September 2, 2011 (2011-09-02) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Politics
IEA new Executive Director
Nominator's comments: Taken from the WP:ITN/FE. Main energy organization in the world. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikileaks releases all cables unredacted
Nominator's comments: The release is significant, as is the criticism, including from previously-supportive Reporters Sans Frontières, the NY Times, et al. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the cat's out of the bag. Wikileaks' admission to this and the updated news coverage makes this more significant than within the previous occasion that this story was nominated. Seeing as this will end up being the last Wikileaks story for a while as a result, I would say support but urge that the blurb be modified with regards to the section "drawing widespread criticism" - either omit it, make the origin of the criticism more specific, or elaborate in some other means as to make it appear less POV.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but let's concentrate on the cables. The criticism is not very warranted, seeing that the cables were already available to anyone who really wanted them. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but drop the criticism bit. And it is arguably false that Wikileaks actually was the first to actually release the uncensored cables, so drop the first part of the suggested blurb too. Thue | talk 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clearly a notable event which will be has been picked-up by media around the world. But, focus on the content of the new material, the manner in which is it became available and any significant implications. Further more, I agree with EricLeb and Thue regarding less focus on the predictable criticism of Wikileaks by certain elements of society which is often sensationalised, exaggerated and tends to resemble a witch-hunt. Deterence Talk 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still no update so far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose any blurb that does not mention the criticism. Wikileaks' friends have suddenly got a lot fewer as a result of this and it is important to reflect that in the blurb. We have posted Wikileaks' activities in the past and they have always been supported by more mainstream media organisations. It is important to point out that no longer applies in the interests of balance. It is very easy for an "anti-establishment" agenda to implicitly be covered in a favourable light. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Additional comment for the sake of clarity - I'm not interested in the cries of anguish from Washington or similar here - I think we can take that as read. The notable element here seems to be the condemnation from their former mainstream media partners. I that respect the orginin of the criticism may be legitimately made more specific in the manner suggested by WaltCip Crispmuncher (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? Anybody? No? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey expels Israeli ambassador
* Oppose - I dont find it much notable. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for now - Sorry, i blindly put that comment on. I am not knowledgeable of this topic. Just googled for it and found hundreds of articles coming up about it. Yes, it is sufficiently significant for an update. You see, there has been no news for three days and a sudden twist in the relationship between two nations is big news. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but is there an article or at least a specific section we can link to for details on the UN report? Otherwise maybe Israel–Turkey relations. Nightw 12:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - for Israel–Turkey relations.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per reasons above, but there's one point I'm confused about. Most of the articles I've read attribute the expulsion to the leaking of the UN Report, but at the same time Turkey has rejected the findings of the report (which apparently they have debated over with Israel for a few months). I don't think they're expelling the ambassador because of what's in the report. I think they're expelling him because of what's not inside the report (they're not satisfied with it and expelled the ambassador as an act of protest). Is that correct? JimSukwutput 13:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles suggested say anything about this development. I really want to post this given the dire state of the timer, but we need something resembling an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the sensitivity of this conflict, I suggest any posting must be thoroughly vetted and factually accurate. Time can wait. Sources attribute Turkey's decision to Israel's refusal to not apologizing for the flotilla raid. Turkey has been threatening this well before the UN report leaked. The Palmer Report was just icing on the cake, after it stated Israel's blockade was legal under international law. I suggest the blurb be amended to reflect the conditions of the report, rather than a focus on Turkey. Something like, "A UN report on the flotilla raid determined Israel's blockade of Gaza to be legal, but concluded Israel's raid was carried out with unreasonable force blah blah blah..." source. WikifanBe nice 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support one there's an update, given that this seems at least relatively significant and given that if the timer becomes much more dire ITN might spontaneously combust. