*'''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.
*'''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. [[User:Crispmuncher|Crispmuncher]] ([[User talk:Crispmuncher|talk]]) 02:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC).
: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. [[User:Crispmuncher|Crispmuncher]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 02:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Mexican Drug War: The dismembered remains of 7 bodies are found in the Mexican state of Sinaloa. The bodies are discovered along with a written message accusing the authorities of cooperating with the Sinaloa Cartel, suggesting that the message may have been written by Los Zetas. (Washington Post)
In a special message to the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, the Queen says she has been "touched deeply" by seeing so many people celebrating her Diamond Jubilee together. (BBC)
Ministers are urged to investigate reports that unemployed people hired as unpaid stewards for the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant had to spend the night sleeping rough under London Bridge. (BBC)
A heavily armed militia takes over a runway at the Tripoli International Airport, demanding the release of their leader who went missing. (BBC)
A Libyan military court sentences a group of Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian men to long prison terms, having found them guilty of serving as mercenaries for Muammar Gaddafi in the Libyan Civil War. A Russian who was deemed the group's leader was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the rest were sentenced to 10 years in prison with hard labor. (Reuters)
Nominator's comments: An iconic Soviet/Russian singer who recently experienced a renewed fame on international level following the spread of his "Trololo" song and the corresponding meme on the web. Khil was rather active in the recent years, continuing with concerts, recording songs etc. GreyHoodTalk16:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral - 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. [1]Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.GreyHoodTalk18:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. doktorbwordsdeeds18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). --MASEM (t) 23:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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? doktorbwordsdeeds01:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 that major news. -- tariqabjotu01:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A plane carrying 153 people on board crashes in a residential neighborhood in Lagos, Nigeria, killing everyone on board and 10 people on the ground. (CNN)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SpencerT♦C01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the nomination below was just a generic "Jubilee" item. This is about a specific event: the water pageant, which has broken world records [2]. --DorsalAxe17:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --DorsalAxe17:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --wintoniantalk23:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --wintoniantalk23:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- tariqabjotu00:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Clashes between supporters and opponents of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad kill at least 12 and injure more than 40 people in the Lebanese port city of Tripoli. (Reuters)
A court in Cairo, Egypt, finds former president Hosni Mubarak and former interior minister Habib al-Adly guilty for complicity in the killings of demonstrators in the 2011 revolution that ousted Mubarak and both are sentenced to life in prison. Mubarak and his two sons, Gamal and Alaa, are all acquitted on separate corruption charges. (BBC)
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. YuMaNuMaContrib09:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support — 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&Expert (Talk) 20:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- tariqabjotu06:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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". -- tariqabjotu08:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:[7][8][9]Narayanese (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Transits of Venus are among the rarest of predictable astronomical phenomena. They occur in a pattern that repeats every 243 years. The next one is not until 2117. Solar eclipses are in the Celestial events section of ITN/R. Transits of Venus are rarer, but equally predictable, and have had significant cultural impacts in the past. --HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(edit conflict)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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. LukeSurltc12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
An armed Palestinian infiltrator and an Israeli soldier are killed during an exchange of fire along the Gaza border, and at least three militants are injured during an Israeli air strike on Gaza. (BBC)
China arrests a security ministry official on suspicion of spying for the United States; the official is reported to have been blackmailed by the CIA. (BBC)
The Venezuelan government outlaws the commercial sale of guns and ammunition, the latest in a series of initiatives to improve security and cut crime. (BBC)
Samoa announces the pardon of 35 prisoners to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its independence from New Zealand. (BBC)
The Food and Drug Administration, a U.S. government agency, goes to court to secure supplies of a drug used in lethal injections, which have dwindled since an importation ban. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Before getting the hate pointer out, remember rule #3 above about events from a single country. I linked sources from USA, UK and India. This is obviously unusual and I think noteworthy. --IP98 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. Resolute01:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Resolute02:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- tariqabjotu08:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Secretaccount22:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? [13] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | talk13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The confirmation that the US attacked Iran is a waterwhed moment, to my mind. And how is the blurb partisan? Thue | talk14:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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): [15]. Thue | talk14:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GRAPPLEX15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | talk18:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | talk22:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | talk09:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | talk11:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First article updated, second needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
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)[reply]
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/deeds01:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
