invention of the camera. ITN is not supposed to be about "self generated headlines", which is why we tend to dismiss protest movements for what they are. This is the same ballpark - nothing here shouts out at me as notable, it's a gimmick, a stunt, and will be forgotten by next month never mind next year. ITN can be moulded into a lot of things, but a news ticker for the Guinness Book of Records? No. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Every single sporting event is self-generating. Protests in Myanmar are self generating. The human condition is such that we affect the world we live in. Can't limit ourselves to natural disasters or scientific achievement. --IP98 (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I found it funny that half the nom's supporting comments were about the difficulty of getting permits. Are we really nominating a victory over two, not just one, but two nation's bureaucracies? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (holy grail) + (extreme difficulty) == 2. (approval/permits) == 1. ((1/3) * 100) != 50. I'm laughing too HiLo, but it's at the bald inaccuracy of your claim. --IP98 (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see this as a publicity stunt at all. He is a Wallenda, this is what they do. It is no more self-generated than any other event. Why does Man-U win the Premiere championship? To better human kind? No. Is it the result of some external act of nature? No. It is for selfish personal glory and to improve their value as a vehicle for advertising. The difference is they kick a ball about a field, and this joker walked across Niagara falls on a cable. Thaddeus is right, this is a rare and unique event and is a good candidate for the front page. --IP98 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is ideological nonsense of the highest degree. He did this for as much media attention and self-satisfaction as anyone who takes to the football pitch. If we allow this on the front page, where would it end? Human fly attempts? Marathon runners in funny outfits? Sitting in baths of baked beans for telethons? This is an unique event - but so was sitting outside St Paul's in tents and we rejected that as well. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about the football pitch, I made the exact same point. If someone had made a career out of sitting in a bath of baked beans, coming from a family of baked bean bath bathers If baked bean bathing itself having a long tradition, and award winning documentaries made like Man in tub of baked beans, and after all that wanted to sit in a tub of baked beans suspended over Niagara Falls with 100 thousand live spectators and many more on television, yes, I would have to lend my support to that. Your argument, however, is a Straw man, because there is a clear difference between training to walk across the falls on a tight rope and a buffoon soaking in a tub of baked beans. --IP98 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Tightrope walk across Niagara Falls, first across the gorge in a century, first ever across the brim of the falls. This was a very heavily publicized event by media and by the general public. Yes, the safety harness was BS, but unfortunately it was somewhat forced upon him for the opportunity to perform. These types of events are few and far between in our nanny-state society of today. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  14:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support IP98 is spot on. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Although it may be true that this has been overhyped by the media, that does not diminish the significance of the accomplishment. It is quite an amazing feat that has never been done before.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support. This is the first Niagara Falls crossing anywhere over the river on tightrope since 1896, and the first ever crossing over the Falls itself, probably the most well-known waterfall in the world. Watched by hundreds of millions of people. This is a human endeavour that has many social and economic implications, and we don't post too many of these, in our era of war and disaster. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted This has sufficient support, and the trend has gone toward posting this. Also, that update is absolutely incredible, and we should be aiming to feature articles this informative. --  tariq abjotu  14:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you were better than this Tariq. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Than what? --  tariq abjotu  14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posting a novelty event as a news story. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop harassing hard-working admins, Doktorbuk. It doesn't improve anything and doesn't help anyone. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to post (especially considering this is a minority topic, despite my failure to mark it as such). There were seven supports plus an implied support by Spencer vs. three opposes. Good work Tariq. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should NEVER come down to counting votes. HiLo48 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It should probably never come down to counting the nominators arguments which you disagree with either. --IP98 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you ever notice that the only time anyone says "it should never come down to counting votes" is when the result goes the way they didn't personally want it to go? No one ever says "I thought this should have been posted, but I am glad it was not because it shouldn't come down to counting votes".  That rediculous claim only comes from people who are both in the minority and who didn't get the result they wanted.  Not coming down to counting votes doesn't mean that the minority position wins all the time either... -- Jayron  32  19:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that I wasn't actually disputing the posting? I had just about been convinced that this was worth posting. I was disputing that very bad reasoning. It's something I do. I know it annoys you, but bad reasoning should never be acceptable, no matter whose "side" it supports. Counting votes IS ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that the nom counted the votes, not the posting admin. Whether or not vote counting is bad reasoning, I don't think that it contributed to the post. --IP98 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Doktorbuk, you need to get used to the fact that not everyone agrees with you on the definition of "trivial". --  tariq abjotu  15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You guys are missing the point completely. I know I'm arguing a moot point, but the problem is not whether it is a publicity stunt. It is that tightrope-walking is not a subject of global importance. Thaddeus' comments would be totally valid reasons to post this to the main page if Wikipedia were a tightrope-walking encyclopedia. This is really beside the point, but you don't see this story on other news websites' front pages (Maybe it was up few hours the day of the event). It is really a NY/Ontario local interest story that television media blew out of proportion. If Wikipedia notability is really subject to the whims of TV producers then there need to be some changes... 96.37.213.204 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * support - historic event. with a good ending result.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Are we going to post juggling records as well? Boomshanka (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are not going to post juggling records as well.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth at this point - (1) This particular stunt is a risk to life, harness notwithstanding, (2) Niagara Falls significantly defines itself by its history of stunters, and many stunters have defined their own achievements in terms of Niagara Falls, (3) A century's ban on Niagara Falls stunting was overthrown to allow this crossing, (4) first time ever directly over the falls themselves. Those elements, taken together, make this crossing unique enough in the history of stunting to be noteworthy. As to a milestone of human endeavour - apparently there still are people willing to open new frontiers at the risk of their own lives. (If we at Wikipedia are not to be a crystal ball, it is also not ours to assess the long-term value of any particular frontier.) Incidentally, some protest movements could also be considered the same way. However, the political lenses do need to be removed first, before any neutral assessment of notability. - Tenebris 07:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Carlotta (2012)
One of MX biggest hurricane threats in years. Article may need a bit of work before getting posted though. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  04:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:Key word right now is "threat". Wait until something actually happens, and then post.  Spencer T♦ C 04:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. We've only posted typhoons/storms in the past where there has been significant damage or loss of life, I believe. No mention of the storm on the BBC News Latin America section suggests this really isn't much. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons given above, lets see if it does some damage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it hasn't happened yet. Suggest renominating if or when it turns out to be an impactful hurricane, so that no-longer-relevant opposes do not hold up the posting process. —WFC— 12:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question What's MX? HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mexico. --  tariq abjotu  22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- Based on what I heard on the news, it sounds like there were only two casualties before it became a tropical storm.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

US Immigration policy
Looks like a major shift in policy, potentially affecting people from many countries. Also has potential to shift focus of the November election. Lead story on BBC, showing significant international interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This is only an executive order, so I believe that it will expire if Obama is not re-elected, and this is only a short term change anyway. Additionally, any number of things could shift a presidential election, so determining notability in a single event because of that is unreasonable.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This is only a temporary fix and doesn't reflect any long-term shift in public policy. As for the chance of shifting the focus of the November election - be serious.--WaltCip (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- per waltcip.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. However, it going to influence voting patterns in the election. That said, as a policy that has yet to be implemented and its effects mostly in the future, I cannot see this being ITN material. Speciate (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Seems like a blanket amnesty to a lot of illegals. --IP98 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Read more about it.--WaltCip (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Policy shift in election year" is not front page news doktorb wordsdeeds 05:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rajat Gupta

 * This nom is a loss of solid crdibility cause we dont mention race/ethnicity as POV. At any rate nothing expecially notable of a financial convict (as he now is). Thereve been many. Stanford/Madoff were biggerLihaas (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I am inclined to support the story (with a better blurb) if an extensive update happens. This is the resolution to major criminal trial and the biggest business story of the day. (There is an article about this plus the parallel cases, which might be the best place for a large update.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What is wrong with the blurb? Truthsort (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't explain why the story is important (and also the ethnicity thing mentioned by Lihaas). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- I want to oppose, but Gupta has had such a major influence on the economy over the years, making this far more notable than an ordinary case of fraud, although the update is still insufficient. Additionally, we don't have to bold it because it is a mediocre article, but Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group, Anil Kumar, and Rajat Gupta insider trading cases can be linked to in the blurb.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely, that article needs to be linked and explained in the blurb. --M ASEM (t) 19:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)])
 * Oppose. I'm sorry, but this is nothing like the Bernie Madoff or Allen Stanford stories. Who was hurt? What is the compelling interest? Plus the Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group, Anil Kumar, and Rajat Gupta insider trading cases article is unreadable. Speciate (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, why does someone have to get hurt in a conviction other than the convicted? The compelling interest is his fame and importance, which is indubitably widespread. Also, Raj Rajaratnam/Galleon Group, Anil Kumar, and Rajat Gupta insider trading cases will probably not be bolded, so it doesn't need to be a well-written article, but if we post it on the front page as a normal link, it creates the possibility that someone will come along and improve it.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Firstly as ThaddeusB has noted the blurb does nothing to put this story into context or assert its notability. If a blurb can't capture the attention of our readership it isn't ITN worthy.  Secondly even after reading the article in full I am still left wondering as to why this should be considered  notable enough for ITN inclusion: it seems a fairly mundane insider trading case.  The ethnicity of the defendant is a complete irrelevance unless it is somehow directly related to the nature of the offence or the handling of the case against him. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Support Goldman Sachs board member guilty of insider trading of Warren Buffet securities? What could possibly be a bigger corporate criminal case than this? I am not quite sure I understand the comment, but is Lihaas actually saying that to post this would be racist?  Not to post this because the convict is not an Anglo is what would be racist. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He was referring to adding the phrase "American Indian" in the blurb. For example, the nominations below dont use "Gambian black woman Fatou B. Bensouda succeeds Luis Moreno Ocampo as Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague" or "Caucasian American Financier Allen Stanford is sentenced to 110 years in prison for his Stanford Financial Group Ponzi scheme". While it may not be racist, I dont think his ethnicity warrants a mention unless for some reason that increases the notability (like it would have if the issue involved multiple countries or international relations). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * American Indian is not the same as Indian American. That being said, he was born an Indian citizen and is now an American citizen. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to say "Indian-American" in the blurb. If he were born and raised in the United States (and, therefore, born and raised a U.S. citizen -- India does not permit dual citizenship), then it would certainly not be appropriate. --  tariq abjotu  14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad on the use of the phrase. Not too stressed about mentioning his ethnicity/nationality, but must say that there is no consistent practice on mentioning nationality - (eg.)The posted blurb doesnt say "American" Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to successfully tightrope walk over Niagara Falls. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bensouda sworn in as new ICC chief prosecutor

 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * support -- head of an intl body and the first african to hound other africans.Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support because this is a highly notable job, but the currently selected article is a mess. Perhaps we could bold Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court instead?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending article cleanup - interesting and ITN-worthy topic but her article is tagged as 'multiple issues' and does in fact seem to need more refs and a change in tone. Without improvement it's hard to see this getting posted. Jus  da  fax   23:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is cleaned up. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Allen Stanford

 * Comment His conviction was posted. Is it common to post the sentencing when the conviction was posted as well? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the answer to Muboshgu's question is no. --IP98 (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw- Didn't know or remember, whichever the case may be, that we posted this.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt dissolves the Parliament of Egypt
Thue | talk 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability

 * Support - newsworthy & notable; well reported, but the article desperately needs to be added to. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * obvious support its a counter-revolution in the MIDDLE of a presidential election. (though would need to see on what grounds they did it. Is there an english copy of the verdict?) Dont this parliament of egypt is best. Perhaps a subarticle of the egyptian revolution that needs an update.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for the judgement is summarized in the linked NYT article. Thue | talk 16:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I support, but not only does the article have little substance, it doesn't contain a single reference. This is far away from a posting.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if article gets improved. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is clearly a highly important event and can see no reason why this should not be put onto the front page at the earliest opportunity doktorb wordsdeeds 17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - when I saw the headlines today, I immediately thought this was the biggest story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article and blurb readiness
The linked article is obviously not yet ready. Thue | talk 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- I prefer the new approach, with a new section in the election article for the dissolution.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The bolded article is now updated (and is the best place for an update anyway). The other linked articles remain in poor shape. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The update is there now, but the article has an orange tag.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wonder if the section is currently compliant with NPOV. Maybe this is indeed an unmitigated dark day for Egypt, but I reckon there's probably more than one way of looking at it. Formerip (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The current section seems NPOV to me. The NYT article was much more one-sided against the judgement. Can you be more specific as to why you think it is biased? Thue | talk 20:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. The article has been well-updated, and I've removed the one-year-old tag since it is obviously "clean" enough now. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why, but on my browser (Firefox) at least, clicking the link through from the main page takes you to the references section, not the "Dissolution" section. LukeSurlt c 13:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I also have Firefox. Why is that?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it because some of the tables/pictures are coded to be side-by-side, but are actually too wide to do that (in most resolutions/screen sizes). Firefox thus doesn't properly account for the length of the page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I have a pretty wide screen here, so if it's affecting me it's probably impacting most Firefox users. That's a pretty large chunk of readers. LukeSurlt c 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yah, it screws up for me too. (I saw the problem yesterday, but assumed it was just me since I use a rather narrow screen.) I have asked for help tracking down the problem on the village pump technical board. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi visits Europe
Oppose. We've posted a number of recent milestones of hers, but we can't get into posting every time she gets on a plane. Formerip (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose- This isn't news. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize is news.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support if the focus of the blurb and the update is her actually receiving her Nobel prize. Seems notable for anyone who was awarded in absentia to finally get their prize. It was awarded in 91 so we won't be double posting. I do, however, firmly believe we over represent Myanmar and Aung San Suu Kyi. --IP98 (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Jon McGregor wins 2012 IMPAC award

 * Support- ITN/R, good update.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl. --IP98 (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We could make Even the Dogs a link. It would be a red link which is very unusual on the front page - but it would be an advertisement that "This is the encyclopaedia you can add to". LukeSurlt c 12:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That certainly is an interesting concept, I must say. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rio+20

 * Support- Certainly notable since it is held after twenty years, reminding everybody that nothing has been achieved since then and the topic has been still important worldwide.Egeymi (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not ready. I support this in principle, but the article seems to be just a set of inadequately explained lists and some extended red-flag content about Iran's plans to attend being controversial. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article is poor. I'll work on it if I get the chance.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Iraq bombing attacks

 * Support nice job. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Notable news, great article.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Both notable and potential predictor of the future events in the Middle East, emphasizing the struggle between Muslim sects, namely Alawites and Sunnis, in the region, including Syria.Egeymi (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support and kudos per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- Although this only has five supports so far, the article is sufficiently front-page worthy that this is ready to be posted.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  02:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Belated comment: personally I commend the users who brought this article up to main page standards, though I am still a bit reluctant about posting bombings in war zones. We tend to do this a lot of middle-east related conflicts, but a lot of these bombings do not have long-term notability, despite the fact that there may be quite a few casualties. We need better criteria than saying that so many people died and thus it's notable. Colipon+ (Talk) 13:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Though we had somethign realy strong going on the elections, but then people are more interest n personality poliics than discussions. Theyd rather say no than partak ein discussion and apparently then vote counting is the the deerminant ;(Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array

 * "Ticker being red" is not a reason to post something (besides, it's not red any more), and you're not telling us what this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This launch is definitely important scientifically and has been receiving plenty of coverage across the world. Additionally, the article has now been updated.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support good update, interesting piece of space news. --IP98 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, suggested blurb:
 * NASA launches X-ray telescope NuSTAR on the plane-assisted rocket Pegasus XL (pictured)  S Pat   talk 21:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Per Bzweebl and IP98. The update about the launch is small, but I don't think much else can be said. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I have very little to add to the reasons posted above. A clearly notable event and an interesting alternative story for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 17:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready- Sufficient update, unanimous support.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a sufficient update. --  tariq abjotu  01:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? It is six sentences long and cites six different sources.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the entire "Launch" section to be part of the update. Most of that is background information that has been there for awhile and, in my opinion, doesn't pertain to Wednesday's event. We don't generally consider information about the scheduling of a future launch to be part of the update afterward. There are three extremely short, choppy sentences actually about the launch. That's not sufficient. --  tariq abjotu  04:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Now it's ready. Hopefully.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Earthquakes in Afghanistan
Support: Notable disaster. Article's a bit on the thinner side, but dont know if much more details are available to fatten the article. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Natural disasters of this size are significant news. It may take a while for news organisations to provide the same level of coverage as would happen if this occurred in a more accessible part of the world, but this shouldn't preclude posting. LukeSurlt c 11:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant earthquake with 70 already presumed dead during the preliminary stages of the recovery effort. YuMaNuMa Contrib 16:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Sufficiently major natural disaster.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Azaria Chamberlain ruling

