:::::I know what you are saying but i dont think a small blurb on ITN can explain those implications. At best we can make it sound like a rumor and that'll just look awful. -- [[User:Ashishg55|Ashish]][[User talk:Ashishg55|-g55]] 00:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::I know what you are saying but i dont think a small blurb on ITN can explain those implications. At best we can make it sound like a rumor and that'll just look awful. -- [[User:Ashishg55|Ashish]][[User talk:Ashishg55|-g55]] 00:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for now. No evidence has been presented that CERN supports this claim. As hydrox pointed out, CERN has made [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/ no press release]. It appears that [http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/spip.php?rubrique14 neither has OPERA] itself. Their actual work is supposed to be presented Friday and hasn't been seen by anybody yet as far as I can tell. Mainstream media often mess up in eager to report breaking science news without scientists writing or reviewing their story. The scientific [[Nature (journal)]] has a sceptical story on the claim.[http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html] [[Antonio Ereditato]] is a redlink and I'm not sure of his status in science. We should be careful per [[WP:REDFLAG]], especially on the main page. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 23:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for now. No evidence has been presented that CERN supports this claim. As hydrox pointed out, CERN has made [http://press.web.cern.ch/press/ no press release]. It appears that [http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/spip.php?rubrique14 neither has OPERA] itself. Their actual work is supposed to be presented Friday and hasn't been seen by anybody yet as far as I can tell. Mainstream media often mess up in eager to report breaking science news without scientists writing or reviewing their story. The scientific [[Nature (journal)]] has a sceptical story on the claim.[http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html] [[Antonio Ereditato]] is a redlink and I'm not sure of his status in science. We should be careful per [[WP:REDFLAG]], especially on the main page. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 23:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' a qualified statement (using terms such as "appears", "seems", and/or "claims") once the conference takes place tomorrow. After all, whether it's true or not (I'm trying not to hope), it is news.-[[User:Link|Link]] ([[User talk:Link|talk]]) 00:43, 23 September 2011 (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).
South Korean prosecutors raid the offices of seven savings banks whose operations were suspended last week, with the president of one bank committing suicide. (Yonhap)
Strong oppose unless confirmed. If it's true, it's obviously one of the most important experiments for decades. But it's far more likely to be a systematic effect on the data. Even the team themselves aren't claiming a detection. Nor has it been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Also, the neutrinos are made at CERN but detected at Gran Sasso, who made the announcement. Modest Geniustalk21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. Wikipedia does not publish gossip or original research. Remember that this is an unverified observation. They are not saying it could not be just a bug in their equipment. Reproducibility is one of the central pilars of science, and these results have not yet been reproduced. It would be truly groundbreaking if the observation was reproduced by an indepdendent team, but given that particle detectors at this scale are very complicated instruments, I suggest holding the ITN until an indendent team of researchers verifies this claim using their own equipment. --hydrox (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"PR department of the highest science agency in all the land"? I guess you must be refering to CERN, which has made no press release. Assuming the BBC and AP have not suddenly become the PR department at CERN. --hydrox (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading the reports utterly wrongly as is demonstrated below. CERN are not reporting this. Due diligience is an important part of ITN and you're not apllying it I'm sorry to say. Pedro : Chat 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spokesman in the telegraph.co.uk article above is apparently from CERN. He is the "spokesman for the international group of researchers". Nevertheless, the point is there is no gossip here. MarcusQwertyus21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Travelling faster than the speed of light. CERN has the highest reputation in the international scientific (cosmological physics) community. If you know anything about physics, you know that this is a very big deal - Einstein is having conniptions in his grave. DeterenceTalk21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) no-one at CERN has said anything, as far as I am aware. The report comes from Gran Sasso. b) CERN is indeed a top particle physics institute. It is not a top 'cosmological physics' (by which I assume you mean cosmology) institute. Modest Geniustalk21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. It is a particle physics lab. I have a PhD in astronomy, I know what I'm talking about here. If you still don't believe me, see how many times the words 'cosmology', 'cosmological' or 'Big Bang' are used in our article on CERN (hint: it's zero). Modest Geniustalk22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> Various commentators on this item have suggested that those !vote oppose simply doesn't understand the science, so shouldn't pass judgement. I thought that was relevant information that demonstrated that I am indeed qualified to know what is and isn't cosmology. Your opinion obviously differs. Modest Geniustalk00:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it, certainly with the blurb proposed I know a lot a decent amount about physics as it goes, and I also know a lot about what journalists want to put on the front page. CERN have announced nothing like "neutrinos are breaking the speed of light". For a start it's a member of the OPERA collaboration [1]. Let's not descend to front page GOTCHA journalism here. Pedro : Chat 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. CERN has made no press release. They were detecting particles generated at CERN, but the Italian OPERA project is the head talking, not CERN. This is fodder for the science fiction mind, but instruments/data have given erroneous results so many, many times before, that this should not even be news. --hydrox (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No one really believes that the neutrinos in this experiment really travelled faster than light. The problem is that the experiment seems to indicates this, and that's mostly an experimental problem (these experiments are very complicated).
Einstein's theory of relativity won't be overthrown by this, because special relativity is nothing more than saying that Lorentz invariance symmetry holds (i.e. if you perform an experiment inside an isolated box and someone peforms the same experimennt in another isolated box that moves w.r.t. to you, the results should be the same, so you there is no such thing as absolute motion). Now Lorentz invariance has been tested to enormous accuracy at very high energies, so we can be confident that this holds also in the regime at which this particular experiment was performed.