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - according to Israel, the ambassador is has already finished his tenure, quote: "Regarding Turkey's decision to expel Israel's envoy to Ankara, the official said the ambassador – Gabi Levy – had already finished his tenure in Ankara, had taken leave of his Turkish counterparts in Ankara, and was returning to Israel in the coming days. No replacement for Levy, whose retirement from the Foreign Ministry has been known for months, was ever named." [4] Another reports says "Israel's ambassador to Ankara, Gabi Levy is currently in Israel on vacation and is retiring from the Foreign Service effective in the middle of September. Israel has not named any replacement for him." [5] It appears there is a downgrading of relationship - presumably the ambassador will not be replaced for some time - but this is not such big news, given the state of Israel-Turkey relations over the past year. The significant news seems to be the release of the UN's Palmer report stating that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was a "legitimate security measure" to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza but that Israel used "excessive force" against the ships breaking the blockade. PopularMax (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most expulsions of diplomatic staff are merely symbolic (its not like anyone cares who's working at an embassy). But, it is precisely that negative symbolism that makes this event notable. Deterence Talk 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per PopularMax links, looks like a real non-event. Mtking (edits) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Diplomatic expulsions generally are purely symbolic acts in any event, so musing on the actual impact of this seems moot, especially when this assessment comes out of Jerusalem. It seems to me that this UN report that triggered the event has been the biggest international story of the past day or so. I thought of nominating that myself but there are issues templates on the relevant articles which would probably take time to short out. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Support per above. Without meaning to play-in to the endless nausea of the Israel-Palestine political saga, this is a notable development in relation to a notable political/military event. The relatively sudden and substantial cooling in relations between Turkey and Israel is a notable development in itself. The fact that the report is authored on behalf of the UN also increases its notability, albeit at the cost of its credibility. Deterence Talk 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Flawed and POV blurb. Mention of report is too ambiguous. Blurb should be about the Palmer Commission, the details (that embarrassed Turkey) led to the Israeli ambassador being expelled. Although Turkey threatened to expel Israel's ambassador for not apologizing over the flotilla incident well before the Palmer Report was leaked. IF anything, the blurb should state the UN's finding explicitly - that Israel's blockade was legal and does not constitute an act of collective punishment (straight from the report). Blurb is not only one-sided but factually inaccurate. WikifanBe nice 00:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That itself would be POV. The report had two headline conclusions: 1) The Gaza blockade is legal and 2) Excessive force was used in the flotilla raid. Mentioning both is balanced, mentioning neither is similarly balanced. Mentioning one without the other is POV. As I noted above the report is the substantive story here but it is precisely that kind of distortion that stops us running with it. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Agreed with Crispmuncher here. There's some not-so-subtle POV-pushing going on here under the guise of neutrality. I don't think we have the perfect blurb, but I'm not going to let Wikifan use my comment to push his agenda (once again). So let me state for the record that I support posting this item. JimSukwutput 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 India–Pakistan border shooting
Nominator's comments: (1) Notability: Cross-border incident between two large countries with a not-so-pleasant history. Loss of life on both sides due to hostile fire. The cover story on the South Asia pages for BBC, CNN and Reuters. (2) Article Update: Updates added based on claims by both countries. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- How can a "Cross-border incident between two large countries with a not-so-pleasant history" even warrant a separate article? –HTD 04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didnt create the article, but I presume the same logic used for the creation of separate articles for Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and Battle of Daecheong were used (although admittedly the scale of both of these two were larger, but not by too much). I am guessing you are questioning the notability of the event - I concede that this is not earth shattering, but things have been (relatively) cool for some time now and both countries have just started talking to each other until this happened. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I created the article and there have been articles published before on such skirmishes. As far as the article is concerned, it is notable. Mar4d (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I initially added this (if you go through the page history) on ITN although later retrieved it. I think that while the event is notable and has made headines in some news, the occurence itself is not quite notable because there has been periodical unrest a number of times along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. This particular incident is nothing different. Mar4d (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Agreeing with Mar4d, India and Pakistan have been on a dispute for like... forever i must say. (I live in india), Something happening within the borders with just three or four people dying is very common these days. And also, the shooting doesnt require a separate article. It could possible be merged into one of the previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, there are no "previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history." If there was/were, then this could have been merged. I think we can always create an article on India–Pakistan skirmishes, similiar to how we have Pakistan – United States skirmishes and Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes. Interested editors can then update the article with some of the sporadic conflicts along the border that may have taken place in the past although that would require a lot of research and work (no guarantee that I will be an extensive contributor). Mar4d (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
September 1
|
|
September 1, 2011 (2011-09-01) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
|
|
August 31, 2011 (2011-08-31) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
2011 Texas wildfires
2011 Atlantic hurricane season
Law and crime
Arctic & oil
ExxonMobil and OAO Rosneft reach a deal which may reach $500 billion in projects in the Arctic.