 * Support "A dingo ate my baby!" has entered our lexicon, and the conclusion of this long running case is noteworthy. The article is updated, but it's not organized chronologically which would make it easier to read. --IP98 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- This case has gotten out of control. It has been running for a while now and has received tons of attention.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I've never heard of this case before, but I've read Picnic at Hanging Rock and this kinda reminds me of it. Also how is this not a minority topic? --Τασουλα (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm always cautious with nominations that are about my home country, but when there's been a movie with Meryl Streep about it, I guess more of the world knows. It's certainly the lead story everywhere in Australia last night and today. HiLo48 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Agreed that it has received a lot of media attention. But I fail to see the notability of a ruling by a coroner that a dingo killed a baby in 1980. Nothing to indicate as to why the baby, the dingo or the death has any significant impact or consequence. As the "Media involvement and bias" section of the article itself indicates, this appears to be a case where the media has just sensationalized a minor story. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that the baby's mother was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour for the child's murder? HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that a nation's most-discussed trial ever is de facto notable. It's certainly had a bigger social impact than most of the vehicle crashes or sports championships we post. Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the article, I am aware. So one citizen in one country did not receive proper justice. Forget the life imprisonment, even if capital punishment was permitted in Aus and she was hung for a crime she did not commit, while it will be one instance of gross failure of the justice system, I fail to see how this would be noteworthy to an international audience. Isn't occasional failure of justice systems, routine? Dont people ever get wrongly convicted and wrongly acquitted? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't a case that gets sustained international media and scholarly attention the literal definition of "noteworthy"? I don't understand when editors try to impose criteria beyond that, especially when no one mentions those criteria when the Kings win the Stanley Cup, etc. Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree level of news coverage is definitely an indicator of notability, but there are a lot of fluff pieces that get worldwide attention. I'll also agree that we can never make an objective analysis of what is fluff piece and what is not. I see that this has already been posted, and this is not something I am particularly peeved about, so I wont push further. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that the conviction was overturned 30 years ago? --12.41.124.2 (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Assuming this is a final ruling, yes, of huge international interest for decades. Law, Biology, Books, Movies, Seinfeld.  Margaret Effing Thatcher even played the mom in a hollywood movie, for gosh sakes.  WP exists to serve its users, not its self-appointed guardians.μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is a slow burning case as you would expect from something 30 years ago. Nevertheless this has attracted widespread international attention over the years, enough to be ITN worthy. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment I guess the article is updated. But I have never seen an article so well-written be so poorly organized. Not blaming anyone here, but why isn't it written a bit more (chrono)logically? --  tariq abjotu  03:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- The article update is made up of one sentence in the lead and two in the body of the article. That is insufficient. I have marked the nomination as needing an update.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's more than that. It's just so damn hard to find because the article is poorly ordered. Look under "Coroner's inquests". --  tariq abjotu  04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, per the page history, it looks to me like 5-7 sentences have been added throughout the article as well as other fixes. As the nominator, I won't revert Bzweebl, but it does appear to me to be updated. Khazar2 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for pointing that out.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I have to say it's rather unusual to nominate this at the end of the day that the story 'broke', and for it to be considered front page news for Wikipedia. It is an interesting story, but as has been said above, this is essentially a one-line update for a story as old as I am! Why should it be considered for ITN, given that it's more of a curiosity than an 'event'? doktorb wordsdeeds 04:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, our first stated purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Given the prominence of this story's coverage, and the high article traffic at the page, it seems to me to qualify. Khazar2 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Page views don't count. Of course there's going to be a "bounce" in readers whenever something is covered on the news, that's what happens (and therefore, surely, we don't need to direct readers to it 24 hours after the event?). Just as the ticker going red doesn't count, neither should the readership stats. I am not satisfied that a ruling like this should be on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't see this as a "current event of wide interest", since the death was more than 30 years ago and this changes nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it changes the contents of a death certificate, and finally fully clears a lady who was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. I'm puzzled at the posts that seem to show a complete ignorance of the case. We've posted far more trivial legal cases from the US. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But never a trivial case from Europe? What is your obsession with America? Seems like a case of commonwealth penis envy... --IP98 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * poppose not notablem there are plenty of false arrests in the world. and a movie is not notable because of its lead and being based on a true story. IN that case there would be lots of ITNRs.Lihaas (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * support since this particular case is of wide interest worldwide. As said above the world knows about "the dingo ate my baby". Plus this didnt just happen, its been around for a very long time. and it made headlines in news media worldwide.... -- Ashish-g55 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - One of a kind case that has been in the public mind since 1980.. way outside Australias borders too.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Review I don't believe this story should have been posted and will set out my reasons on the talk page. I have alerted BorgQueen to this doktorb wordsdeeds 18:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see the problem in this being in the ITN section. It has been a very special case that has been in the public eye ever since 1980, and it has reached far beyond the Australian borders. If any crime case should be on ITN its this one. And it is troubling to me that users always wants reviews and wants to challenge these kind of articles being on ITN taking away valuable time for the user who posted it to discuss the matter for hours. I have seen it happen over and over again.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what your reasons are, but the reason I didn't post it at the time I commented is that the article is very poorly ordered, making the update difficult to locate. But other than that, I have no objections. And even that objection isn't strong enough to request that it be taken down. --  tariq abjotu  19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Doktorbuk's reasoning can be found here.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * strongly oppose, that's ridiculous, in order of notability this piece of news should be like spot 25.000 or something, who posted this clown-tale and has the nerve to support it's stay? This is wikipedia FIRST PAGE people!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.89.147 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your opinion. We've evaluated your contribution, but upon community consensus we've posted the article.  I'm sorry if that doesn't quite meet your expectations.  If you read all the opinions above, you might gauge how this is or isn't important to English Wikipedia. Perhaps there's another project you could work with if you don't agree this community-based decision.  In any case, thanks again for your interest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unpost: She was freed from prison in 1988 because they found the baby's clothes in a dingo den in 1986. The fact that a coroner finally got around to officially changing the death certificate 25 years later is not ITN-worthy. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unpost. This story is not notable beyond Australia.  Living in America, this is the first time I've ever heard of this story. Plus, this may open up a flood gate for random "notable" child abduction stories. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you have indeed heard of this story, haven't you? (BTW, anyone you know voted for Nixon?)μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, what is the general guideline for nomination of criminal cases? Despite the result of this case, it was considered a criminal case. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. This has been a headline news story in the UK each time a new development has been reported for 30 years. Leaky  Caldron  22:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That the case is thirty years old, yet still generates international headlines, only proves its enduring notability and widespread interest. —David Levy 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The assertion that "this story is not notable beyond Australia", based entirely upon one user's personal unfamiliarity, is preposterous.  It's extremely well known in the United States (where KyuuA4 is from, I believe) — perhaps more so than any other controversy in the history of Australia.  It appears that the media coverage has been much the same in other countries.
 * Comment Eh I don't really see how this is different than the Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony cases, which we didn't because they were deeemed to be "super over hyped" by the media because of missing white woman syndrome bias and greatly exaggerated and sensationalized media coverage (in the Anthony case especially by Nancy Grace). Knox even served about four years in jail before she was freed, similar to this case. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's "Not notable outside Australia" which is the concern (obviously Seinfeld made a joke about it years ago). The problem is that it's a minor footnote (I say minor, because the cause of death was determined in 1986, but no one had the balls to put it on paper until 2012) to a 30 year old story. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 Warsaw football clashes

 * Highly POV blurb, with a POV source. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This is a very minor incident.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very minor march by Russian football fans on Russia Day, that was dispersed by Polish Police without much of an incident. Only a few acts of violence, but not enough to make it notable. In the footage I saw during the Greece-Czech Rep. match, it looked very minor. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 18:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately, it is very ordinary. Egeymi (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Open fire" sounds like live shots were fired with the intention to harm, which is not what happened here (warning shots, I'm guessing blanks). I would Oppose for now on the basis that it is not a major incident. Note however the situation could escalate post game. Regardless, the blurb needs a complete re-write. --LukeSurlt c 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can be summarised as "football fans get a bit oi oi bant before game". Yes, there's history and context involved (Russia play Poland in Poland, with a German referee, on a Russian national holiday). Nonetheless it's not enough to warrant the front page, given it's more 'unrest' than 'riot'. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Aren't riots part of the standard pre-game festivities at every European association football match? It may be more newsworty whenever one doesn't break out... -- Jayron  32  20:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support front page of BBC, Guardian. This is a compelling topic for ITN. Ethnic violence resulting in injuries, fire. Seems plenty notable to me. Update is sufficient. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ethic clashes between rival football nations especially with 5 resulted injuries is not the sort of stuff we post on ITN. YuMaNuMa Contrib 21:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the IP. Apparently FireFox can't keep a session cookie to save its worthless life. BTW BBC is reporting the injury count at 10, and given that police in riot gear fired tear gas and rubber bullets, I think it deserves more than "yawn football hooligans". --IP98 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wait until the knuckle-dragging En-ger-land fans kick-off - they'll show them what a riot is!  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013

 * Wait until the referendum is held and the results are out. The announcement sounds sufficiently important anyway.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO the mere fact such a referendum has been announced is noteworthy, given the tensions between Buenos Aires and London. The article, I'm sure, will shortly be expanded greatly. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove "simmering" from blurb. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 15:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - If it was any referendum then I would have said Wait but now as this is a result of ongoing arguments between the UK and Argentina this actually becomes In the news already now.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: For those unfamiliar with this situation, be aware that this is somewhat of a "publicity exercise" to assert the islands' British status - a response to external rather than internal forces. It would be very surprising if the pro-Argentine vote got more than a handful of votes in this referendum. --LukeSurlt c 16:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: a publicity stunt, only undertaken to be able to flaunt the overwhelmingly one-sided result that will surely result. If the result of the referendum supports a change in the status quo, that would be very ITNworthy, but that won't happen.  Kevin McE (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- As per my Scottish nomination, we wait for the referendum to be held.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good for DYK at th emoment.Lihaas (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Announcements such as this are normally never posted. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose:Britain used to have a navy. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Elinor Ostrom

 * Comment As there are at least new five Nobel Prize winners per year (and usually more), we'd expect five or so Nobel prize winners to die each year. As such, Nobel Prize cannot mean an automatic ITN item upon death. The question here is, is being the first woman to win the Economics prize sufficiently significant for an ITN? --LukeSurlt c 15:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, we have Recent deaths, use it. A death should only be on ITN if it is independently notable or causes some unexpected shift in the world. This is neither. --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support pending update per ITN/DC #2. To LukeSurl there are scores of accomplished athletes, performers, politicians and authors. ITN/DC #2 doesn't discriminate. That said, I strongly oppose it, but for now it stands. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from the prize, was she widely recognized as a very important figure in economics?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well published, numerous awards, called "one of 25 visionaries who are changing the world". Seems to fit the bill to me. The update is a little thin is all. --IP98 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ITN/DC doesn't discriminate, but we still can, no? The language of the guideline appears to me to set a minimum for posting, not to force us to post every figure who meets one of the three. Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can heap praise on an award winning Cuban pugilist I think we can post the only female nobel prize economics winner, especially given that she was still active and was well respected. --IP98 (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm generally skeptical of posting any death that isn't major front-page news in the deceased's home country (and preferably others). I agree that this would be better for Recent Deaths. Khazar2 (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC liquidation

 * Oppose at least until it happens and even then the claim that they are the most successful club in the world is just selective, non-neutral, editorial hyperbole. Leaky  Caldron  10:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it non-neutral given that they hold the world record for domestic league titles? Indeed, I would argue for keeping that mention as that's what makes this story all the more notable. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because "success" cannot equitably be measured solely by the number of championship titles won, which takes no account of the competitive strength of the league, for example. In the case of Rangers it is a narrow yet accurate view based on the historical statistical record taking no account of the value of those championships in the context of an effectively 2 club league for about 80 years. Leaky  Caldron  12:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support, Once the liquidation process has started then post it. Remove the bit about the world's most successful football team, I'm sure Man U, Barca, Real Madrid etc would have something to say about that. Suggest possible wording ....in Association Football Rangers F.C., are liquidated after main creditor HM Revenue and Customs rejects a CVA to bring the club out of administration. yorkshiresky (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This will get two sides of the Atlantic at odds with each other! (Not to mention either side of Hadrian's Wall). This is a highly notable event, not least because it was always said that the finances of football would need 'a big name' to go under for something to happen. I'm stunned that a side so successful have, essentially, been expunged from history by the flick of an administrator's pencil. It's very important news and clearly fit for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 12:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of liquidation isn't the same as mine. Provided that the other SPL clubs agree, Rangers will continue to play in the Scottish top league at Ibrox. Technically a "newco" but not much else changes on the face of it. Leaky  Caldron  12:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Rangers are not among the top-class football clubs for years, and such liquidity problems are not uncommon in football. This may have been much more important if Rangers really is the world's most successful football club, but unfortunately it's far from being clearly ascertained.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. As per above, remove "the world's most successful association football team". In fact, for concision, the bit about it's main creditor being HMRC is probably unnecessary. Wait until it is known what will actually happen to the team, then have a post detailing the consequences. Article probably needs a bit more updating. Also we have an article Administration (British football) which is more specific for this situation. LukeSurlt c 13:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is known what will happen: they face liquidation proceedings as the CVA proposal was rejected. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will there still be a club called 'Rangers' in the SPL? Playing at Ibrox? If the answer is yes (I'm guessing it depends on the SPL vote) then this isn't really big news in a sporting context - and in a business context Rangers F.C. isn't that huge a company. LukeSurlt c 14:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if the SPL clubs vote to allow the "newco" in (and I have my doubts), they won't be allowed to use the name "Rangers FC" (nor would the new club in the Third Division). It's likely to be something like "AFC Rangers" (or similar). And it's being reported that Ibrox will be sold and the newco will attempt to lease the ground back, so no guarantee there either. So, as it stands, Rangers as we know it will not exist for much longer. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * None of which is news until it happens and none of it has. It is, as of today, pure speculation - not news. Leaky  Caldron  15:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Top-flight in Scotland is the equivalent of non-league in England.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment.  I would support posting something a bit more decisive than what has happened so far.  AFAIK, there is a chance that Rangers will remain a club in the SPL, but there are a number of other possible outcomes, such as being forced down to the 3rd division.  I do think Rangers are a notable enough club to consider posting if the latter happens.  While not as strong as top clubs in England, Spain, etc, they have a worldwide fanbase at least in the English-speaking world and have a far greater notability than, say, a perennial mid-table EPL team.  Lugnuts I'm sure your comment was an exaggeration but I think you may underestimate how relatively famous Rangers FC is among people who only casually pay attention to British football.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had to mull this over for a while, but in the end it's no more notable than a major league team in the USA being sold or folding. The most successful title highly subjective. I've seen the same thing said about LFC and Man-U. The thing about European football is that you have a billion cups and leagues and teams can rack up a large number of "championships" so it's not really clear cut. --IP98 (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] LA kings win stanley cup

 * Support posting the Stanley Cup once it's over, but Game 6 is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A tad premature, methinks? Not that the end result whoever wins isn't going to be an ITN item, but its a tad presumptuous that the Kings will win it...--M ASEM  (t) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's 3-0 Kings, so the Kings will likely clinch the cup in tonight's game. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SOmeone hated me when I jinxed the Red Wings either last year or two years ago. Good thing there was no jinxing on this one lol. – H T   D  03:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea exactly what the state of the game was when this was posted or when I replied, but my suggest in such future cases is that when the result is likely going to be ITN (this being the result of a major sports championship), the blurb should stay generic until the details are 100% affirmed (read: completion of the game). It's not wrong to pre-load the ITN candidate of course, just to be a bit presumptuous as to the actual results even if it was a shoe-in at the time of writing. --M ASEM  (t) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote a blurb, which was arrogantly usurped by others, when the game was 3-0. There was a very high chance of it finishing within a couple hours, and 100% likelyhood within a couple days. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- The game is over. I have edited the blurb.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R and most notable hockey championship there is. However, we've never mentioned who wins the Conn Smythe Trophy in the blurb prior to now, do we really need to? Maybe we could just put Jonathan Quick's picture in ITN, with a note in the blurb like "(MVP Jonathan Quick pictured)" instead?
 * Comment It was mentioned last year. Truthsort (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't mentioned last year. The archives go back to 2008, and it has never been mentioned before. I'm not opposed to mentioning it, but I would post it like my suggestion above. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 03:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good. – Connormah (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- The update to the article only has one reference.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. I got home just in time to see Darryl Sutter hoist it.  That was the moment I was hoping to see. (eight years too late...) Resolute 03:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ITNR support. I note that the Conn Smythe Trophy is part of the Stanley Cup's ITNR listing. For the NBA Finals and World Series we post the MVPs (usually as "MVP XYZ pictured), so it seems to me that we should include a mention of the Conn Smythe winner. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per high popularity and uniqueness of event. 76.2.33.151 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning Quick - his play was probably 80% of the reason LA advanced through teh playoffs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment These names mean nothing to my European ears. I see that on the main page, the sport is mentioned, which is great, as it adds some context. I am surprised that it was absent in the nomination, and that there was no comment on that. We should mention the type of sport in all sports blurbs, and not rely on the person posting it to the main page to add it. So even for UEFA Euro 2012, for which it is hard for me to imagine that anybody does not know which sport it is about, we should add that it is about (association) football. (I added that last part to make clear that I'm not being anti-american.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is precedence that we always post the sport of any tournament or other event. The proposed blurb is rarely the same as the posted one, so there wasn't commenting on it because it was expected that the posting admin would add the sport to the blurb.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also of note is the fact that in the blurb there exists magical little blue words called "hyperlinks" that will take any interested reader to a document called an "encyclopedia article" which will actually contain more information to provide context for people who are unaware about a particular subject. -- Jayron  32  20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining what these blue words do. I did not know about this. The logical implication of your comment is that the blurb could have simple been "2012 Stanley Cup Finals.", hyperlinked to the article, providing no context at all. Still, we don't do that, so the consensus seems to be that some context is needed. I thought this page was also meant to make sure that the right context was given (see for example the comments below), so we don't have to rely on what the posting admin does.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Might I suggest changing the wording to "... to win their first Stanley Cup ..."? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, Floydian's is a helpful suggestion. Please consider making the blurb more informative just this once. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that might be just a tad too much detail for a blurb, but I'm not particularly vehement in my opposition if others think it's a worthwhile change. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The" to "their first" is hardly overwhelming to our readers or our servers. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said it would be overwhelming. I simply don't recall any other sports blurbs listing the number of championships won, be it the first, fifth, or twentieth. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we possibly change "Conn Smythe Trophy awardee" to "Conn Smythe Trophy winner"? "Awardee" sounds like a non-standard, slightly strange word (to me at least). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Teófilo Stevenson

 * Support- The second greatest Olympic boxer of all time.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Success in life does not mean newsworthy in death. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The death criteria are purely based on the person's life and not the circumstances of death, indicating otherwise.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Being a three-time Olympic gold medalist (i.e. during 3 different Olympics) is enough to get one's death posted IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Without particular reference to Stevenson) There are a lot of people who are not very well known outside their own street would meet that threshold. Would you support Buvaisar Saitiev, Tadahiro Nomura, Mireya Luis, Tamás Kásás and many others? Edoardo Mangiarotti won 7 golds across 4 olympics in a 24 year spread, and didn't get a hint of a nomination.  Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I personally would support all athletes who won gold in there different Olympics (which is not the same as winning 3 golds total). The reason being is that it shows they were the top in their sport for a long period of time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support A highly notable and successful boxer, his death is being carried on the news including the World Service. A worthy entry for the first page doktorb wordsdeeds 08:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Considered by some to be most accomplished amateur boxer in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.197.162 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral seems to pass ITN/DC #2, otherwise insignificant. --IP98 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs update. One sentence is inadequate. --IP98 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * strong support when updated, its per globalising the WP beyond the anglo-enctric worldviewLihaas (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ready- I have updated the article. There seems to be sufficient consensus for this.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, we have Recent deaths, use it. Deaths should only be on ITN if it is independently notable or causes some unexpected shift in the world. This is neither. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the death criteria, we also post deaths if "the deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field."  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have your criteria, I have mine. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this some twisted application of IAR?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only twisted thing here is that response. I don't see how "rules" or "ignoring rules" applies to a reason behind a vote. Actions based on that vote, yes, but statements? No, that's entirely nonsensical. If I were to remove it from ITN after posting, that would IAR. Me stating my opinion that the current death criteria are overly broad is not "Ignoring All Rules," it's my opinion. Now, perhaps you can state a rule where I don't have the right to express this opinion, so that you could then point out how I'm ignoring it? --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I didn't make myself clear. You having a problem with the current death criteria is ignoring the rule. It is fair to state your opinion that the death criteria are overly broad, but applying that opinion to your !vote, whether reasonably or not, is certainly ignoring the rule, so it falls under IAR.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my brusqueness above. I still have agency in this matter without having to go through the futile process of altering ITN and ITN/R criteria. The way I exercise this is through my own form of jury nullification. I see no rule that states that a vote is invalid if it goes against ITN criteria (except for the existence of an ITN/R nom), therefore I cannot ignore it. --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that a !vote is invalid if it goes against ITN criteria, I am merely noting that a !vote is applying IAR if it goes against ITN criteria. There is nothing wrong with that. The only reason this has come into discussion is because I questioned whether your use of IAR is a good one. However, you seem determined that the death criteria are faulty, so I have no further issues with your !vote.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Was an Olympic boxer 30 years ago, and in the case of boxing the Olympics do not represent the pinnacle of the sport in any case.  Unmarked as ready - it is highly questionable when tagged as such by the nominator. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your unmarking, but as a note, I tagged it and am not the nominator.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread the template. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of opinion about the notability of the story, the article won't be posted with an orange tag. --  tariq abjotu  22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Interesting figure but was at the height of his career 30 years ago, and as has already been noted, was not at top of his field as a boxer.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Minority topic  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way? Death or sports? --IP98 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Conflict in Burma

 * Support I find rioting in Burma to be a compelling ITN topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- We need new material, and asides from Euro 2012, this has been the biggest news of the last few days.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I was about to nominate this myself. As per Muboshgu, a compelling topic for ITN. LukeSurlt c 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- The article has an orange tag and the update is insufficient, containing only one reference.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  I have a few problems with this article. The 300 arsons is cited to an "anonymous official". The June 8th "1000s of Rohingya" is cited to "Eleven Media Group" which seems to fail WP:RS. The June 10th and 11th updates are small or non-existent. The lead says the cause is unclear, but the (unsourced) background section says it was the murder of a woman. At the very least these need to be fixed. This will probably go up, you cant fart in Myanmar without the world press plastering it on the front page, but the article needs fixing first. --IP98 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral Decent update (though the retaliations section is still totally unsourced). It seems mostly like a self-generated local bother, but the number of arsons (even if attributed to an anonymous "government source") is unusual and notable. --IP98 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Most of the above concerns have now been addressed (the article was marked as needing work when I nominated it for a reason). Also, the entire article is the "update" as I intend to nominate the riots themselves, not merely the UN pulling out staff. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable and widely covered. Sourcing issues raised above appear to have been fixed. Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking ready for admin attention. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I intended to post this, but there's an orange-level tag. If we can get that fixed, I can post. -- Jayron  32  04:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The person who added the tag removed it after a made a few changes (new title and lead sentence). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Hopefully, the tag will be resolved soon. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per everyone else before me. It seems like this is going to develop into something major. I hope Thein Sein's government will practice more restraint in dealing with this situation, as opposed to the "bull in a China shop" approach we've grown accustomed to seeing from the preceding regimes of Ne Win and Than Shwe.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I notice that the tag has been fixed. I feel that the blurb should be about the riots itself and not the pullout of non-essential staff by UN. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted per the fixing of the orange tag. -- Jayron  32  05:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 UEFA European Football Championship
We really need to include some awareness of the tournament on the news page. Here are just some suggested articles, ordered by popularity in Wikipedia in the last hour. #1 Andriy Shevchenko 148249 views, #3 UEFA Euro 2012: 20959 views, #4: Ukraine National Football Team 18048 views, #10 Sweden national football team 9354 views, #6 Ukraine 12632, #16 UEFA Euro 2012 schedule 7040 views, #14 UEFA Euro 2012 Group D 7233 views, #21 FC Dynamo Kyiv 5279 views. Eight more players of various teams in the Top 25 articles combine for 89315 views in the last hour. Overall these articles combine for 318109 views in the last hour. If Wikipedia is being used as a major research resource for those interested in Euro 2012, that should be acknowledged on the main page. (I'll update the entry as necessary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.33.151 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose- We will post the winner. We don't need anything until then.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. A sticker will be very useful. - Eugεn  S¡m¡on  (14) ®  19:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no sticky in '08. Why do we need one now?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

http://inkdroid.org/wikitrends/. These update at the top of the hour, are pulled from wikimedia files, and do not include the main page. The author is in contact. 76.2.33.151 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC) This is a general nomination/discussion of a broad topic. Any specific suggestion would be welcome. I am sure more experienced users would create a better detailed entry. I'll change the title for you :) 76.2.33.151 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that there is not much else going on in the world that deserves being on the main page anyway, so a sticker wouldn't distract from any more important content. 76.2.33.151 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm pretty sure "page views" is not valid ITN criteria. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Page views is the criteria I use. ITN criteria are as follows: the results in the referenced articles are updated often, the event is cultural in nature, the event is continental, and the articles referenced are of sufficient quality. 76.2.33.151 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: Where you found these page views data?-- В и к и  T   20:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question What is this? No header. No bold article. All it says is "Euro 2012" which means absolutely nothing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP98 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't understand, I don't know what the broad topic is. Is it football? Economics? Politics? Is there some tournament going on? FIFA? EU(something or other), a private regional league? Are there some protests? A new plane? Some discovery at CERN? What is this nomination about? --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, hopefully this is better... 76.2.33.151 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --IP98 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose sticky per norm. When the tournament is complete, please re-nom. NBA and NHL playoffs have been running for weeks with no sticky. I can't think of a good reason to post a sticky for a routine recurring tournament. --IP98 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike referenced tournaments, this one occurs once every four years (I believe) and involves a whole continent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.33.151 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one continent out of ~6 (won't debate continental counting politics here). The NHL playoffs involve a significant part of a whole continent too. Continue to oppose sticky. --IP98 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It just seems to be attracting a lot of attention even without special events. Soccer is also commonly believed to be (as far as I know) the most widespread/adopted sport. I was thinking more of stating that the event has begun (due to its long duration), stating the location, and adding the winners after the finals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.33.151 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose sticky. It's (Northern hemisphere) summer, so there's going to be a lot of sport. Covering these as per normal procedures would seem best to me. In long-term encyclopaedic terms, the individual results of the individual matches is of fairly low import. That said, if something extra-ordinary happens during the course of the championship (pessimistically I'm thinking serious crowd trouble) it may warrant a regular ITN item. LukeSurlt c 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stickies are usually reserved for special developing stories (Arab spring, Syria, etc), not for routine sporting events. The exception is the Olympics which is truly global in scope. Association Football may be the most popular sport, but this is some European league. All of Europe makes up only about 40 percent of en.wikipedia.org readers, and I find it impossible to believe that every man woman and child in Europe cares enough about the contest to see it every day they visit WP. The item is on ITN/R, and will get a posting when the tournament is over. --IP98 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose We are not a news ticker. This tournament is worth posting for the end result, not whilst it's ongoing, I can't think of another sport outside the Olympics where a ticker would be suitable. Also readership spikes are to be expected whenever people are mentioned in the news, I've no doubt that Madonna's breast flash resulted in a readership spike too. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * support sticky. amongst th emost notable vents in the world of sports. And we should set the precedent for the olympics. It highly viewed even outside europe.Lihaas (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

7 winners in F1
There have been seven different winners in the first 7 races of the season. The previous record I think was 5. It a highly unusual occurrence and it might be nice to post it. Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see some merit in this nomination. It's the first time it's happened, in over 50 years of Formula 1 racing. Support and suggest blurb: In motorsport, the first seven races of the Formula One season are won by seven different drivers for the first time in world championship history. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral while this is rare and interesting, it seems to border on sports trivia. Also, what happens if the 8th race has a different winner again? Would it get re-nomed? And if we wait, what is the blurb? "For the first time, Formula one goes (7/8/9/n) races before someone wins twice"? --IP98 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, trivia. All it means is that it's an unusually competitive season. In the end, we'll still have one winner. Also, per IP98 about the possibility of redundancy, which is not something we usually have with ITN. --Golbez (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Sports trivia is rarely notable, and this isn't one of those cases.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia is not news. this would be better off at DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as trivia. Could make a good DYK however. LukeSurlt c 23:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above. This is trivia. We don't post trivia as news (.....by and large) doktorb wordsdeeds 08:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

[Withdrawn] Rafael Nadal

 * The pre-existing posting mentioning the Sharapova has been updated to also include Nadal. --LukeSurlt c 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, then I withdraw this nomination. Thanks. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 Rohingya riots
 * Question- Is that a nomination?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] French Open

 * Strong Support Both Nadal and Djokovic are the most popular Wikipedia articles in the last hour with 16160 and 16065 views, respectively. Roger Federer is #6, Grand Slam is #7, French Open is #8, Sharapova is #13. All these articles combined had 50000 views in the last hour. 76.2.33.151 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/R. Sharapova won a "grand slam" too which seems interesting. Suggest breaking wit precedent and bolding 2012 French Open, then adding a short paragraph about the winners to the top of that article. I think ITN items look better with just one bolded item, but that's just my personal feeling. --IP98 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- It looks like Nadal will win soon, so a lengthy update would be a good way to start this section.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please mention her career grand slam -- Ashish-g55 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious support, mentioning the grand slam(s) as appropriate too. LukeSurlt c 20:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No way. Many of us still believe in the traditional definition of a grand slam in tennis being the winning of all four majors in a calendar year. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We could even post now the woman's result bow and update the blurb when the men's concludes. It's not standard procedure to do so, but we're in pretty dire need of a post right at the moment. LukeSurlt c 20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whats the rush? --IP98 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "A new item should be added to Template:In the news by Friday, 8 June 2012 15:34 (UTC)." -- LukeSurlt c 22:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been many noms. No reason to post something before it's ready to satisfy an arbitrary timer. --IP98 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment- Unfortunately, it looks like we'll have to wait a while longer before this one ends.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest posting it. we have done it before many times... there is absolutely no reason to wait. Article has been updated and her career grand slam is news on its own. When Men's final is over we will adjust the blurb. -- Ashish-g55 21:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the term grand slam. It's a very recent media invention. Just say that she has now won all four majors. See my comment above. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support mentioning, the Career Grand Slam as she's only the 6th woman to do so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like Sharapova's win has now been posted. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nadal just clinched it. Looks like some super-keen editors have already updated the relevant articles. LukeSurlt c 12:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the post. I used the formulation from the australian open item earlier this year. Thue | talk 13:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can a passing admin please de-bold 2012 French Open, which has no updated prose, and bold each individual athlete's article instead? Also, (pictured) needs italicising. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been done. --  tariq abjotu  18:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a policy on this, but since Nadal is more notable/famous/known, then would he be mentioned before and pictured instead of Sharapova? Crzyclarks (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sharapova is pictured because the blurb originally had just her win (before the men's singles final had concluded). Now there isn't a good enough reason to change it to a picture of Nadal. Whether Nadal is more well-known than Sharapova is debatable (I think they're roughly equally well-known), but even if he were, that would be a reason to post a picture of Sharapova over Nadal. After all, it would be more informative to readers to show a picture of someone they weren't familiar with before, rather than post a picture of someone whose image they already know. --  tariq abjotu  23:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who is pictured, it would be good to have a picture of them playing tennis - even better: playing tennis in this tournament. LukeSurlt c 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

New US Poet Laureate

 * Neutral I want to support this, but the minimum update has not been met. --IP98 (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but the article only has a one sentence update. Oppose- Didn't know that UK laureate serves for ten years and US is only one.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment article updated..--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quality update. Good job.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose not-notable on global level, domestic based.Lihaas (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Please do not... Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that quite a few of events don't relate globally. However when we are talking about government employes we do tend to care about the global impact. We only usually mention PMs, Presidents, etc. not Poet laureates or even provincial/state leaders which are far more notable that a Poet laureate. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose The US Poet laureate is changed every year. Should we also start posting Canada's Poet laureate's too? How about Irelands? It's not even a notable position. Unless there's something notable about this that I'm missing which differs from regular Poet laureates, it's a definite oppose.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one of hte reasons I nominated it is that the UK's Poet Laureate is an ITNR item; however, I wasn't aware that the US laureate was an annual posting, which I agree probably not something to be posted every year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the UK poet laureate is appointed for life. -- RA (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ten years. But I also think it is a bigger deal with a longer history in the UK. Formerip (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the reasons stated by Everyone Dies In the End. -- RA (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For all the above, and because the post is a silly GHWB inspired unconstitutional grant of a title. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Manny Pacquiao vs Timothy Bradley

 * Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose If boxing ever gets its act together for there to be only one global body in charge, I might support such a nomination, but not this. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was expecting this from you. The "one global body" is irrelevant. The NBA and NHL operates outside of FIBA and IIHF, respectively, yet those are listed here. – H T  D  05:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NBA and NHL don't have rival competitions operating at the same level. (And how does the fact that you expected this from me make my point any less valid? Unless, of course, that was a personal attack implying that my contributions are somehow of lesser value...) HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that boxing is disorganized shouldn't minimize Pacquio's overall notability. Until this fight he was widely regarded as either the top or one of the top two boxers pound for pound.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If boxing was properly organised, his notability would be obvious to an outsider based on the level of the fight. As it isn't properly organised, the nominator and supporters have to separately demonstrate it. It's not a real world championship. Prove that it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a world championship. – H T  D  05:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in the same sense as a world championship in virtually any other sport. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about like tennis or golf? – H T  D  07:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You made the same argument before; what I did was not a personal attack. Let's stop personally attacking each other, such as accusing one another of doing personal attacks.
 * So what if I made the argument before? Why shouldn't I make it again? Do you expect me to have somehow changed my mind? HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't I point it out? I just made a statement of fact, that shouldn't be controversial. – H T  D  05:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With that said, it can be argued that this is one of the two marquee fights of the year, the other was Cotto vs Mayweather earlier this year (the Klitchisko fight would be a far third) which you also opposed, using this same argument. Boxing has dozens of sanctioning bodies, with up to 12 weight divisions, but it's quite easy to pinpoint which fights are marquee: they're either held in May-June or November-December, and there's massive build-up to it. – H T  D  05:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you say. Can you prove it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh... it's Pacquiao? He's like the Steve Davis of boxing, only that Pacquiao is probably more well known than Davis would ever be. The Philippines virtually goes to a standstill when the fight is going on. Even the criminals are on leave, just like when the Canadians only used the toilets every interval in between periods of the Olympics ice hockey gold medal game..– H T  D  05:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. No proof there. Just fan level excitement. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once updated Any claim of corruption in boxing has no place here, and should not sway the consensus. Corruption gets brought up for a lot of the election results we post, but ultimately it's not our place to judge whether a sport is corrupt or not when it comes to ITN nominations. ITN is all about showcasing notable current events and the work put forth by users to update these articles. This was a highly notable and anticipated boxing match, reguardless of its outcome. You can even argue that the outcome made it even more notable than before, as the nominator suggested. Once updated, it meets ITN criteria, and I believe it should be posted. However, we should keep an eye on any updates to the article, because there is a strong chance of neutrality issues occurring. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 06:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My concerns have nothing to do with corruption. Just incompetence and an absence of organisation in the sport. The issue is that, by the standards of any other sport, this isn't a world championship. Excited fans telling me it's exciting doesn't demonstrate notability. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems a pretty significant boxing match that's garnered a lot of attention. The article now reports the result of the fight, including the scorecard, plus a little discussion. Does this count as "updated?" -- LukeSurlt c 08:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As above, by and large. One of many matches in a convoluted and confused sport, the importance of which is questionable. Good for subscription sports channels, not so good for the rest of us. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo48. Also, welterweight is one of some 10 categories, so should we publish all wins from all 3 boxing associations, ~30??? Crnorizec (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this article, there are 17 categories and 5 associations, so one championship win in one category in one association is rather insignificant. Crnorizec (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A number of these belts are unified, so there are much less than the number there appears to be. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, unexpected result in a big fight. I'm no boxing fan, but I know any fight with Manny Pacquiao is big, moreso when there's controversy over the decision. The WBO is also one of the bigger boxing organisations. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment All I know about this fight based on watching threads in forums is that 1) it was a technical defeat (judge-ruled) which is less impressive than a KO/TKO victory and 2) that decision is itself appears to be more significant than the outcome itself because many believe (journalists, fans, and even his opponent from PR statements) that Pacquiao should have won it. The controversy over this appears to be the subject of news rather than the actual victory.  This is one that I would give the media a bit more time to settle down over the matter (1/2 day) and then reassess what is the ITN matter that really is of interest here. --M ASEM  (t) 13:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would have been a very significant outcome even if it were totally non-controversial. Pacquiao's strength and fame as a boxer is roughly on par with Mike Tyson; the closest comparison I can think of would in fact be Douglas defeating Tyson, which was remarkable and uncontroversial.  The fact that this outcome is also controversial is just another layer. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a massive insult to Tyson. He was a real world champion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, Mike Tyson was massively popular, having numerous popular culture references while his career was still going strong. Pacquiao is not a household name in the same sense.--WaltCip (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Pacquiao losing is noteworthy stuff. With the controversy, this is major news.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The article seems well updated. The "one governing body" argument is worthless. We post all sorts of Football pageants: FIFA, Premiere, various regional federations, and other arbitrary events like that Japanese championship last year. If the "one governing body" criteria was strict, we would post FIFA world cup and thats it. Since we don't, then that's not a rule, and this can go up. Especially since it was highly anticipated and has stirred some controversy. --IP98 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stupid analogy. FIFA is a single world governing body, overseeing a number of tournaments. When boxing returns to that state, it can have similar coverage too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The fact that there are several boxing organizations is irrelevant, this was a major fight with a noteworthy outcome. If we went with that line of thinking, all boxing news would be eternally disqualified from ITN, which is absurd.  Not like ITN has been seeing a high turnover the last few days either. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not absurd. It's how we must judge things. We cannot post this on the basis of a bunch of excited fans saying it's important, which is all we currently have. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a boxing fan, so no need to assume that people are only supporting because they are "a bunch of excited fans."  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the incorrect guess. Given your more objective position, can you give us a more objective reason than "This is important" or "This is major..."? (If it was a real world championship from a properly organised sport, we wouldn't need it, but for boxing we do.)HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Pacquiao had been #2 in the world and Bradley #8 as ranked by The Ring Magazine heading into the fight, a thoroughly subjective publication but an important one. Additionally, it was the first loss for Pacquiao, the highest paid athlete in the world, in seven years. He was also named the "Fighter of the Decade" by the Boxing Writers Association of America, a more objective group.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a bit better, but you really must admit that this is all still fans talking. That's what such magazines are for. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know anything about boxing, but the background and reaction section read like this was a notable fight. Don't understand the hate on for this item. --IP98 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that it's helpful describing the seeking of objective evidence as hate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments like  If boxing ever gets its act together for there don't appear to be very objective frankly.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Convince me boxing is well organised these days. I was actually a fan once, 40 years ago, when someone I knew well became a world champion. These days it's a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it's absurd to suggest that boxing can never be ITN, which is what I said. Your personal judgement that boxing "doesn't have its act together" or that this isn't "properly organized" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion (not to mention being original research, at the very least).  I'm also not a particular fan of boxing, so no idea why you brought that up. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I understand that boxing organization is "a mess", but I don't think that is sufficient reason to exclude all boxing. This fight featured two current champions, one of which is the (arguably) all-time greatest boxer.  The fact that Pacquiao lost alone means it this was not just another title fight.  Add to that the controversial nature of the decision and it is hard to imagine another match being more noteworthy anytime soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have added considerably content to the article, making this an extensive update. Given the quality of the update and the rough consensus to post, I am marking this as ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support arguably one of the most shocking and controversial matches in boxing extremely long and storied history. And involving one of boxing's (or any sport in that matter) most beloved global figure, I think it's clear to post. Secret account 03:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  03:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Spanish loan deal

 * Support: Major news in the European financial crisis. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. Is it a done deal? Speciate (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, the form and the details are agreed, it had to be effectuated this week, before the greek elections on Sunday. The amount is left open to "up to" 100bn, subject to further assessment. Crnorizec (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very significant news. However, let's wait until the request is formally made. (Per the BBC: "Spain's Economy Minister Luis de Guindos said his country would shortly make a formal request for assistance.") -- RA (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose more Spanish debt? Really? Just propose a sticky already. --IP98 (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- More crises in Europe. More postings.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when agreement is finalized. Wikifan Be nice  05:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Under normal circumstances I'd agree with waiting, but we are about 48 hours overdue for an ITN update here. --LukeSurlt c 09:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - this is a major development in the European crisis, and it will impact the further political and financial developments. Crnorizec (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Major development. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The Spanish crisis is a huge deal. Thue | talk 12:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, although the update looks a little thin. Formerip (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article currently does not meet our minimum update requirement. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is necessary here? I've added this sentence. LukeSurlt c 13:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read In_the_news. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, whenever the formalities are in order. Magnitude and expected progression of European finance crisis demands this gets posted. __meco (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I've made some more updates to the page. I'll let someone else decide if these are sufficient. --LukeSurlt c 22:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The update is sufficient, but it seems that people want to wait for formalities before this gets posted.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

[Attention needed] Côte d'Ivoire peacekeeping

 * This incident occurred June 8. I have moved this entry to this date. LukeSurlt c 13:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Triple Crown not won