- An article would be required. Significant development for the Arctic, I'd say. And we're running red with the timer. --Tone 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, large business deal. --Kslotte (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody would write an article I would support just to give us something to post. Three nominations in the last 4 days, and two of them don't even have articles... There must be something going on in the world! Modest Genius talk 00:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been pretty quiet, now that I think of it. The Wikileaks ordeal and Libya is all I'm hearing as of lately. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about these two? (Note Beagel (talk · contribs) also deserves credit on the East-Prinovozemelsky field one) Suggest a blurb of
Rosneft and ExxonMobil establish a $3.2 billion joint venture to develop Arctic and Black Sea oil fields or something vaguely along those lines (I don't particularly like the way the links to the two field articles are linked behind entirely different words). The Arctic field article is better, so I bolded that one. I put together the Black Sea article in a hurry, but if someone expands it further they could both get bolded. C628 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Jawad al-Sheikh
Nominator's comments: Here is a picture of his corpse (warning: graphic). I think his story is similar to Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Saeed and Hamza Al-Khateeb -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. We have not posted any of the above. Besides, we even don't have an article. --Tone 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, We failed to do so due to the fact the articles were written after the window to post them passed. as for you other point, you did nominate "Arctic & oil" to be in ITN even tho it doesnt have an article. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral What is the notability of his death? WikifanBe nice 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike the other who died in Bahrain, this one is well documented. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has it been confirmed that Mr. Al-Khateeb was actually murdered by the police? If so, please link to it. Here in Chile, there has been a lot of controversy whether a policeman killed or not a student protester called Manuel Gutiérrez; it was confirmed just yesterday by the Interior Ministry that a policeman whose Mapuche surname I can't recall killed him, so this may be the case too of the Bahraini guy? Diego talk 23:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its best to read the sources and decide for yourself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
August 30, 2011 (2011-08-30) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
Law and crime
Politics
False certificate for google.com
Nominator's comments: The digital certificate system is a cornerstone of Internet security. Digital certificates protect against man in the middle attacks when using https. In their infinite wisdom, the designers made it such that any certificate authority (CA) can make a certificate for any domain. So the fact that a CA has apparently been compromised, and an unknown number of false certificates created, has potential security implications for all websites using https, not just google. See also Comodo_Group#Iran_SSL_certificate_controversy, which was a similar incident 5 months ago, also involving Iran. This incident will further motivate the current effort to redesign the security of the Internet, probably using DANE+DNSSEC. I am not aware of any other incidents than this one and Comodo, so this incident should be unique enough to feature ITN. Thue : talk 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Thue. jorgenev 00:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a technophobe who is suffering under considerable ignorance about anything to do with computers, I am struggling to fully appreciate the significance of this story. Can we see some comment about the wider implications of a compromise in the integrity of a Certificate Authority? Deterence Talk 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not much of a wider implication. One of the many CAs' credibility has basically crumbled, but all major browsers have already taken necessary action to 'untrust' the company. Therefore the danger is passed. This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs, such as VeriSign, now owned by Symantec. The Comodo controversy was caused by a flaw in the company's security, which is probably the reason for this forgery as well... but again, it means nothing for other CAs. Oppose for that reason. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but you miss the point. The CA system is set up to be no more secure than the weakest CA. So it is irrelevant that "This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs". Thue | talk 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what I'm talking about, though. The Comodo controversy was caused by the hacking of the administrative user accounts -- those that issue the actual certificates -- due to a flaw in the company's security; not in the CA system. That's how I understand it, anyway. The hacker gained access to the actual issuing process and issued valid certificates to fraudulent websites. That would mean that the company needs better security... because regardless of how secure certificates are, there will always have to be an administrator account issuing those certificates. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Trivial, techie story which has no major impact. Diego talk 01:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Iran has hacked the main Dutch authority provider 2) Iran has been impersonating Google 3) This will be a major motivation to redesign a fundamental part of Internet security. This is not trivial. Thue | talk 08:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose singificant tech news, but not of public intrest. --Kslotte (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We can certainly agree that most people don't get up in the morning and think about the current problems in computer authentication. But on the other hand, everybody is dependent on the CA system, for example when they check their web-based email. So I would argue that "the public is not interested", not "not of public intrest". IMO the ITN should be whether something is significant, not whether people are generally aware of it. Thue | talk 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Thue and the glaringly red timer. C628 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I wouldn't normally have a strong opinion either way on this, but due to the standstill ITN is currently experiencing I'm going to go with Thue on this one and support. FTR, I've also marked this as a minority topic as it's obviously a tech-related story. Swarm u | t 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a minority topic and a cure to the no new news for two days blues. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're a poet who didn't know it. Deterence Talk 10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As an administrator, I wouldn't post this no matter what support it had, in the state the article is in. The topic is certainly worthwhile, and newsworthy, and ITN-worthy, but folks, look at the article. It's an article about a company which says nothing about the company. Its a big, disgusting, textbook case of WP:COATRACK. If there were a three- or four-fold increase in the text of the article dealing with the company in question, which was not about this one scandal, then we may have something postable. But we simply cannot put this substandard tripe on the mainpage for the world to see. Please. Again, ITN-worthy topic, but definately NOT an ITN-worthy ARTICLE. Someone please fix it, and I will post it. --Jayron32 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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