 * Oppose Interesting but I can't see any reason why this has the importance to propel it to the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 14:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not even convinced that this is interesting. "Rare event fails to happen" is not really news as we know it. And from the blurb, I'm asking not just "Who?" but "What?" and "In what field? Where?" In short, this is not really a story at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agreed with Alex; something not happening is not news. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  bummer, would have been nice to have a win. --IP98 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with AlexTiefling, this news is not much important. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per just about everything above. I supported I'll Have Another's win being posted to ITN in the KD too. Shame, but at least he wasn't destroyed</Small> --Τασουλα (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This was top of the news at least in the US yesterday, so hardly "not news". Blurb could be combined with Belmont winner:  X wins Belmont Stakes after Triple Crown contender I'll Have Another retires due to injury.  Evidently the reasoning for retirement is that he will earn $20-40 million in stud fees rather than face possible euthanasia for a chance to win $600,000. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe that winning the first triple crown since the 70s would only be worth the base prize money.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Triple Crown is an informal title. The races are independent, with their own prize money. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not. It's a formal title with a trophy. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps "organized" would have been a better word than formal? The trophy is more like a critics award than, say, the baseball World Series championship which is an entity separate from the venues where it is held. I.e., there is no triple crown apart from the three independent races. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That reasoning is quite poorl. "biggest news in the US"= and "could have nbeen triple crown cpntender". obvious oppose.Lihaas (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral- This could be done with Union Rags and I'll Have Another in bold, as they both have been updated. That would make for a good blurb.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl. This was a major upset and is newsworthy. --IP98 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You already voted oppose. Are you overriding that vote?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Your blurb suggestion convinced me. --IP98 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Highly parochial - of next to no interest in the rest of the world.  And, if it does go ahead, the blurb should at least give some clue to who or what "I'll Have Another" might be, not to mention which of the many Triple Crowns it is talking about.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Measurements of neutrino speed

 * Oppose For a start the researchers were very careful about their claims in the first instance - they didn't claim anything but asked for comments and for people to look for flaws in their experiment. Secondly this is simply one more nail in the coffin for that particular (non-)finding: it was basically discredited months ago. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Discrediting and refuting is not the same. Before today, neither OPERA nor CERN officially said that the case is over - this happened today, see the press release]. --D.H (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question- Didn't they already prove this? I thought this was old news. Did something new come out, is this finalizing it, or am I misremembering?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the ICARUS (experiment) (seven neutrino events) or the instrumental errors found in the OPERA equipment? Yes, they contradicted the OPERA result, but it was emphasized by all of them that new measurements in May are necessary to be absolutely sure. --D.H (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I am all in for science news for ITN but this is non-news, literally. Nergaal (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose sorry but this does read as "stuff we thought was true is still true, even six months after we didn't..." I would certainly support an article which showed neutrinos did exceed the speed the light, perhaps wait for that one next time? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support This brouhaha has been a major science story despite the anticlimactic conclusion. One of the problems I think we have with science news is that some editors oppose initial findings as not sufficiently proven to be notable, while others oppose later official statements as not surprising enough to be notable, as the initial findings had already been announced. This isn't a critique of either group, just to say that it makes it hard for us to post something from stories that move at this pace. In this case, I'd support this blurb's front page appearance on the merits of the story from start to finish, not solely on today's announcement. The conclusion is anticlimactic, I'll grant, but it's still been an interesting and widely publicized chapter of scientific history. Plus, the article has what looks like a high-quality update. (Thanks, D.H.) Khazar2 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We covered it at the time. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough--shifting to weak support. I'm still interested in the follow-up. Khazar2 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view, a lot of science articles don't get a run at the main page because discoveries are rarely 'watershed'. We demand too much 'conclusiveness' at ITN and it works against us. Colipon+ (Talk) 18:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support- The conclusion of a noteworthy series of events deserves attention.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - We posted that they broke the speed of light so we must post the corrected value. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Denmark

 * I would probably support at the time of enaction. The bold link should be Same-sex marriage in Denmark, as opposed to Same-sex marriage. Indeed the link to the general article is probably unnecessary. LukeSurlt c 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've amended the linking. -- Peter Talk page 21:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the blurb might need better wording. -- Peter Talk page 21:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait- This nomination is too early. Let's wait for the 15th.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we generally post things like "eleventh country" when it does not have a larger impact (sine it is not the first country in EU)? Nergaal (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i think legalization of gay marriage is becoming a little common now. Thats not to say that we shouldnt post them however i think we need to come up with a list of countries that would merit posting. For example India, US (whole country), China etc. perhaps by voting. other countries can still be discussed here obviously -- Ashish-g55 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ashish. Probably the best thing to do is just nominate every country that legalizes it, and let consensus prevail. If anyone thinks they should all go up, make a suggestion on ITN/R. For this nom, probably best to re-list on 15th. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Gay marriage has long been institutionalized in Denmark. The established church matter is local and posting it amounts to ideological advocacy, not a reflection of a top of the news internationally influential event.00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gay marriage has long been institutionalized in Denmark.-- В и к и  T   04:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have payed attention to this story. They have had same sex unions with the same effect as marriages since 1989.  All that is new now is that they have finally destroyed the freedom of conscience of those who don't believe their churches should be forced to perform such unions.  That is, the right of men with guns to tell other what god's will is.μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand the law continues to allow those in Denmark's established church to choose whether or not they will marry any couple, all that happened is almost all of church's leadership welcomes the new law and most priests in the church are likely to perform marriages for same-sex couples - and as for same-sex civil unions in Denmark: It is still notable because same-sex marriage - the very designation of 'marriage' being conferred - is notable, few media outlets report on the enactment of civil unions / domestic partnerships, but when it comes to same-sex marriage laws, they are widely reported. --Scientiom (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per "becoming the eleventh country to do so". 11th? So what.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because its not so common outside of the most developed countries, and not something which happens easily? --Scientiom (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but wait - notable and well reported in the media, but it may be more appropiate for June 15th, when the law comes into force. --Scientiom (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Top news story covered in media across the globe, including BBC, Russia today, Al Arabiya, Associated Press etc. I don't oppose to wait until june 15th.-- В и к и  T   09:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a major story covered across the globe didn't get Scott Walker posted. <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop  13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I imagine that was because the Walker recall's outcome was expected, and was only reported by major media outlets in the wider context of the US presidential election this year, as well as because it was only a subnational event - whereas this is a national event and belongs to several minority topics: LGBT rights, Civil/Human rights, and Denmark / events in Denmark in general (all 3 of these, and related topics, see very little converge on ITN, so posting more like this is important to keep a balance). Law related events are also not covered very often. --Scientiom (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The outcome was not expected; cable news outlets ran exit polls that showed Walker and Barrett in a dead heat.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, major poll firms in the United States did project the outcome beforehand somewhat. Anyhow, even if the outcome of that event was not predictable, my other points still stand. This a national event, is notable and has been well covered, and belongs to several minority topics. --Scientiom (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to be posted, but if need be can non-bold lin to 2012 in LGBT rightsLihaas (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Have the 10 previous ones (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden) all been posted too? Khuft (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think only two were posted: Portugal (ITN archives/2010/May) and Argentina (ITN archives/2010/July)-- В и к и  T   00:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Shenanigans Again, this is not the institution of gay unions, which happened in 1989, but the requirement that the established church perform them if requested. Second, Wisconsin has a population of 5.7 million, Denmark of 5.5 million. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, gay union is different from gay marriage. No, gay marriage was not legal in Denmark until June 7 (June 15). Church weddings are completely different thing.-- В и к и  T   23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- not groundbreaking (eleventh country, not first or second). As per Wikiwind, only two of the previous ten state legalisations of gay marriage had been posted. How is this law different or more significant from the other eight ignored legalisations? According to Al Arabiya, the law only permits "homosexuals to marry in the state Evangelical Lutheran Church" -- what about the other denominations? I know it's the state church of the country, but the law would only affect the approximately 4.45 million adherents. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 03:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

LinkedIn hack

 * 1) Support Notable, article fine, but the blurb need some work. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 14:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose hilarious, but of limited impact. Maybe DYK. If it goes up, please change "hacker" to "cracker". --IP98 (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I just nominated this at DYK, because I agree it's a better fit there. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose happens too often to be of note. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think this has become commonplace (unfortunately I guess); so much so that this news has been relegated to a small column in the middle pages of the Times of India. I don't think this deserves to go up there.  Lynch 7  16:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose hacks are too commonplace. I changed my password, and it's done with. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * obvious nonsense this is NOT notale and not news. it shouldnt even exist here beyond a para on the LinkedIn articleLihaas (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose minor news. The first time it happened, or when the PlayStation Network was hacked, would have been notable. 6.5m passwords aren't that many after all, nor is the hacking of major website that uncommon (see the release of some passwords from Gawker affilliated websites).  Snowolf How can I help? 18:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This kind of event rarely has lasting impact.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Solar Impulse intercontinental flight

 * Comment When I first read this I thought New York to Paris, but actually it's Spain to Morocco. Though technically intercontinental, it's not quite such a major leap in the field. That said, this seems in principle like a good minority topic to cover. LukeSurlt c 13:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, it's a silly claim. It could just be a flight of less than a kilometre over the Bosporus, the Panama Canal, or even of an infinitely small distance over the arbitrary line in Russia that divides Europe and Asia, and still be intercontinental. Discard the intercontinental claim, describe what it did, and see if that deserves posting. HiLo48 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tell me that it flew for 19 hours powered only by the sun it's interesting.  Telling me it flew from Southern Europe to Northern Africa isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose According to the page, this isn't even the longest successful flight of the aircraft. Please renominate once it circumnavigates the globe. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose per Moboshgu and LukeSurl. Seems like something worth covering in general but perhaps not this specific flight. Khazar2 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose When it does Paris to New York then that will be "intercontinental". -- RA (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- This is not the right event in solar aviation to post.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Death of Palaeoanthropologist Philip V. Tobias

 * Question He died of old age. Was not active in his field at all in recent years. The only notable thing he has done this century is dying. Is ITN an obituary column? HiLo48 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Perfectly reasonable for Recent Deaths, not nearly enough impact for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle I know nothing about this field but a quick perusal of the linked articles suggests a genuine leading figure within it. Sure, he's obscure but that is the nature of his field of endeavor: notability is not the same thing as fame, which is a point often lost when discussing yet another celebrity death.  On the other hand the update amounts to all of a single sentence.  That would need to be expanded before this can be posted. I don't see how this qualifies as a minority topic, either, so I've removed that marker. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Oppose The article's an unverifiable mess, with next to no citations and an abundance of peacockery ("one of the world's leading experts", etc., while giving no source)--definitely not front-page ready. But even if the article is improved, I'm not convinced that Tobias's death is getting enough of a reaction to merit this. For me, the "leading figure in a field" criterion starts to break down when we have to go to sub-subfields--in this case, not science generally, but paleoanthropology. Khazar2 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Agree with Khazar2. "Fields" can become too specific.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Hama massacre

 * Comment - Already has prominent enough coverage to be notable to my mind, but can't really !vote until someone starts an article. Khazar2 (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have created a stub. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 06:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't pleasant to do, but I've added a bit more to the stub. Once we've reached minimum standards I would support posting. This would hopefully attracting new editors to quickly get the article to the size it needs to be. LukeSurlt c 07:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - but suggest adding to blurb "Activists report that...". The article's sources (Reuters, BBC, etc.) have not yet confirmed that a massacre has taken place, but are simply reporting that opposition groups are reporting this. That said, something clearly happened, and this is currently the world's top news story in terms of prominence and coverage. Khazar2 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with this at the current time. Due to press restrictions in the country, such confirmation is unlikely to happen. However if reputable news organisations start to report death tolls as unqualified facts (rather than "Opposition groups say...") maybe we could follow their lead. LukeSurlt c 09:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a lot of updates to the comparable Houla massacre article, and it seemed that after the UN released their report, news organizations were willing to accept that as authoritative. A few reporters like Alex Thomson managed to get in, too. Hopefully the same will happen here. Khazar2 (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with the "Activists report that..." qualifier in the blurb for now. Article has reached minimum size/quality required, and the story is undoubtedly notable. LukeSurlt c 11:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question didn't we just post a Syrian "massacre"? Is 78 a massacre? --IP98 (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7 was sufficient here Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. Leaky  Caldron  16:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... or for the La Cantuta massacre. The unwieldly article List of events named massacres gives more examples. Khazar2 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the ITN history from 1929 to see if the St. Valentines Day massacre was posted. Can you help? --IP98 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yo momma's so fat that she ate all the archives between 1905 and 2005. You asked whether killing 78 was a massacre. He responded by saying even 7 has been considered a massacre. Whats bugging you here? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The situation in Syria is not to the point that I'd sticky it, but I would definitely support the posting of any Syrian massacre. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose posted the "houla massacre" two weeks ago, and the international reaction to it a few days later. Ambassadors are already recalled, what's left to do? The butchery in Syria has become routine. Contrast against 25 killed in Iraq and it doesn't even get an article. The fact is this incident, while tragic, isn't particularly notable. --IP98 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that more of an argument that we're approaching sticky status for the Syrian conflict? I agree with Muboshgu that we're not there yet, but it seems counterintuitive to use this as an case against posting. LukeSurlt c 18:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've edited the blurb to be "a village near Hama.." as the Hama addressed is actually Hama District or Hama Governorate, both of which are very small articles. The blurb should probably also link to Syrian uprising (2011–present). LukeSurlt c 19:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine - lets do a sticky for every country that has a politically motivated killing at least once a week. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- There is no need to degrade this event because of Houla.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not madly enthusiastic about the subject - it's the kind of thing that gets a bit samey after a while as others have noted above, but it's a reasonably solid, well referenced new article. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Support: Highly notable. The Houla massacre shouldnt prevent this from being posted. Article looks in decent shape. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Ray Bradbury


Noting we have a free image of Bradbury to use in the box File:Ray Bradbury 2009.jpg. --M ASEM (t) 14:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding additional sources, refactoring blurb to add in F451 since that's very recognizable by most. --M ASEM (t) 15:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support--very widely read science fiction author. nuff said.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support--his Fahrenheit 451 is a classic and his works are widespread and known throughout the world, including having been adapted to various other media. Also, free images of the man exist, which is always a pro. <b style="color:#660000; font-family:Andalus;">Bob</b> Amnertiopsis ∴<sub style="color:#FF9999; font-family:Tunga;">ChatMe! 14:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not The name rang a bell but I'll admit I had to look him up to remind myself who he is: the chap that wrote Fahrenheit 451. What are his other works?  Well, that's the biggie.  I wouldn't dispute its notability, and I'd acknowledge that a canon of work focusing mostly on short stories doesn't lend itself to that kind of analysis.  Single work notability should be reserved for truly stand out works of The Catcher in the Rye territory.  This isn't in the same league, within the genre it isn't a 2001 or a Foundation saga either.  I am sitting on the fence to some extent on this one, but can't help feeling than even taking his body of work as a whole we are still a little short of what is needed to be truly ITN worthy. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
 * It's not just F451 - its just that's probably what most consider his greatest work out of a large body of numerous works. As noted on the wiki page, many of his works have been adapted to film and television as well. Add to the fact that there's an award in his name for science fiction works. --M ASEM (t) 15:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of his works are read in school as well.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously. One of the most famous modern writers and not only in the US. Brand meister talk   15:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I'm not inclined to post deaths that are not in themselves surprising, but he's a pretty big name and that seems to be a criteria that gets celebrity deaths mentioned. EdwardLane (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. A giant of science fiction who, as NYT notes, "was the writer most responsible for bringing modern science fiction into the literary mainstream." Nsk92 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support For the breadth of his work and the respect with which he's held by his peers and readers. A good example of a notable man and a fine nomination for ITN. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment--The article needs an update; the death isn't even mentioned in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already added a statement to his death within the "Personal Life" section w/ source. It's updated for as much we can say about the actual death. --M ASEM (t) 16:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Need to update illness and death. Some reactions as well. Need one whole paragraph at minimum. Also, though I know who he is, the article doesn't outline his impact. ITN/DC #2 says "widely regarded as important" so the article will need to cover that. --IP98 (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reports only stated an "unspecified" "lengthy illness", which I will add. The NYTimes feature linked above is clearly ripe with quotes on importance. --M ASEM (t) 16:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest the article isn't very good right now; very disappointing given Bradbury's importance. Hopefully it will improve as we prepare it for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, there's definitely improvements that could be made, but ITN doesn't require that (hopefully if ITN is doing its job, it will bring eyes to the article to improve it). --M ASEM (t) 16:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. One of the most important science fiction authors, influential across cultures and internationally known and respected. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 16:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Science fiction novelist known worldwide. Hektor (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I know how well known he was and I've never even picked up one of his books before. --Τασουλα (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose  I've actually got his Martian Chronicles miniseries at home from Blockbuster right now. He was an early pioneer, but not that influential in style and greatly eclipsed in later years by many other authors like Niven and Card. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Several of these obits are praising his unique style for helping to bring sci-fi to mainstream... --M ASEM (t) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. I do expect this to be posted.  There are at least three movies and a miniseries made of his novels, so you can't deny his import to some extent.  But unique style is a way of saying no one copied him.  I read a scathing review of his Illustrated Man on the interweb about a year back which went on about how overrated he is, not having much luck finding it though.  Kind of like Bob Hope, way overrated but he got in on the ground floor and was around forever. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak support, clearly a seminal artist in his field, but while tragic, very ordinary death. Perhaps we should be careful not to feature all authors upon their (timely?) demise, but in this case, a legend in his genre.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Most recent deaths don't merit ITN, but this one does. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bobamnertiopsis. Khazar2 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose too many deaths in the ITN. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll try to tell important people they shouldn't die too close together, then... --M ASEM (t) 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per many above, very notable author. "Death" section in article should have another paragraph for info from obituaries, but that shouldn't preclude posting post haste. LukeSurlt c 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Ray Bradbury wiki page currently most popular on Wikipedia, with 45000 views in the last hour. 76.2.33.151 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support one of the Big Four (others were clarke, heinlein, asimov), and thus one of the few sf authors known by name by non fans worldwide. seminal in the development of speculative fiction and modern fantasy as legitimate branches of literature. PS for those who feel his SF was weak: it was. it was literary sf, not hard sf. different purpose behind it. if it needs cleanup first to appear in the news, so be it, but im not sure thats necessary.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.189 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my 'weak oppose' given the obvious worldwide interest but my criticism was never for lack of SF hardness. Literary all too often means dead boring.μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted Update means minimum standards, and I imagine it'll get even better. --  tariq abjotu  19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Tariq's support for this is so strong he not only posted it, he deleted civil comments in response to another editor that could be taken as critical of the nominated subject. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you for one second consider that it could have been a wikimedia bug not spoting an edit conflict ? It looks more likely to be that. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  00:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and if so, my apologies, but they are two minutes apart and I saw my edit posted. I was simply shocked an admin would do such a thing.  I do not want to belabor the point.μηδείς (talk)
 * No, he didn't. Because it's much easier to invent an illogical and, frankly, utterly stupid conspiracy theory than to believe that the world does not revolve around him. --  tariq abjotu  06:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment No doubt in my mind that Bradbury was important, but I do wish we could get it clear whether dying of old age was a notable event for anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so much the event of dying (especially when the cause of death is natural) but the highlighting of the career, post-death, that is what makes these possible for ITN-worthiness. Then the question becomes of how far and wide that career highlighting is done to meet ITN standards.  --M ASEM  (t) 22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's ALL about the event of dying. If he hadn't died, we wouldn't be discussing this. As I said, I have no question about Bradbury's notability, but this IS about his death, of old age. That's not really notable. It's how even I hope to go one day. But I don't think that will crack a mention here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree our criteria should be better established on when a death merely from old age is sufficient for posting, but I believe this death is indeed sufficient. One measure I would have is that the death itself has drawn reaction from notable figures, such as Barack Obama, Steven Spielberg, Tom Wolfe, Neil Gaiman, Salman Rushdie Roger Ebert and Jonathan Ross.1 2--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment He's not gay, a soccer player, or some Mexican poet. Also he's an American with significant literary contributions, most of which the beatniks calling the shoots here have never heard of. It's amazing this was approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.25.231 (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the question HiLo48 is asking, but in this case the reason I reverted my oppose was that Bradbury was notable in two fields, in one of which he was considered a major name. I strongly supported Dick Clarke for the same reason.  Of course his mere death is not the reason for posting him to ITN, it is the occasion for posting him to ITN.μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being American does not make him more notable. And keep your racist, homophobic comments off of here IP. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

New Syrian PM

 * Oppose First of all, a badly executed nomination (again from Lihaas, whose rush to get nomination kudos points leaves us with bad spelling. What is "Ne" exactly?). Additionally, we don't always post new heads of state or "govt". doktorb wordsdeeds 14:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ans your rush to resort to attacking people and scoring points on vengeance mongering is not in the spirit of NPA. COMMENT ON CONTENT
 * If you bother to READ what i wrote instead of making yur own assumptions you will see i said we generally post.
 * You can cite your opinion an dleave it and that insead of attacking others. There are several opinions an dmany could support this!Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The article is in fairly bad shape, the opposition boycott of the elections seem to reduce the legitimacy of the result. I know it's not our place to decide the news, but perhaps the blurb should have some reference to the legitimacy issue.EdwardLane (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Prime Minister of Syria (actually a redirect to List of Prime Ministers of Syria) needs updating too. I'm disappointed we don't have an article for the office itself. LukeSurlt c 19:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Isn't Assad, who appointed the PM, the head of state? I'm not convinced a change of one loyalist second-in-command for another is as notable; it's not even Al Jazeera's top Syria story of the day, for example (the top three at the moment are a new fund for the rebels, reports of a new massacre, and refugee exodus to Jordan). Khazar2 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It WAS #1 when i nom'd it...where i got th eupdate from first.Lihaas (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Our coverage of Syrian domestic politics is still reeling from the Syrian parliamentary election, 2012 for which we still don't have the results, one month exactly after it took place. __meco (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Khazar2. We didn't post JM Ayrault becoming Prime Minister of France either - and I sincerely suspect that a current French prime minister has more power, despite the French presidential system, than a Syrian prime minister under Assad. Khuft (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since when has the appointment of meatpuppets become a notable event? -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the position has no power. If it did, I would strongly support without prejudice. "waaaaaaa I don't like Syria" is not an excuse. --IP98 (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- The article doesn't have an update anyway.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

World IPv6 Day
Isn't this better for OTD?--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OTD is for anniversaries; this is something which is actually happening today.


 * Support. This is big tech news; technical, and therefore not much covered by mainstream news media, but still a big flag day. But the blurb is wrong; today is World IPv6 launch, which means that what is happening is an actual permanent deployment of IPv6 on sites like google.com and facebook.com, not a test. Thue | talk 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - If today's event is deployment of this technology, then IPv6 deployment is the article that should be featured (not World IPv6 Day). Neither article is currently sufficiently up to date for use in ITN, though. --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * World IPv6 Day is definitely the article to use, since the World IPv6 Launch event is very closely associated with the World IPv6 Day event a year ago. But yes, it needs to be updated. Note that there is no such thing as a "deployment of this technology" - deployment is on a per-site basis. What is interesting about World IPv6 Launch is that many of the largest sites on the Internet are deploying IPv6 today. Thue | talk 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support once updated. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support based on precedence - We posted the story that the last available IPv4 address was created, I believe.--WaltCip (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't find the test as notable as the actual launch, so could someone update World_IPv6_Day? I think that section is where the real notability of the item is, but it could use some expansion.  Spencer T♦ C 21:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This seems like a total non-event PR thing. Nothing is being "launched". Today, no-one is using IPv6 and the same will be true tomorrow. Formerip (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're just trying for forestall being replaced by FormerIPv6 :-) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, as they say on the Internets. Formerip (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't know what the major news story mile stones for IPv6 will be, but this isn't it. Maybe when all the Tier 1's report IPv6 routing? Maybe that's done already? I don't know that Google or Facebook need the publicity, but it does seem largely symbolic. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While there are a number of major sites that aren't participating, a number of companies (including Wikimedia) are participating and have published press releases: EdgeCast Networks, Tufin, Fortinet. While largely symbolic (in terms of usage vs IPv4), it is being used as a major stepping stone by a number of companies.Smallman12q (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: 7th most important tech story according to BBC.co.uk Kevin McE (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Abu Yahya al-Libi reported killed

 * Weak Oppose While an important Al-Qaeda figure, his article (as a whole) is in rather poor shape as a whole for me to even consider a possible posting.  Spencer T♦ C 01:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- With two senior Taliban officials contradicting each other and U.S. officials, I'm still not sure if this is true yet. It was reported a couple years ago too that he was killed, but that turned out to be false.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: From what I can gather from his BBC profile, he appears to be quite an important Al-Qaeda commander, Rank 2 they say. But yes, like you said we should wait for a bit to see if either a Pak or a Taliban confirmation is forthcoming. The drone strike itself has ruffled feathers in Pak and it looks like the already strained US-Pak relations will plummet further. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral CH has done a good job in finding some background info to this, but I'm still not sure if we can fashion together a decent enough blurb in addition to improving the article. Looks good to 'adopt' as the next posting, though, given the logjam we're currently experiencing. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wisconsin recall election

 * I think this might be posting iff the Republicans lose. Otherwise nothing changes. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that if Walker wins, it's status quo, which would make this less likely to be posted. Still, it is the third recall of a governor in U.S. history win lose or draw. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um...I don't doubt the importance of this in Wisconsin. I don't doubt that it's of impact to the whole of the US (It went further than Wisconsin) I've read some shocking facts about the funding of one of these candidates as well. But...that blurb isn't for real right? That would look really odd on the front page. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant that to be two separate blurbs, one for if Barrett wins and one for if Walker wins, since the result is not yet known (but will be in a few hours). And of course, any rewrites are appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I read them as one blurb :D check my appauling edit history here recently, I've been messing up formatting and misspelling more than usual! I'm tired. In that case, I'd say wait until the results are in. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is doing the rounds on the US networks for obvious reasons, however the BBC is only showing this in the wider context of the US Presidential election. On that basis I cannot accept that it is notable in its own right doktorb wordsdeeds 21:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Both political parties are making a mondo deal about this, but this will only be notable if the recall ends with Walker getting the boot, since it's essentially the equivalent of impeachment.--WaltCip (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So then you'd change to support if Barrett defeats Walker? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Very likely, yes. The recall might become internationally notable if that happens, too. As of right now, however, I oppose since the results have not been posted yet.--WaltCip (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A note on turnout: it's apparently 119% of registered voters in Madison, Wisconsin (same day registration accounts for the head scratching number). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- If Walker wins, there's nothing newsworthy here. If Barrett wins, I'll wait for the reaction to gauge how major this is and see if there is any international coverage.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, but FWIW, this is already the top story on the BBC: . Though I'm never sure if my American IP address leads to different results. Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support And if Walker wins the third ever state governor recall by an even wider than expected margin with record voter turnout and huge national input including funding by George Soros? In a special election widely touted as a belwether for November? That's not news? μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose subnational election of no interest to most of the wider world. Note this argument isn't about significance, but interest, which is one of ITN's purposes. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Assuming that everyone's aware of the unique circumstances of this election, I won't belabor them here. But to give a random sampling, at the moment this is the top story on the BBC News homepage, the second highest on the The Guardian, and the 3rd highest on Al Jazeera. This is a more prominent display of world interest than most election news we post. It seems a shame to move the bar because it's US political news instead of Lesotho. Perhaps editors should consider not going with their personal opinions about world interest/notability and actually checking the news? =) Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Despite my earlier comment, I have chosen to support this, per the arguments of Medeis, Khazar2, and others.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose non-notable local election without repercussions. More so after the recall failed.Lihaas (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I thought sub-national elections were a strict no-no unless it is ground breaking. Ok, so an attempt to recall a governor of one of the 50 states failed. I would recommend against keeping the threshold for posting sub-national elections so low. Conceded, that it has received somewhat prominent coverage in some of the news websites - but as doktorb pointed out, most of these news websites discuss this in the context of the upcoming US presidential elections. There are also enough news websites that dont feature this prominently, , - while news reports are indicative of notability, they are not the only parameter for determining notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lihaas. Recall elections are fairly common in the USA, albeit not for the governor. This is being run in the broader "left vs right" political bickering in the USA right now, and like Lihaas points out, there are really no repercussions. --IP98 (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Recall elections are 'rare in the US, and the fact that this was "pre-sold" as a harbinger of the presidential elections, and that record amounts of money were spent by both sides (people forget that the signature gathering etc. was expensive), the election per se is noteworthy (no matter who wins - it is silly to say that if one party wins it is more notable than if another wins) Collect (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I just don't get the above rationales. It's just a "local election", despite involving more people (6 million) than a good chunk of the election news we post; it shouldn't be posted because recall elections for local city council elections have been common in the past, even though it's rare for governors and to survive one is unprecedented; it's "nonnotable", despite being reported on around the world, because an Indian newspaper that doesn't have any non-India news on its front page didn't have this on its front page; it has no repurcussions despite being preceded by some of the largest mass protests in recent US history and was widely described as a referendum on the future of unions. It's hard to see what US political news could meet our criteria short of Scott Walker eating his opponent's heart on live television after declaring victory, but perhaps even that would be more of a local interest thing. Khazar2 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing Scott Walker eat his opponent's heart might make for some great television, but it would not necessarily alter the international perception of American politics. So yeah, that wouldn't necessarily be newsworthy either.--WaltCip (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) Regarding what US political news will be considered notable for ITN, like every other sovereign country, general elections in USA and election of the head of state of the USA will be considered notable. And because USA is a super power and other countries have interest in US political developments, I suppose that with adequate consensus may be the election of the presidential candidate of the Republican Party and Democratic Party can also be considered as notable. (2) Regarding prominence in an Indian newspaper, the point I was trying to make was the exact opposite, let me quote from my previous comment: "while news reports are indicative of notability, they are not the only parameter for determining notability". Different newspapers cover the news differently. You gave examples of 2 British and one Qatari news websites where it is featured prominently. I gave examples from Russian, Pakistani and Indian news websites where it isnt. If your issue was with the main page not having any international news, the international section does not feature it prominently either. (3) Regarding the state having a population of 6 million, we did not post the elections of a state having a population of 200 million this March on the grounds that it was only a sub-national election. So an argument that it involves more people is hardly a card that you can you play to your favour. (4) I will concede that it is unique because a governor surviving a recall is unprecedented in the USA, so while it does contribute towards notability, being unique doesnt make it automatically notable. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my last post was grouchy; it's been a rough day IRL. I don't mean to suggest that any of the above make this "automatically notable", simply to observe that the goalposts are being moved when it comes to U.S. subnational elections compared to almost any other story. I've never before seen a post where something is a lead story at CNN, NYT, BBC, and Al Jazeera, but people still argue it to be "of local interest only". As a quick thought experiment, if a plane had crashed in Wisconsin yesterday, killing 100 people, it would have been very likely to hit the front page; at the very least, it's hard to imagine editors saying, well, vehicles have crashed before, plus this Pakistani newspaper doesn't seem to be covering it. Yet the long saga of the union battles and mass protests that culminated in this recall has received hundreds of times the coverage that such a crash would, impacts far more people, and is infinitely more likely to be discussed by future historians and encyclopedias. Doesn't that equate to greater notability, by any reasonable definition?
 * The main problem here appears to be unwritten precedent about subnational elections. But if precedent blocks us from reporting notable events in the news, perhaps it's time to break that precedent here at In The News? I realize this is unlikely to pass at this point, but just wanted to say my piece. Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Ok, normally I wouldn't support this type of news, but this has made it to 2 major German news outlets (in addition to the various ones already mentioned); obviously not because Wisconsin has risen to the top of Germans' hearts, but because of its potential impact on Obama's re-election - see here: Spiegel; Süddeutsche. BTW - I disagree with Khazar2's argument about precedent. While it is clear that ITN/R-listed elections are considered notable ex officio, my understanding is that all other elections - including provincial ones - can be discussed on ITN/C and, if considered noteworthy enough (and sufficiently updated) by the community, may be posted. Khuft (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I might have supported this the day after, but it is just too late now. Also, the consensus of opinion is that the result has no connection on Obama's reelection chances, so it's too local. Speciate (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Arab Spring
There are several Arab Spring stories back in the news today, and were on 2 days without an update (granted, thats not a reason). Yemen offensive vs. Al Q. + Syria pressures on Russia + Libya's Tripoli airport takover + Egypt protests renewed on Mubarak et al. for prosecution and election coming up + Jordan today had protests by Islamic clerics against interference in religion + Lebanon spillover from Syria + Bahrain questions of reform (though not main article at the mo.). So Sticky?Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no reason or justification for a sticky at this time. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lihaas gave a reason for one, being that "there are several Arab Spring stories back in the news today." I'm guessing that you meant there is no good reason. If so, why do you think that?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose a sticky. Pick one, get it ready for the front page and nom it. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason would be that the whole shabaag was on the top of the news (or near the top) with a multitude of things happening across th region..for which we have the Arab Spring articleLihaas (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Times-Picayunes

 * Support Major Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper in the US, serving a major US city. Definitely notable to me. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 16:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've rephrased the blurb, to emphasise why it's relevant to America at large, if not the world. I'm on the fence about the article in ITN at all, though. --  Zanimum (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This announcement was made two weeks ago. Isn't "In The News" supposed to be for items that are currently in the news? --12.41.124.2 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blurb's a little long now know?
 * ALso it was just in the news on al jaz yest/today.Lihaas (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll support based on this being a very long-running Newspaper in one of America's most historical and cultural diverse cities. But the above IP's concern is worth noting too, this was made two weeks ago then isn't this a bit late? --Τασουλα (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A regional curiosity that has absolutely no interest in its own country, never mind the English speaking world. I can't imagine any argument which would convince me otherwise doktorb wordsdeeds 21:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What? I read this in the news weeks ago, then considered nominating it but decided not to. What happened? Why is this coming up now?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For one, its stale. And secondly, its not notable at all - New Orleans is a relatively tiny city, it has a population of only 343,829. Its ranked 52nd amongst the biggest cities (by pop) in the USA and even if you multiply it 10x, it doesnt reach anywhere near the  biggest cities in the world. So New Orleans can hardly be described as a city so important that stoppage of daily newspapers there should qualify it for ITN. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Transit of Venus, 2012

 * Support I had just come here to nominate this myself. Could I suggest alternative blurb? - "Astronomers around the world prepare for the last chance to observe a Transit of Venus this century on 5 and 6 June 2012." The Transit of Venus article will be featured on the main page on 5 June but it would be nice to post this now to allow people to make preparations to observe the event.  Richerman ''   (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very rare event in astronomy, definitely notable enough for ITN, and should get heavy media and social attention around June 3rd-4th. Although, I think the blurb that the nominator suggested would be more suited for after the transit of Venus, not before. If we were going to post it prior to the actual date, something along the lines of what Richerman suggested would be better, although I think the words "around the world" should be removed. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 07:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Darn edit conflicts) Jenks24 makes a good point, same with what Richerman said above as well. If it's going to be the featured article, it may not need to be posted. However, it may be acceptable to post afterwards. Changing to Neutral. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 07:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this week's New Scientist - "Every capable observatory in the world will have something trained on Venus" says Glen Schneider of the University of Arizona. Richerman ''   (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When I said remove the words "around the world", I wasn't doubting the fact that that's true, I just think that that should be implied. They add a little extra length to the blurb, and the blurb can be shortened a bit by removing those words. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 08:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Understandable nomination, but probably unnecessary considering that the June 5 TFA is transit of Venus. Jenks24 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This is what ITN should be for, also might help in combating the systemic bias of Venusian news items. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  07:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose while it's a once-in-a-lifetime event, FA already beat us to this one. -- Plasma Twa  2  08:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per ITN/Purpose 1,2 and 3. I think we can spare 2 lines of text for an event which won't come again for more than 200 years. --IP98 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold until after TFA has flipped on June 6 at midnight UTC. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no logic in that at all. The event will one-third over by then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold per Strange Passerby. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I forsaw two possibilities for this - either it would appear as a news item before the event or it wouldn't appear because it was going to be a TFA and other items in the news would take precedence. Either of those options would be acceptable, but having it appear the day after it happens (i.e. "you have just missed your last chance to see a rare celestial event") seems the worst option of all. The only reason I could see for that would be if there were some unexpected results from the observations made but we won't know about that until some time after it has happened. Richerman ''   (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I disagree. It is not our business to "allow people to make preparations to observe the event". Why should we? If they miss it, so what? We are not a news outlet. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because WP is one of the most widely visited sites on the web and readers check daily to see whats new in TFA, DYK and ITN. Because this item clears the first 3 stated purposes of ITN. Because TFA doesn't clearly state "this is happening tonight", so if you don't normally care about the "transit of Venus" you won't read down far enough to find out it's happening soon. Because I can't conceive of any way where posting this a day before the event would in any way harm ITN or WP as a whole. Post before, then update the blurb for past tense after it happens. My two cents anyway. --IP98 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment re TFA It's great that Transit of Venus is going to be TFA on the day. However, TFA articles are often about non-current events, or not even about events. Without an ITN entry most readers, seeing only the first line or two of TFA, won't know that it's actually happening "now". I still argue for this to be in ITN to highlight its currency. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold per Strange Passerby. Khazar2 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * comment while this was nom'd 3 days early...there are multiple DYK's as well lined up for this event. Well be covering it on FA, ITN and DYK...that doesnt seem like such a stellar event...Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Try as I might to understand it, I have no idea what this comment means. What doesn't seem like such a stellar event? Richerman ''   (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is literally a stellar event, right? – H T  D  01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (sigh!) Yes - the stellar allusion is obvious, but what does s/he mean by "that doesn't seen like such a stellar event"? Is it meant to be a rhetorical question? If so, it should be followed by a question mark. BTW there are 2 DYK's - maybe "multiple" is a bit of an exaggeration?.  Richerman ''   (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Supportissimus What part of once this century is hard to understand? We regularly post much less rare astronomical events. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of "it's the second one this century" is hard to understand? Crispmuncher (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Very infrequent event, and great encyclopaedic content. Suggest going up at the start of the transit, otherwise we're commenting on a future event. LukeSurlt c 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that. It's extremely likely to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment suggest we post to ITN 12-24 hours before the event so readers won't learn of it too late to watch it live on the internet. μηδείς (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support after TFA. There is accepted consensus that the same article is not featured/bolded twice on the main page on the same day.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The link could go to the Transit of Venus, 2012 article instead, although it's not such a comprehensive article. There is however a link at the top of that article to the main ToV article. Richerman ''   (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm confusing myself trying to watch too may articles today - they are two different articles. The TFA is Transit of Venus and the proposed article is Transit of Venus, 2012 Richerman ''   (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support for simultaneous inclusion with TFA - Good god, we are AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, and possibly the most used learning tool for the English speaking world outside of schooling. This is exactly the type of rare scientific event that we should be plastering around for the whole 24 hours that it is occurring. I think the one or two additional lines can be spared to make it more apparent that it is happening. It certainly has been making the news regularly for the last several weeks. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose generally, strong oppose to simultaneous inclusion with today's FA and vehement oppose to inclusion before the event has even taken place. Astronomy as a whole is replete with once in a lifetime events: I could look around and find you a dozen events that take place today that will not re-occur for another millenia, another dozen for tomorrow, another dozen the day after that and so on ad infitum.  The "once in a lifetime event" argument is therefore meaningless and in this case isn't even true, given that is is fair to imagine any contributor here is at least 8.
 * However, I am most animated about this attempt to jump the gun on this, starting with a ridiculously premature nomination and now this notion that we should post early to "spread the word" about it happening. How can there be any update before the event has taken place?  An update in this context is something that occurred either during or after the transit and that could not have been predicted with any certainty before it: that allows for the confirmation of a specific hypothesis but not simple extrapolation of Newtonian or relativistic mechanics.  If an update meeting those criteria (which are our usual criteria) is made I'll have no problem reconsidering, but simple listing of times of first/last contact don't fit the bill since they are projectable well in advance.  Yes, Floydian, we are an encyclopedia, with ENCYCLOPEDIC VALUES.  We do not jettison long-standing core values for short-term sentiment. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Demanding an update is just fucking ridiculous. Astronomers have known about this event on this date for a century. There is NOTHING to update. What fucking drugs are you on? And it makes complete sense to post it before it happens. If it doesn't happen, it probably means we won't be fucking here. Stupid, and sad. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it was predicted by Horrocks in 1639. However the article has been updated to say what research opportunities would be explored during the transit. Richerman ''   (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when has a nomination's "prematurity" been a reason for opposing it when it becomes timely?  Arguing that all sorts of unique astronomical events occur is irrelevant to the fact that this is a named type of event the importance of and rarity of which are both quite notable.  The article has already been updated by 1100 bytes in the last two days.  It would be quite easy to add another three referenced comments such as the fact that the transit will be covered live by NASA.  Such updates to the article do not need to wait until after the event has occurred.  Finally, any argument that amounts to this is a [surrogate paper] encyclopedia [!!!] would mitigate against us having an ITN section entirely.μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear it's one of the rarest predictable events, it's actually a twice in a lifetime event and anyone aged 8 now would have to live to 113 to catch the next one. Richerman ''   (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To respond to Hilo first, arguing that there won't be an update is an argument against posting. Policy is clear: we do not post without an update.  An update in this context is something that can only be added either during or after the event itself to address Richerman's point: experiments can and will have been planned months ago.  Information on them may have been more difficult to obtain until recently, but there is little that wasn't known months ago and could have been put in the article if anyone had bothered to do the leg work: that isn't an update but regular article building.  The provisional results of thse experiments would qualify and I'm sure they will be widely reported.  If we hold off until then there's a good chance someone will actually put the work in to ensure that this can be posted: highlighting updating content is one of ITN's core reasons for being.  Posting anything we feel like because it seems like a good idea at the time is not.
 * As for the premature nom, no that is not by itself an argument against posting, but the argument that this somehow deserves an early posting certainly is. Let's be clear on this: the update requirements are there for a reason.  Posting without those requirements being met is to throw the policy book out of the window.
 * Finally, this "one of the rarest predictable events" thin is nothing more than press hyperbole and weakens the referenced article in my view. There are plenty of rarer astronomical events that occur over much longer time scales. There was a particularly close approach between Earth and Mars only a few years ago that will not be bettered for 30,000 years. Which is rarer, that or something that last occurred only eight years ago? Crispmuncher (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
 * About the Martian approach. No human alive has seen anything like this more than once (transits of Mercury are much smaller, less rare and less scientifically important). Mars' close approach in 2003 however looked pixel for pixel identically good to telescopic (or naked eye) observers as close approaches that happen every 15 or 30 years! Only space probes and radar can do such hair splitting ("50000 years!") This has a name, is a recognizable category of event and is notable enough to be one of the first 270 featured articles, the Mars thing doesn't have any, other than opposition of Mars a visually indistinguishable margin better than approaches which occur every 15 or 30 years, or Close approach of Mars. Opposition of Mars? Some people may hyperbole but this is truly on the short list of the most important astronomical events (probably not discoveries) of the century. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy may be clear (although where it says updates to articles must occur after real world events is unclear), but it is also flexible, Crispmuncher. This is one of those cases. I think there is even a shortcut to that point. μηδείς (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IAR is not carte blanche to do what the hell you like. The net result of invoking it must still be within the general aims and objectives or ITN specifically or at least the project generally. A case for doing so has not been made.  That isn't to say that a case couldn't be made, only that it has not been.  OTOH I am struggling to imagine what it would be that would over-ride the stated aim of the section to highlight updated content.  An implicit "go out and watch this" is not one of our aims, and in any case we are already doing so in a manner consistent with policy in the featured article.  It seems to me that for ITN we need an update to move this story from being essentially an interesting but pointless curiosity to something of some value. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
 * So when an academic like Steven Van Roode says "The transit of Venus is one of the rarest predictable astronomical events" or the editors of Scientic American say the same thing or The Institute of Physics (need I go on?) it's press hyperbole is it?  Richerman ''   (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Above thread is a bit tl;dr, but there's no imaginable argument whatsoever why we should not post this, if not a few hours before it happens (it will happen in about 2 hours) but at least after it has happened, which is as nigh. Note I have "bumped" this thread from June 2 section under here to June 5. --hydrox (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well it's certainly in the news in the UK. There was a piece about it on the BBC radio news as I was driving home and I'm now watching a Horizon Special about it on BBC TV. Richerman ''   (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have to be very careful about "bigging up" events for the wrong reasons. I am not certain that adding something like this story would differentiate ITN from the very news tickers we have agreed we are not. I know that it is rare, but that's not the same as important. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So what was the "wrong reason" to "big up" this astronomical curiosity again? --hydrox (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ready- Three minutes till TFA expires, so let's put this up right after.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Still not updated. Ergo not ready. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Bullshit HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was looking at Transit of Venus as the article and didn't realize that the nom was using a different one. Can't we embolden that and still link Transit of Venus, 2012?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How? --  tariq abjotu  01:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what specifics you want in the blurb, but it could start with "A transit of Venus occurs...  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh for God's sake you lot couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. "Astronomers around the world observe the last Transit of Venus to occur this century." Richerman ''   (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As high school teacher I spend a big chunk of my time trying to understand why people behave the way they do. I simply cannot comprehend the opposition to this nomination. The event is now over, and something that won't happen again for over 100 years didn't get posted at all. This is really sad, and pathetic. A real blot on ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And the Transit of Venus, 2012 article has been updated with with images of the transit. Can I just point out that the next one will be in 2117 - maybe you can get something organised for then? This is the last time I have anything to do with ITN. Richerman ''   (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, there's a clean up tag on the article, there was no consensus on the nomination or its blurb, and there was a problem with ITN having the same lead as a current TFA. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The cleanup tag has only been put on since my last posting because lots of enthusiastic but inexperienced editors have been adding images - that's the way it is with current events. I have now moved some images and removed the tag. Also, there seems to be an overwhelming view that it should go on after the TFA apart from 2 opposes and one weak oppose, but then you'll never get everyone to agree on anything. Richerman ''   (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we not get this up now? We've got a nice gallery of pictures, something that's quite rare in WP articles. LukeSurlt c 10:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite stale in my opinion 78.86.102.100 (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The images are good, but a lot of the article is still written in the future tense. The observing notes are irrelevant now, too, and arguably a little howto-ish in any event.  It'd be nice if we could get some prelimary scientific findings in there too, although I wouldn't press that one too forcefully since it is easy to overstate the true scientific value of something like this. Crispmuncher (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Support. It is in the news. And a lot rarer than eclipses. ... (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the tense, removed the observing notes (which were only ever supposed to be there until the event was over) and updated the article extensively with news reports. Richerman ''   (talk)


 * Posted. Thanks for patience. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Astronomers around the world viewed something that you will never have the opportunity to again. Pathetic. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  13:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 *  TOO FUCKING LATE!!!! IDIOTIC . HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please! As if anyone has been waiting for us to announce that it was going to happen! It's fine as it is now; at least from a Central European perspective (where no-one could see anything anyway because of the rain), it's nice to have a direct link to actual pictures of the event. Khuft (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Trololo dies



 * Any notability that this person may have needs to be analyzed without considering that stupid Internet meme.--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why discriminate memes? ;) And yes, of course there is some notability beyond being a meme. Grey Hood   Talk  18:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral - I'm willing to hear counterarguments for his extreme notability, but I'm not fully sold by what's listed in the article so far. His death appears to be treated in the first English news sources I looked at as trivia--Time, for example, discusses him only in terms of being a meme. Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your source describes him as The subject of one of the Internet's most beloved memes. I'd say this is already a sign of some exceptional notability. Then, of course, Khil is mostly known as a meme to Anglophones, but in Russia and post-Soviet states he is known as one of the most prolific Soviet era singers. Here he is described as one of the symbols of the Soviet popular music. The same could be said only about very few living Russian/Soviet singers. While being a Soviet era star may not be notable enough for ITN, the combination of his domestic fame with his (rather specific) international fame makes him an interesting ITN subject. Grey Hood  Talk  18:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you make a fairly good case. His death does appear to be prominently featured in English-language Russian news sources, and for things besides the meme. I don't really have the skills to search in Russian, unfortunately. I agree that his Soviet-popularity alone would have almost made me vote support, though not convinced his meme-dom puts him over the top. (I don't see the Wikipedia of the future putting up Gary Brolsma's death from old age, for example, though he's arguably an even more famous meme.) As somebody who's actively been lobbying for ITN's pop culture coverage to have a more global reach, though, I at least won't stand in this one's way. Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Do you know what, maybe I've gone mad, maybe it's the two sugars in my tea or the lack of natural sunlight, but I'm going for this. He is not notable to the full extent that we expect (or indeed I would usually expect to be honest). However, I can't help thinking that we're pretty good here at having at least one finger on the pulse of what the Internet is talking about. I'm pretty sure that the burst of condolences are real, he had a short, sharp and sudden moment of fame on line and attention around the world, not just the usual places either. I would usually shoot these nominations down, it's just I have a niggling doubt that there's something very.....Wikipedian about it, so for the sake of his long career, the unusual circumstances of its revival and the reaction, not to mention the cult status he achieved via YouTube, let's get him on the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Nooooooooooooooooo! --Τασουλα (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Aw heck, I know this is far from the most solid nomination, but within Russia he is notable for his singing career, for which he has received commendations. And in the western world, he's an icon of the new YouTube age.  Combine those two and I think you get a winning formula for ITN. Redverton (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but ditch the Trololo part, and focus on his renown as a Russian singer. Let the reader discover the Trololo part. (I fear that if you post it like that, we're going to be asking for Internet memes to pave their way to here). --M ASEM (t) 23:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm tempted to post the much use but much reviled "Who?" comment. But I won't. I'm flabbergast that Dick Clark, who, as several sources including Rolling Stone commented, "brought Rock and Roll into houses from coast to coast", barely made the cut; and Paul Newman, one of the greatest actors of all time per ANY number of sources, never made it; BUT a minor internet celebrity, granted one who was fairly popular singer in his home country, gets such strong support!! I'm really not sure what we're doing here anymore.Rhodesisland (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? - "Not well known in my country therefore I oppose"...both Dick Clark and Paul Newman were practically unknown outside the United States and that was the reason for much of the opposition - you've just gone ahead and done exactly the same thing with this nomination. You are no better I'm afraid... --Τασουλα (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Before an argument over this point starts, I actually think it's pretty hard to contend Newman wasn't well known outside the U.S. Granted, I'd never heard of Clark before he died, but my point was just to preempt any argument over Newman. Redverton (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And, to clarify, I'm not an American. Redverton (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's to do with the Meme thing. Khil was probably more well known outside of Russia at the time of his death than Newman was outside of America is what I meant. Dick Clark just wasn't that influential outside the US, but I actually supported that entry being in!. And it has nothing to do with not being American; I have plenty of American idols, I watch American TV and have American relations and friends. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose English WP article created 2010-03-04, basically in response to meme. Not really active since the 90s. No sign of any real impact or influence on the field. Seems like a Russian Stompin' Tom Connors. Ideal candidate for recent deaths. --IP98 (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There wasn't an article about the Village I live in until about ~6 months ago. I'd still support it going up on ITN if it was blown up tomorrow or something though! Ah sorry I'm trying to be humorous. I think he had impact in the fields of meme'related stuff, and his song was featured in Family Guy - though again in response to the Meme. Outside of the whole Meme' thing, I can't see him being notable either for ITN - but who cares. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply Most deaths go up under ITN/DC #2 "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". Not seeing any sign of that. If it's true, update the article to reflect the same. Otherwise no. --IP98 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, does being notable in the field of internet Meme's count? Lol --Τασουλα (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If an editor claims a person is important enough to be posted here, isn’t it incumbent on the other editors who don’t know that person to look him/her up and decide for them if the import criteria is met? Not just “I’ve never heard of him/her.” I know I do. Maybe we can learn a little about important figures of the past in the process ourselves. To deride me by claiming that only I’m saying “he’s not important in my country”, while also claiming that this particular person’s really only famous in his country (besides a relative celebrity through an internet meme), seems to me to be ridiculous. If Dick Clark is only important in the US not the rest of the world, therefore we can’t post his death, to then turn around and say that Mr. Trololo is really popular in Russia and therefore should be listed makes me say WHAT!???!!? Again, I struck by the lunacy of all of this and just don’t need the stress! I have way to much stress IRL and don’t need this added to it. So, I’m done. I’m fed up beyond the pale. I don’t care to wish you luck or any such. I’m closing my account and this whole project can go to flames for all I care! Good riddance!Rhodesisland (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did Rock and Roll have influence internationally? If so, then Dick Clark did so as well. If it hadn’t been for his show American Bandstand, there wouldn’t have been the huge growth of RnR in the early 60! And that’s not including his New Year’s Eve TV specials that were watched yearly by 100s of millions around the world! To claim he’s just not important outside of the US, is to deny his importance in rock and roll and rock’s importance/influence on the globe.
 * If you're going to take everything her personally then it's a good thing you're quitting. Seriously, I supported Dick' Clarks nomination; so what are you talking about? I can't speak for others. COI is not handled here. Ignore it, don't let it get to you personally, it isn't worth it. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggested blurb Maybe reference to "Soviet era singer...." at the start? If we include the screengrab than maybe the Mr Trololol reference wouldn't be necessary? doktorb wordsdeeds 01:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is systematic bias at its finest. An Internet-saavy group believes the death of someone known primarily for his Internet fame meets guidelines of widespread notability. This seems to have made the news, especially on English-language news sites, as a footnote or a trivia item. It does not meet our standards of notability, especially for deaths. The support comments read to me as either (a) using the Internet meme as a measure of notability (which I don't think is enough) or (b) claiming he is very well-known in Russia. The latter is a bit more reasonable, but that seems like skirting around Option (a). The Russian version of this man's article doesn't seem extremely long or well-presented, even by Russian Wikipedia standards, (their article on Selena Gomez is about as well-formed), and our article here is even worse. So, we have questionable notability, especially beyond an Internet meme and especially among English-language sources. We have a mediocre article here with a mediocre update. I see no reason why this should go up. Just like the Miami cannibalism story farther down the page, this is more trivia than major news. --  tariq abjotu  01:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per Tariqabjotu.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm forced to concur with Tariq on this one.  Spencer T♦ C 03:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral on whether he was notable enough as a singer (if he meets ITN/DC, great – I simply don't know or care). But I strongly oppose mentioning the meme in the blurb. The point Masem makes about opening the floodgate is compelling, as is Tariq's argument that there is a particularly strong potential for systemic bias in this discussion. If we mention Mr Trololo in the blurb, it will probably be the reader's impression that a group of geeks voted to put an internet meme up because it interested them, and that we didn't follow a process consistent with how we consider other stories. —WFC— 03:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Popularity in either Russia and the former Soviet countries or at YouTube is probably not notable enough itself, but combined it makes something that puts weight on this and suffices to be mentioned. Furthermore, we don't need to restrict on nominations with pure breaking effects in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Concur with Tariq, clear case of systematic bias. Ask the average man on the street who "Mr. Trololo" is and he wouldn't have a bloody clue. Jenks24 (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask the average man on the street who won the Greek election and you'd struggle, too, to be fair. We're an Internet project, how can it be "bias" to support a singer who happened to have had interest through another Internet site? doktorb wordsdeeds 10:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Systemic bias. Regarding elections, I think it more likely that the average person will at least know there has been an election in Greece, even if they don't know who won. Jenks24 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Doktorbuk "We're an internet project" is true only insofar as that describes our medium, not our theme.  There are people whose contributions to the internet raise them to ITNworthiness: Tim Berners Lee, key instigators of IE, Google, Facebook etc, but Mr Khil is way blow such a threshold.  No opposition if his contribution to Russian music is such that he would be deemed to have a comparable impact in that genre to that of Robin Gibb in Western Anglophone music, but an in joke among a group that is greatly overrepresented among our editors (but not our readers) adds a miniscule amount to his ITNworthiness.  I don't know Russian, but would recognise the transliteration, and I see no sign of this at Russian ITN/C, so I'll oppose.Kevin McE (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A good post, well made. We may not agree and I don't fancy pushing it much further. I do take your point. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Russian ITN/C can't be used as any kind of criterion: it has very low level of participation (actually I see just one or two active users there) and they seem to mostly copy stuff from the English ITN/C. Grey Hood   Talk  20:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet they haven't copied this proposal: that seems to fatally undermine arguments based on his importance in Russia. Kevin McE (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They copy posts, not proposals. Once again, Russian ITN is very slow, unpopular and secondary to English, they do not even have ITN box on the Russian Wikipedia's Main Page. Grey Hood   Talk  18:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: If Eduard Khil is indeed as notable in Russia as it appears from his article (winner of Russia's most prestigious artist award, the People's Artist of Russia; toured over 80 countries; Order of Merit for the Fatherland, etc), then it is in fact systemic bias to presume he is notable only because of the Trololo song, because that is what the Western world knows him for. A possible equivalent that comes to my mind is A. R. Rahman who is an absolute legend in India but known in the Western world primarily for his work in Slumdog Millionaire for which he was given a ton of awards, whereas most of whom who follow Indian (Tamil, Hindi) music will probably consider his work in Slumdog as waaaay below par. So if Eduard Khil is in fact notable in Russia for his other work (I wouldnt know; I've only got his article to go by), to keep him out by presuming he is notable only as "Mr. Trololo" would be systemic bias. I concede that I've made some generalizations in the use of the phrase "Western world", so please dont bite me on that. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Notable singer in Russia; here he is only known for his catchy video.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 15:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose If mere popularity in Russia is the reason for the nomination, isn't that a fail? Wouldn't his death have to be unexpected, or his work to have been groundbreaking?μηδείς (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * His death was not entirely expected, he was fairly active in the last years. As for the "groundbreaking", he was perhaps the most notorious case of the old pop culture transforming into the modern Internet culture: Russian Crooner and Internet Sensation Eduard Khil Helped the New Generation Remember Soviet Pop Culture. Grey Hood   Talk  20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. Grey Hood   Talk  20:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Very well known worldwide. Sad that he died.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's not the question whether or not his death is sad. None of the WP:In the news/Death criteria is met. Neither was Mr. Khil in a high-ranking office of power, nor was he "widely regarded as a very important figure" in his field, at least not globally, as there are many singers in the world who are much more notable. Nor has his death "a major international impact that affects current events". Moreover, the article has only one sentence (but not one paragraph, as required) of prose about Khil's death, and dying at age 77 is not unusually timely. Please don't confuse ITN with an obituary. --RJFF (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to drop a point that for assessing notability, his field should be taken as "Russian music" and not "music". If its "music", then given the Anglo-American dominance currently prevailing, only English music (and maybe Rammstein and a couple of other artists) will qualify. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Sad that he died" was not my argument. "Very well known worldwide" was.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Khil was certainly a notable artist in his part of the world, and that is nothing to be disregarded (as per Chocololate Horlicks and others). That combined with his recent surge in popularity in the West, especially among the younger generations (but not, it seems, the old fuddy-duddies here ;)) via the Trololo video is in my view plenty of notability to propel this to ITN. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have slightly more support votes here and the topic, in the aspect of being related to an internet meme, might be considered fairly interesting, rare, and minority one. Could we add this news at least to the middle of the template - it will slip from there soon anyway? I'm pretty disappointed to see the talk about some Internet-related systemic bias above. Surely the main bias here is that news related to notable persons, especially singers, artists and writers, from non-Anglophone countries have much lower chances to get posted. Khil's was even honoured by the Russian President: "His name is connected to an era in the history of Russian music. Eduard Khil was unique in his extraordinary charm and lyricism, constant in his professionalism, vocal culture and creative taste. Many of the songs he performed became part of the golden fund of the Russian stage." I'd say his notability on the Russian/Soviet level is pretty clear, and the international notability related to the meme makes him OK for posting on ITN. Grey Hood   Talk  04:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. An internationally famous singer and recipient of the People's Artist award, the highest state award in Russia in arts and music. Nanobear (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have enough consensus for a post? This is the last chance, or is it already stale ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not stale, there are just 3 newer news in the template. The article (the section on death) has been minimally updated by the way. Grey Hood   Talk  10:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sachin Tendulkar MP

 * Oppose Of no merit whatsoever. Putting it in DYK might work but it's not really for ITN. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Interesting trivia, but no big impact on political or sports worlds for now. Not very prominent in international coverage, either (BBC has it as the eighth story in its Asia subsection, for example). Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can't be an ITN stuff until he becomes the PM. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no difference substantial between being a politician while also being a sportsman, singer, or taxi driver. Politicians have lives too. -- RA  (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah... only when he retires from cricket (for obvious reasons), his political career has no merit. -- Ashish-g55 01:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Agreed that its unusual and may be even unconstitutional (Article 80(3) only provides for nominations from the fields of art, literature, science, and social services - sports is not expressly included, so its open to interpretation). But it has had no impact on sports and only a very small impact on Indian politics. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't find this unusual at all, famous figures particularly those who are ambassadors to a particular interest groups have always tried to enter political institution through elections, examples include, Peter Garrett (former environmental minister, current School Education, Early Childhood and Youth minister of the Australian gov - active singer in the band, Midnight Oil), Michael Bloomberg (mayor of New York City, founder and CEO of Bloomberg), Arnold Schwarzenegger (former governor of California, obvious celebrity). YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI only (I oppose too): Its unlike becoming an MP through election (India has had those before). We have the Lok Sabha to which we have direct elections (by citizens) and the Rajya Sabha to which we have indirect elections (by State legislators who were in turn elected by citizens). Art.80(3) of the constitution also provides for 12 (out of 250) members of the RS to be nominated (free pass) by the President from the fields of art, literature, science, and social services. Nomination from the field of sports is not expressly permitted and he was the first sportsperson to be nominated into RS, so it was something unusual but yes, no major impact. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Isn't Manny Pacquaio a Filipino congressman? Going to go out on a limb and say that didn't make it either. --12.41.124.2 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

June 3: Israel arms submarines with nuclear weapons

 * Support Well, it's certainly news, and notable, but good luck keeping the Mossad agents at bay after those Nominator's comments ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Such a clearly biased nomination statement does this no favours at all. People can at least attempt to be balanced. Crispmuncher (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
 * You don't think nuclear weapons are a great threat to world security? If they had placed weaponized viruses or such on the submarine I would have nominated that as well. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think people that insist on fanning the flames like that at any possible opportunity are more of a threat to world security than any thing. How is the assertion that Isreal is hostile and aggressive not POV?  Are we supposed to feel sorry for poor, defenceless Iran who is being threatened through no fault of their own?  Is Isreal's entire nuclear arsenal large enough to trigger a global nuclear winter? (Hint: the answer is no)  What then remains of the nom?  The fact you can't see this gives me cause for concern as to balance of the referenced article, hence moving to Oppose. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
 * There is no need to start insulting others and trying to put words into my mouth, I never stated anything about whether Iran was a hostile nation or not, but it seems you somehow did. I only state Israel is hostile due to their leader's statement on attacking Iran If you read the article on nuclear winter you will see how several years ago estimates were revised to that only 50 Hiroshima sized bombs - far less than Israel's reported arsenal - would cause a catastophic global cooling. I changed my wording for you, please don't !vote oppose just because you uh something, idk. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by my comments. It is not me that introduced fundamentally POV sentiments to this discussion, nor sensationalist nonsense. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support an important development. However - the blurb needs linking somewhere and I can't think of anywhere off hand doktorb wordsdeeds 08:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wasn't Israel already believed to have nuclear-equipped subs? I notice that the Wikipedia article linked here already includes that they do, despite not having been updated for two weeks. On a quick skim, it appears the story here is simply that Germany is selling Israel nuclear-capable subs--not that Israel didn't have them already. Which might help explain why this isn't getting more prominent coverage (doesn't appear to be in today's New York Times or BBC, for example). But the article hasn't been updated yet; maybe a high quality update can convince me. (And on a picky note, the blurb in any case should read not that Israel has added nukes to subs, but that they've been reported to have done so; that's the event that specifically happened today.) Khazar2 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Israel is widely believed to have nukes and Israel has subs capable of holding missiles which could carry nuclear war heads, this has been known for years. The reason I nominated this is that this is the first time it has been reliably reported that Israel is now actually doing what we have known for several years it was capable of, placing nuclear missiles on its new subs. I believe this is at least as important of a development as the single report we posted which stated Iran may be thinking of building nuclear weapons, or North Korea's weapon testing a few years back, also posted probably. I will try to update with the sources I added above. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Der Spiegel appears to be reporting that Israel has had nukes on subs for some time--not that they started doing it this week. ("Berlin has long been aware of that.") I feel pretty much the same about this that I did about the "NYT reports Israel responsible for Stuxnet" nomination; this was something everybody already pretty much knew, that's now getting a slightly more official report from a single publication. Here, for example, is a Wash Post article from 2006 pointing out that Israel had bought new nuclear-equipped submarines and was planning to use them as insurance against Iran (and owned some even before that): . Feels like some very stale news, and not helped by the fact that the Der Spiegel report itself came out on Sunday; by the time this is updated and makes the main page, it's likely to be 5-6 days old. Khazar2 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated, and it can be placed on ITN today, if we only try. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose That Israel has nuclear missiles has essentially been an open secret for years, this report is unlikely to change the geopolitics of the region. It looks like Israel isn't changing its policy of deliberate ambiguity in regards their nuclear program either. I'm not sure that this represents a significant change in the arrangement of Israel's nuclear arsenal (wasn't it sub-bound before?). LukeSurlt c 09:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Since the Der Speigel report came out on Sunday, I've moved this nomination to the correct date of the event. Khazar2 (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back, I understand you are only folowing the bureaucracy, but readers look for new items, items to input their opinion on at the top, not throughout. I see no harm in placing it in order of newest nomination to oldest, nominations for events over a week old simply aren't allowed, so all nominations are still quite recent. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Khazar was right to move it. The fact this story is several days old is an important factor. This may be more suited to a DYK than ITN. LukeSurlt c 10:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but it's not just bureaucracy; it's important that this be clearly marked as Sunday's news to !voting editors and posting admins. As a compromise I've marked the date of the event in the header, but I'd still suggest this just go under the correct date. My experience is that most editors watch the full page; no need to put a false date on it to try to attract more !votes. Khazar2 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullet point 2 of "How to nominate an item" on the top of this page clearly says that: "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC". So yes, Khazar2's move is correct. There is no ambiguity on this point. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While we can WP:IAR from time to time, the only justification for this anachronism seems to be to give it a better chance of being posted. This is not sufficient cause. LukeSurlt c 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-moved to correct date. Policy is crystal clear on this matter. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC).

Comment: That Israel has nuclear capable SLCMs is pretty stale news. Their Dolphin class submarines tested the Popeye Turbo SLCMs in 2002. What is news here is that Germany may have breached the NPT and that the German opposition has sought an explanation regarding this from the government. We can possibly explore something along those lines. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a better angle to me, too. At a minimum we should revisit this if things come to a head on the political end somehow. Khazar2 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- Israel has had nuclear weapons for years, so what's so special about equipping some to submarines?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Dana Air Flight 992

 * Support- Hitting a building in such a major city is unfortunate but newsworthy.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Bzweebl. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 *  Needs update  --IP98 (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support now that the article is of sufficient size. --IP98 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite so. As I said in the nom.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Airline crashes that kill that many people are newsworthy. The article is very sparse right now, but I expect that additional information will be added quickly, as it becomes available. --Orlady (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support once a little more updated per Bzweebl. Khazar2 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support But I wish we had firmer guidelines on what makes a major air disaster. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but perhaps the biggest loss of life so far this year in an aviation accident (i.e. around 150) would probably constitute a "major air disaster", right? Why not propose some guidelines and then we can discuss it rather than just complain about there not being some guidelines we can use. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've raised this issue numerous times here, and there's no consensus, so the "major" argument is arbitrarily used to uphold or undermine nominations. Crnorizec (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll never get a consensus. Personally I don't think any air disaster should be posted unless the investigation leads to a change in aircraft design or a new regulation. On the other hand, we are here to sort of mirror the big stories "in the news" so... --IP98 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if a pilot decides to slam his brand new Dreamliner into the deck because he's a lunatic, you saying you wouldn't post it? New designs/regulations take months/years.  So then it's not really ITN is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, in that extremely unlikely scenario it would be an easy support. What's not so easy is if a plane crashes without explanation into a mountain side in Java. --IP98 (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support "major" accident with "significant" loss of life. Crnorizec (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted. It bleeds. It leads.©Geni 22:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Temporarily removed. This does not meet the minimum criteria update requirement, which is three well-formed paragraphs for a stand alone article. This has two (relatively brief) ones and an additional sentence. I will be happy to repost when the article is expanded more.  Spencer T♦ C 01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably ready I've added 7-8 more sentences to the article, including an additional full paragraph. Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks much better now.  Spencer T♦ C 02:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Tragic and, for whatever reason, plane crashes like this are always notable. -- RA (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant

 * Oppose for similar reasons that the other nom below was opposed. Nevermind, that argument doesn't apply to this. Support per notability and major international coverage.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But the nomination below was just a generic "Jubilee" item. This is about a specific event: the water pageant, which has broken world records . -- Dorsal  Axe  17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Iconic event that is distinct from the anniversary itself. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as commented in the rejected suggestion below. Leaky  Caldron  17:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's part of the same party that was opposed below. 1000 boats may be some sort of numerical record (is there really any proof?), but it's not a patch on the 850 used in the Dunkirk evacuation, at night, in wartime, in enemy territory, which I'm sure this is at least partly meant to be in remembrance of. A bit of perspective please. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that news has to top historical events to be notable? If they were all, say, sailing in the Bermuda Triangle, into a tsunami, blindfolded only then should we report it? Perspective is all well and good, but this is still not at all an ordinary event that occurs very often. -- Dorsal  Axe  17:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still just a party, on the wrong date. HiLo48 (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite, it's the biggest flotilla on the Thames for around 350 years. Not long ago, 1/3 of the globe was pink, and this will have received global attention. It's globally significant, despite your personal feelings.  I could have done without it, but nevertheless it's a major news item.  Possibly even more significant than the retirement of some Swedish sportsman.  Who knows?  (incidentally, do you have any evidence to support your supposition that this is somehow related to Dunkirk?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still just a party, on the wrong date. Bread and circuses HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Isn't any event a party on the wrong date?  What an absurd posture you've adopted.  Incidentally, I'm still looking for the evidence to back up your Dunkirk supposition.  Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, any event is NOT a party on the wrong date. What a strange comment. My Dunkirk comment was in response to claims of a record, and I'm still sure part of the reason for the event. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm "sure" you're "sure" but that's utterly irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the end of the Second World War.  This is to do with the Queen of the biggest Empire in the history of the universe being on the throne for 60 years.  Your supposition that this somehow has something to do with Dunkirk is absurd and unfounded and demonstrates nothing but a misunderstanding of what this is all about! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And you have completely failed to understand. Or even tried to. Sad really. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move on dude. Head of State Head of the Commonwealth of Nations (for 2.1 billion people). Your assertion that this is relevant to Dunkirk is entirely unfounded and irrelevant in extremis. Get over it, it's posted, and we should all do something more useful than argue the toss over a story relevant to over 1/3 of the world population.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone over at the Miscellaneous Ref Desk, who seems to know what he's talking about, has just referred to the "Dunkirk boats" section of the cavalcade. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 137 million actually. Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is becoming entirely boring (educational, but boring). I was referring to her position as head of the Commonwealth of Nations (struck above).  Let's move on now, and let's all work on something in the mainspace rather than all this guff, eh?!  Happy Jubilee to one and all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per ITN/Purpose #1. This is a top story. I don't think we posted the Dunkirk evacuation because it was 72 years ago. --IP98 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The magnitude of the event itself probably pips last year's wedding. —WFC— 18:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb is possibly erroneous. Quoting BBC: "The pageant - believed to be the Thames's most spectacular in 350 years - started at Albert Bridge (...)" The Telegraph elaborates: "Not since 1662, when Charles II introduced his Queen, Catherine of Braganza, to the nation with a spectacular river pageant, have so many boats processed down the Thames with such unashamed patriotism. ... It was a day for breaking records; this was the biggest flotilla recorded by Guinness World Records, beating the previous holders in Bremerhaven, Germany, who managed a mere 327 vessels the day after last year’s Royal wedding." So I understand that this is the biggest flotilla recorded by Guinness, but historically there have been even bigger ones described. Suggest just leaving out the "the largest ever recorded" part from blurb. --hydrox (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm opposed to posting this on the basis of the flotilla.  This is trivial cruft and the supposed record is dubious.  I might be open to reassessing whether we think the Diamond Jubilee was notable enough overall, but it was overwhelmingly opposed below and I don't see how a bunch of rowboats should change that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this nom is not the record, its the significance of the parade. The size is just a proposed tidbit for the blurb.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all reliable sources I've seen are saying this is the biggest flotilla on the Thames on 350 years. How is this "trivial cruft and ... dubious"?  When the last flotilla of this size cruised the Thames, America was still indigenous, just about.  And of the 1,000 participants, very few were, as you say "rowboats".  Please avail yourself of the participants.  Very exciting!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per prominence of international coverage, though I agree with HiLo that I'm disappointed the Queen has not assembled her armada to fight Nazis. Khazar2 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, globally significant, despite the republican rebellion going on here. No doubt whatsoever that this was an internationally significant event.  Sure, Liz didn't beat the Nazis this time, but hey, she can't do it all.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Globally significant? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep! Google News agrees too!! Hurrah!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hollywood babies get the same level of coverage. Doesn't make them significant. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you have strayed into the absurd. Well played.  Queen of the biggest empire in the world on the throne for 60 years vs Hollywood babies.  How bizarre!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please drop this "biggest empire" bullshit. The empire died long before Liz took the throne. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please drop your "bullshit" tone. Anyways, posted now, so sense prevailed.  If you prefer, let's use the term Commonwealth of Nations which, incidentally, as of 2005 comprised approximately 2.1 billion people.  Not so much a dead empire, more a live and kicking commonwealth.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For once, I agree with HiLo48. It concerns me that some of the supports behind this story are from driven fanaticism rather than an assessment of notability and newsworthiness. I otherwise support this nomination.--WaltCip (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe ITN should stop being snobbish and post the odd Hollywood baby :) I mean, if something is on the top of the news, who are we to decide if it's "worthy"? --IP98 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support but only if there is a picture proving this outranks one of Hyacinth Bucket's riparian delights. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose As part of the greater Jubilee weekend it was a large event, but not something which I feel deserves a place on the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 22:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as an event in it's own right, however we do need to be careful not to over do it and post anything and everything related to the jubilee, but as this it kind of the centre piece it makes sense to post. - We do seem to have in places descended in to quite a strange discussion and I'm not really sure how Nazis and Hollywood babies come into this but if it makes people feel better next time we will have Helen Mirren waving from a Zeppelin but then if we did that it might upset those displaying the somewhat republican sentiment that have crept in here being rather WP:SOAP. Just my 2p. -- wintonian  talk  23:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do be careful with assumptions that opposition to this item equals republicanism. (Which should hardly be used as a pejorative anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was trying to convey that I think some people may be being pro republican, but this may indeed be a small number involved here. Hope I have now clarified that. -- wintonian  talk  23:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted A different, and somewhat surprising, story for ITN, but the consensus is clear, the article is well updated, and it might be nice to mix things up for once. --  tariq abjotu  00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs tweaking The number of ships is described as more than a thousand:  half of that phrase is in bold typeface, and half is not.  That looks highly unprofessional: unless a thousand ships refers to Helen of Troy (and it dosn't), there is no reason for it to be treated differently from the qualifier that is part of the statement of the quantity.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ghana plane crash

 * Oppose - minor accident with a relatively low loss of life based on other aviation accidents and even road accidents that we post on ITN, it's tragic nonetheless but I don't believe we should post this based on its novel nature. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per YuMaNuMa. Also not much coverage: 7th highest story on the BBC, 9th highest on Al Jazeera, not on New York Times or CNN's front pages at all. Khazar2 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Insignificant for ITN.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose In light of Dana Air Flight 992. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A loss of 10 lives in an aviation accident, while tragic, is not hugely notable. -- RA (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II

 * Oppose This is only an anniversary, and it is not ITN worthy as such.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same story appeared on ITN in February, when the anniversary actually occurred. Kevin McE (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree that the actual anniversary is the encyclopedic news not the celebration all these months later. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just because she looks like my paternal grandmother is not sufficient reason to have this on the front page more than twice this year. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per Kevin McE. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yep. It's the wrong date. This is just a party in England. Supporters have probably been sucked in by the clever bread and circuses strategy of the British government and royal family. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not just a "party in England"...true, I'm not doing any celebrating myself because I couldn't give a rats-ass, but really, this is a party being held by many people honouring Miss. Hatty (My nickname for her) in many countries. Humph. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly HiLo48 your a republican but the bread circuses article states "In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy" - I can't think of a head of state at the moment whose devoted herself so thoroughly to public service --Thanks, Hadseys (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdraw I figured there was a reason no one else nominated. FWIW the caption in her coronation photo says June 2nd. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question so why is the media yapping about it now if it happened in feb? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the 60th anniversary of her coronation, but she actually became Queen in February 1952, upon her father's death. This is the party, not the real anniversary. (See Bread and circuses.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: yesterday was actually the 59th anniversary of her coronation. It took them 16 months to go from accession to coronation.  Kevin McE (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeh it's not good form to celebrate on the anniversary of someone’s death. :-) FWIW I actually think there is an argument for posting this as there is much more media attention now, however as has been said it was posted in Feb so there is also an argument against posting pretty much the same thing twice. --94.193.48.232 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment was from me, I forgot to log in and will add my IP to my user page incase I forget again. -- wintonian  talk  00:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the clarification. I still think this could go up, since it's going to be a major news item for a few days, but I would rather save space for the Miami face eater :). --76.110.201.132 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't post ITN stories for other unemployed German spongers.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting way of describing the royal family. Certainly their sponging off anyone outside of London though! --Τασουλα (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This unique event Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant is what is in the news today. Leaky  Caldron  11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Hosni Mubarak sentenced to life imprisonment

 * Support - when updated. This is a major milestone in the transition of power in Egypt. Crnorizec (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral because I'm struggling to find the impact in this. It was a domestic trial, not ICC, and the outcome isn't exactly a surprise. Egypt is already holding elections (we're waiting for the run-off now), they didn't need this trial to move forward. I actually think of this as more of a footnote in the story of his overthrow and the liberation of Egypt. --IP98 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No arguments with what you're saying but the imprisonment of a former head of state, particularly one as notable as Mubarak, is notable enough for ITN irregardless of its impact on Egypt's transition.Support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - a major milestone in the Arab spring.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I don't like to give any precedence to this, but we recently posted the sentence for Charles Taylor, and since this is a live imprisonment, it even makes to be more important. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when updated. Major world news story per coverage and prominence, another milestone for Arab Spring. Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This is currently the top story on the New York Times, BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera. Khazar2 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose per IP98...this is nonsense. it means nothing. A token conviction from SCAF to appease protesters. Bet you any money you like hell never serve more than 10 years (5 even) and that too probs under house arrest or a min. sec. prison. Everyone else indicted was aquitted, thats a sign enough...you got to be kidding to think there was no politics behind this "independent judiciary" of the revolutionary egypt! (laughable at best, kangaroos at worst)Lihaas (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; The former dictator of a major world nation whose 31 year reign was marked by crass corruption and political repression is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. That's pretty big news, I'd say.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The support comments are more convincing than the polemic rant of the sole oppose. Leaky  Caldron  20:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support if substantially updated. The dominating international news item of the last few days. --hydrox (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is updated. The update is sufficient (especially if you count in the "Health" section). Good sourcing. Looks ready? --hydrox (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose This was a foregone conclusion by a kangaroo court.μηδείς (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously oppose this but support the Miami cannibalism story? --  tariq abjotu  00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I most certainly did not oppose this but support the Miami cannibalism story. Read again more carefully. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was more reasonable that "Suppose" was a typo, especially given what you said after, rather than a nonsensical statement. Apparently that's not correct. --  tariq abjotu  06:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It;s called a portmanteau. As for how merely thinking an AFD is unwarranted amounts to active support for an ITN nom? Well, that's your surmise, not my import.μηδείς (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not an idiot, so please don't treat me like one; I know what a portmanteau is. The word "Suppose", as apparently intended, did not convey anything in the conversation. You should have known that and not gotten so offended when I pointed that out. If it was intended -- and I still have no idea -- as being equivalent to neutrality or ambivalence, fine; take my earlier statement (dated 00:10, June 3) and exchange "support" for "express ambivalence toward" or, better yet, "not oppose". --  tariq abjotu  08:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim, Tariqabjou, that you knew it was a portmanteau, and also that it was a "nonsensical statement." I am not the one who called you an idiot.  I provided a link.  All you have done is put words in my mouth, when I have meant exactly what I said all along.  I'll let you have the last word.  By which I mean I will not comment further. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not the job of ITN to judge on a court's is validity. For us it's enough that most newspapers think the decision has value, and the corresponding articles have been updated. --hydrox (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think a slightly more healthy update would be great. --  tariq abjotu  00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I maintain the verdict itself is not newsworthy enough. But if the riots continue a blurb taking the reaction into effect might be appropriate. μηδείς (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Highly notable, the order has sparked huge protests including at Tahrir Square. Humungous media attention - For example, even in India (which is largely unconnected to the issue), this is the top story in all the international news channels available (BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and RT) and the top international news story in all the Indian news channels. Opposes on the basis of the legitimacy of the decision should not be considered -as hydrox mentioned, its not for us to sit in judgement of the validity of the decision. All we need to consider is whether its notable or not. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody said they opposed the posting because they disagreed with the "validity of the decision"--just its newsworthiness as a foregone conclusion. I repeat, foregone conclusion.  That being said, had you paid attention to my other comment, the riots are notable but the blurb doesn't reflect them, does it?  Can we maybe get a new blurb that reflects what is actually unexpected here? μηδείς (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  09:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, a historic event, particularly in the Middle East context. Nsk92 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update This really should be changed to something more informative, like: "Egyptians riot as President Hosni Mubarak (pictured) is sentenced to life imprisonment for the killing of demonstrators during the 2011 Egyptian revolution." μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomato Genome Sequenced

 * Support Both articles are updated. Genome sequencing makes genetics research a whole lot easier, and there's been interest before in genetically modifying tomatoes. Here are some news articles about the genome sequencing, just to show it's in the news: Narayanese (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggested blurb: "The genomes of tomato and its closest wild relative have been sequenced." Narayanese (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral, leaning support - Interesting science news, minority topic, but a weak update to both articles with little statement on the significance beyond a claim by the researchers themselves. Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose See List of sequenced plant genomes, dozens of other important plants have already had their genomes completed, nothing special about this particular one. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree w/ Unique there's nothing particularly unique or encyclopedic about this sequencing, just another sequencing of just another plant. Now if it was a bear or a human or an alien.... Rhodesisland (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose They've already sequenced a plant (potato) in the same genus for dog's sake!μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- The genome sequencing of such a crucial organism is newsworthy, regardless of its frequency. The tomato is far more well known and important than almost anything else found on our list of sequenced plant genomes. This accomplishment years in the making will advance research in all fleshy fruits, not just tomatoes.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, such advances are now routine. If another organism is suggested for ITN, I might support if they discover something really unusual. Speciate (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Miami cannibalism incident

 * Oppose My hatred is of bullshit, tabloid words like "zombie". The perpetrator here was obviously a sick person. The act was weird, rather than unusual. It's a mental illness issue, not news. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They're blaming drugs, actually, one that was previously unregulated. --IP98 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Errr...ummm...not...sure...I just don't know how I feel about this possibly going on ITN...it's not exactly going to have long-lasting impact...or bring about any major change...as it is an exceptional case I simply cannot oppose but at the same time the whole impact-thing and change-thing is holding me back...umm...sorry. Also, this being in America is no issue...this was known outside of the Anglo-sphere. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing that possibly creates anti-American feeling is when Americans pre-emptively attack non-existent threats. Nobody has criticised the fact that this happened in America! HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're just exceptionally anti-American. You've also falsely assumed that I'm American. Many regional focus stories get opposed on grounds of global impact, I was just pointing out that it's not a criteria. --IP98 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Idiotic comment. America is great. Can't say that about its paranoid defenders. And the relevant posts in this thread are still pre-emptive strikes against non-existent threats. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down, the ITN madness has a hold of you! --Τασουλα (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My goal is a higher standard of discussion. Paranoid, pre-emptive strikes can never be part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, read the nominator's comments, to which Tasoula was responding. It's not all about you, Hilo98, and given your well known POV, speaking of paranoia is hardly called for.  In any case, as an active editor of the article in question, the nomination is well opposed for other reasons, and I think the American issue can be dropped by all. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Missed the point entirely. It's time for you to have a more careful read of the whole thread. There never was an "American issue", apart from in the paranoid minds of the pre-emptive strikers. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "My goal is a higher standard of discussion." - The irony here being that you inevitably bring down the quality of discussion with your pathetic attitude. Resolute 01:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way? (Please answer while avoiding all personal attacks this time.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, your pathetic attitude - and that is a descriptor, not a personal attack. One example is your comments in the Niklas Lidstrom nomination. Obviously it never had a chance to pass, but you felt the need to basically attack the nominator for even trying.  Shows me that you have serious problems interacting with others in a mature fashion. And this has been consistent every time I've looked in at ITN and found you poking around too. Resolute 02:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's not a personal attack? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know what a personal attack is. Resolute is specifically talking about your actions. The way you comment in ITN/C discussions. It seems like every time you comment, especially in reply to other people's comments, you are abrasive. And the way you write your comments, it sounds like you're giving lip service by compliment. You appear to say positive things (e.g. "My goal is a higher standard of discussion." or "America is great.") thinking it'll make whatever insulting thing you say in the rest of your comment okay. It doesn't, and it's not. --  tariq abjotu  08:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you endorse the pre-emptive attacks? HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey! I was just responding to the nominators comments, nothing else, there was no issue. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Conceded that it has received media coverage, but its one of those "curio" kind of stories, like the woman who cut off her husband's penis, the worlds youngest granddad or the Japanese tsunami boat being found off the cost of USA. These have low notability, but due to the peculiar nature of the subject matter, gets picked up newspapers world over. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Chocolate Horlicks; it's a story because of the gruesome nature of it, but it's not a murder that has an immediate impact on the world, like terrorist attacks or high-profile assassinations. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 07:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Local story, of interest for its grotesqueness rather than its importance. Not really even US-wide news in normal terms. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the points raised above and the item is stale, the incident occurred days if not almost a week ago. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Chocolate Horlicks. The story's receiving major news coverage, but doesn't seem of major encyclopedic significance. Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose suggest closure per WP:SNOW, this deserves to be listed in AFD as an obvious human interest news story with absolutely no lasting significance rather than being in the main page. Secret account 22:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Suppose Odd that someone would think this is a candidate for AFD. The incident will be long remembered by thousands more people than will ever look up any one of our myriad articles on dead footballers. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose My mindset on what ITN should be is that it lists news items that are of encyclopedic import--milestones, anniversaries, landmark achievements, etc. A story that at best is a tabloid article should not be on ITN there is nothing about this story that, 10 years from now, will be considered a landmark or milestone. OR...at least I hope not! Now if it turns out that there's an outbreak of cannibalistic, drug-taking, face-eaters THEN this will be the landmark case! But let's hope not! Rhodesisland (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, given this is a universal "oppose" I have nominated the article for DYK. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think DYK is a great way to go here. Khazar2 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As has been articulated above, this event is a curiosity but not for front page inclusion doktorb wordsdeeds 22:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose A random, although weird and horrible, assault does not make for international news. -- RA (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Google Chrome overtakes IE
Google Chrome has overtaken Internet Explorer in popularity. Internet Explorer has been the most popular browser for over a decade. 109.253.33.240 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this was nominated weeks ago, I don't see how anything has changed in that time. <b style="color:#0645AD;">Brightgalrs</b> ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )<sup style="color:#0645AD;">[1] 21:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support One thing that's changed is that I've decided to comment ;-) Almost everyone gets IE by default, whether they have thought about or not. Many less well informed computer users don't even realise that there's an alternative. To use Chrome requires a formal decision by a user. For a free, default product to be displaced by something that requires specific knowledge and effort from a user is definitely notable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was discussed approx. 2 weeks ago. Nothing changed at all since then. Khuft (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for completely ignoring my post. It WASN'T a joke! HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just read the previous discussion. This is simply not a big deal. What are we posting next? The world's favourite brand of ice cream? Khuft (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Already proposed once and shot down. IIRC "most popular browser" is dependant on way of measuring, and in some measurement some-other-browser is the most popular browser around anyway. And wasn't Firefox already the most popular browser ahead of IE? Anyway, not the most reliable statistic (single source). And when I try to open the source of the nominator I get an error page.. --hydrox (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose again 1. Usage share is an estimate based on user agent strings sent to web servers. Some sites (such as w3schools) are biased towards users who would seek an alternate browser. 2. Public web servers can't take into account corporate users forced to use MSIE for intranets, having no access to the internet. 3. Chrome didn't "beat" MSIE. Webkit+Gecko+(whatever operas layout engine is) beat MSIE. Lastly, to Hilos point, Google is the #1 search engine and spams you pretty hard if you go there without using Chrome. It's not as if users thought "I should use an alternate web browser", it's more a case of "Google said to use this for internet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP98 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Question To those criticising the quality of the statistic, when will you approve this being posted? HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A Microsoft press release conceding defeat would pass the quality test, but the notability test would remain undefeated. --IP98 (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably never. This isn't any more ITN worthy than the Miami zombie incident. Resolute 02:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My question was obviously directed at those arguing that the figures aren't good enough yet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually IF MS ever did release that statement, that they admit not having the lead browser, then we might want to run that.Rhodesisland (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments this is not like changing the favorite brand of ice cream at all since people don't eat ice cream several hours every day, and ice cream is not part of the every day life. This has a larger impact on the world than who won the world chess championship or what new chemical elements are accepted. Actually it has a bigger impact on the world than any of the items posted now, including the Syria massacre. It is notable because IE has been uncontested in being the most used browser since it beat Netscape a decade and a half ago. In some sense it is like some athlete beating one of the very old world records in some semi-obscure race. And I am reminding people that we DID post the launch of the ipad 2 last year. Nergaal (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that we did not post the launch of the "ipad 3" this year. --IP98 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose As Hydrox said, this was suggested a few weeks ago, and shot down because of the same reasons. It's a hard statistic to track, you'll get a different answer on market share depending on the source, the statistics don't account for the fact that IE comes built into the majority of Windows PCs, and it's not really a statistic that matters. Is the most popular web browser really an important statistic that should be considered ITN worthy? It's really no different than a statistic about the most popular color of cars. In fact, I believe that because of the low-impact nature of these statistics, posting this would be a borderline advertisement for Chrome, something that shouldn't have a place on Wikipedia. Hell, I use Chrome, but I don't really care what web browser others use, because in reality they all take you to the same place.-- Anc516 (talk • cont) 07:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No widespread news coverage, no meaningful impact, hard to judge reliability of source. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AlexTiefling. Khazar2 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I supported this last week, but I am opposing this time. If this news came out last week, why would we report it now?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Stuxnet was created by the US and Israel
Stuxnet was a milestone worm. It now is revealed by a respected and extremely conservative newspaper (The New York Times) that the US and Israel was behind. Some people consider cyberattacks the equivalent of physical attacks, so by that metric the US has attacked Iran - that is major news. Thue | talk 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ordinarily I would support, but I think you will run into trouble with that blurb. People on ITN tend to prefer 'watershed' moments, such as people dying and teams winning championships, and politicians getting elected; this evidently is not one of those 'watersheds' so I can't see it getting a go, despite the fact that the story is interesting and probably of "wide interest". Plus some people will see the blurb as partisan, I'm sure. Colipon+ (Talk) 14:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The confirmation that the US attacked Iran is a waterwhed moment, to my mind. And how is the blurb partisan? Thue | talk 14:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose An interesting article in a newspaper isn't news. It's news when multiple news sources report it as news. --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is being widely reported, because other people consider the New York Times reliable enough to take it as fact (and so should Wikipedia, IMO): . Thue | talk 14:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable, but for "news" I'm looking for mainstream news media around the world (not just the USA or even Israel) reporting a story, currently. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For such a serious claim, this isn't receiving the news coverage it should be. (The New York Times is extremely conservative???) --WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was gonna say...what is the wpost and fox then? unless he meant conservative in rushing to claims...which is still dubious. Theyre quire willing without further investigation to go into warmongeringLihaas (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not much coverage. Blurb looks more like a DYK hook. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly notable: the first proven case of cyberwarfare/cyberterrorism by a major country. The NYT is among the the most reliable journalistic sources in the world. Nanobear (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nanobear, I'm not disputing notability. I'm quite happy for the material to be included in articles, where appropriate. I'm disputing whether this is currently news. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Although the story hasn't been widely mirrored yet, I don't see why that would lessen the fact that this is a major revelation by a very reliable newspaper. I know we're wary of trying to get the jump on other sources though, so waiting a day or so to see how widespread coverage becomes might be better than outright rejection straight away. GRAPPLE   X  15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait and see - I'm potentially in favour of this going on the home page, but I'm not sure the story has propagated far enough for us to be able to judge whether this is a huge fresh news story, or simply an interesting and noteworthy development in a now rather old one. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, people interested in such things (fx me) have known for a long time that the US and Israel were behind Stuxnet; for example there were an Israeli general who were showing off by dropping hints. So it is "an interesting and noteworthy development in a now rather old one". And it has always been a notable (and covered) story, but I have held off suggesting it it ITN because we did not have "official" confirmation. This is the moment where we get something close to "official confirmation". So we have already "waited and seen", and now is the time where we have confirmation and can actually post it. Thue | talk 18:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment IF this "attack" is the first confirmed or proven case of cyberwarfare by a major country, then I would Support it--that would be encyclopedic level news. But this blurb doesn't reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cautious Support- I have no doubts about the notability of this, but I think we should wait for other sources to react before we decide to post this.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposein fact the NYT article cited in the nomination specifically mentions that the cyberattacks started under Bush's admin. So I'm not sure how this even counts as news let alone news of encyclopedic note that we should include in ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The attack itself is old, obviously. The news-worthy change is that it is now known to have been perpetrated by a state. I believe it is the first cyberattack known (to a good degree of certainty) to have been perpetrated by a government against another country. Thue | talk 22:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Thule, but the article needs work. Orange banner, still says "US suspected" (if it's confirmed, the prose needs updating), and some reactions would be nice. --IP98 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: Notable for reasons mentioned by others above. It has also received adequate news coverage: . Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For two main reasons reasons. First, the NYT article claims in paragraph 6 that this information is "based on interviews over the past 18 months with current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program, as well as a range of outside experts. None would allow their names to be used because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day." How reliable is this? That kind of source is very unreliable, seeing as how any news outlet could just piece together something like this based on speculation and politically-skewed opinions. Unless I hear the white house confirm this (which won't happen), or a more reliable source of information is given that proves it (which also isn't likely to happen, unless someone at the CIA/DIA falls asleep in their cubicle), I would deem this to be pure speculation. Not everything that comes from the NYT has to be the truth (same with any other media outlet) unless the information can be proved without a doubt, which the article fails to do. There's no doubt that the US and Israel may have created it, but unless it's a proven fact, it's just speculation. Speculation is not news, and should not be found on ITN. The fact that this is getting media attention is irrelevant in this case because of these reasons. Second, there are several orange tags on the article, and the article reads as though the event is speculation (which, again, I believe it is). I don't see any reference to the article, except for one sentence in the lead (not enough of a prose update).-- Anc516 (talk • cont) 08:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As your quote says "current and former American, European and Israeli officials involved in the program". People actually involved in the program should be reliable sources. So unless the NYT made up the "involved in the program" (this is where I invoke the NYT's reputation), I consider US and Israeli involvement a proven fact from this point on. Thue | talk 09:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NYT easily passes WP:RS. --IP98 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NYT is considered a reliable source, but having just that source alone does not in itself satisfy verifiability nor notability (and they've been wrong before). Why hasn't Al-Jazeera posted anything about this? If it's such a huge story, you would think they most certainly would.--WaltCip (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my crazy and strange rant, I wasn't trying to imply that NYT was a poor source, but when I read an article, I don't like to see anonymous names as sources. I understand it's classified information that was released, but I still prefer to see sources with names. -- Anc516 (talk • cont) 01:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mild oppose - I don't have any problems with NYT reporting, which is A+ standard, but this doesn't seem to be receiving much international attention, perhaps because this revelation had been widely assumed anyway. (For example, Israel reportedly listed Stuxnet as one of the accomplishment's of a retiring general at a farewell bash last year.) Khazar2 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This has been a long time international story of wide interest to our readers. The virus's provenance has long been suspected, but if it has been confirmed, the story is quite newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I wouldn't word it as "revealed" when it's only been reported by one news outlet, no matter how reliable. See Hitler Diaries. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 19:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So we have one oppose above by Khazar2 above, with the argumentation that this was already widely know, and therefore not news. And one oppose by Cliftonian here, with the argumentation that we don't know if it is true :P. Thue | talk 11:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

[Posted] Livermorium and Flerovium
Two more elements are officially accepted and named. Btw, this is ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Livermorium is ready, Flerovium could do with a little bit more on what has happened in recent days. —WFC— 01:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I went through updating the templates, related pages, and all that. I'm sure there's more to do, but I think both articles are ready to be linked to from the main page. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support- Livermorium is ready, but Flerovium only has a one-sentence update.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated the articles a bit. I don't think there is much more to update than they were named officially. Nergaal (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. This is ready per ITN/R.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted --  tariq abjotu  04:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! Now that was a quick posting w/ very little discussion! I absolutely Support, but it was a quick post! Rhodesisland (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ITN/R items can post quickly since they get a free pass on the notability clause. --IP98 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the purposes of ITN/R is to avoid having long discussions on items that consensus already exists for, so it's natural that this got posted quickly.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I mean while I have no problem with the article or anything at all, I have a small problem with the use of "discovered" since they were created, not found in nature. I would suggest altering the wording from "recently discovered synthetic elements" to "recently synthesized elements" but that's just my opinion. SM1991 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)