Then the issue with something going faster than light while Lorentz invariance still holds is this paradox. So, if we assume that neutrinos really do go faster than light in this experiment, then you could build a device that allows you to send messages to yourself into your own past. So, yo could today receive a phone call coming from yourself from tomorrow. But then you coud decide to not call yourself up tomorrow if you receive a phonecall today and vice versa, leading to a paradox.
This causal paradox is the reason why no one believes that you can send information faster than light (at least as long as we assume that there are no violations of Lorentz invariance, but no such violations have been found). So, repeating the statements from the news articles that "Einstein's relativity could be overturned" would let us look rather dumb as unlike the news articles, Wikipedia is thought to be edited by experts. Count Iblis (talk)
Not yet. Count Iblis may be right, but if he is wrong and the results seen are confirmed then this will be very big news indeed. At the moment it is an interesting finding which needs explaining. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Apparently this is just very very slightly faster than the speed of light, so it is not that impressive after all. Ok, seriously, neutrinos may travel faster than light but ITN updates on science topics do not travel faster than a peer-review paper... --Tone22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate (and even support) why responsible editors would want to wait for CERN to make a formal announcement before publishing this (alleged) discovery in ITN, requiring peer-review of the discovery is unnecessarily restrictive and such an approach is not supported by precedent when other scientific and medical discoveries have been announced. WP:RSs together with appropriate caveats is sufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia's ITN. DeterenceTalk22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't help but feel most of these opposes are themselves based on interpretative OR. CERN know what they're doing and while they've been guarded in how they've announced this (it is more a request for explanations rather than a concrete announcement) a lot of the negative comments here strike me as the "I understand this stuff, me" variety ("explaining" this when the best scientists can't) rather than a genuine evaluation of what is proposed. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Crispmuncher, I can only echo Modest Genius and add that you clearly couldn't be bothered to read this debate properly. If you want to throw a few more off hand ad-hominem attacks in, then please head over to WT:RFA where they are the norm. Better yet stop accusing people of "I understand this stuff, me" variety and actually follow the conversation before commenting in the future. Ta. Pedro : Chat 22:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I probably was bordering on incivility there so I will apologise for that. However I stand by my substantive point: I have no time at all for many of the oppose arguments presented here. To re-iterate, two teams of professional scientists at prestigious institutions have spent years working on this and they can't explain it. Therefore I do not feel it wise or supportable by the project's policies on OR to be casually dismissing their findings when we are for the most part a collection of well-intentioned amateurs reading a press release and a couple of news reports.
For example, take Count Iblis' comments regarding the tachyonic antitelephone. I know Iblis from Speed of light and I have the utmost respect for him. However, we only need to ask ourselves one question in response: Don't you think they have thought of that? They understand the significance of what they propose and the problems it creates in existing theories if confirmed. The fact this finding would mean those theories need to be re-assessed does not make it wrong. Is relativity wrong because it contradicted Newton's Laws of Motion and the SUVAT equations? Of course not. The fact that it caused a set of the most trusted rules of physics to be re-appraised is indicative of the utter significance of the theory, not that it must automatically be wrong.
We have to ask ourselves who is in a position to be able to independently verify these findings. The obvious contender is Fermilab. They have already announced they will pursue this as a priority and indeed note that they have got similar results in the past, albeit with higher error bounds that made it impossible to assert anything of note.[2] If this can be brushed aside so easily why are they bothering? The answer is that they are approaching this with proper scientific rigour instead of a simple response that this must be in error as is being made here. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Obvious Support We're not here to referee scientific claims, we're here to provide information and content on subjects our readers are interested in. This certainly qualifies. If the actual details are still at issue our readers can work it out. They don't need us to babysit them. RxS (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Be very very careful with this. This isnt saying that speed of light is different than what we know its saying something can break the speed of light. ITN is still part of this encyclopedia and saying Einstein was wrong should not be taken lightly. Let this be verified by 10 sources then it may stand a chance... -- Ashish-g5522:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But by that point it won't be news. Besides, there is no sudden tipping point when a theory or finding becomes generally accepted: it is a much more gradual process than that. It is in the news now and as evidenced by the speed this debate has grown there is clearly a lot of interest in it. Sure, there are issues and we need to be careful to present what has been found in a balanced manner lest false impressions are created. If we don't seek to address those concerns and present this finding in the proper context then who will: the mainstream media certainly won't. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
A news should still contain facts. The fact here is that a group of researchers cant explain what they have discovered. what they have discovered can re-write half the physics out there so unless they can explain their discovery, i would stay far away from this. -- Ashish-g5500:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you are saying but i dont think a small blurb on ITN can explain those implications. At best we can make it sound like a rumor and that'll just look awful. -- Ashish-g5500:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. No evidence has been presented that CERN supports this claim. As hydrox pointed out, CERN has made no press release. It appears that neither has OPERA itself. Their actual work is supposed to be presented Friday and hasn't been seen by anybody yet as far as I can tell. Mainstream media often mess up in eager to report breaking science news without scientists writing or reviewing their story. The scientific Nature (journal) has a sceptical story on the claim.[3]Antonio Ereditato is a redlink and I'm not sure of his status in science. We should be careful per WP:REDFLAG, especially on the main page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a qualified statement (using terms such as "appears", "seems", and/or "claims") once the conference takes place tomorrow. After all, whether it's true or not (I'm trying not to hope), it is news.-Link (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - might be that im from a country were cricket is a non-sport basically. but I dont personally see how this qualifies for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose As the captain of one of the world's leading cricket teams for 8 years his death will be notable in the eyes of the cricket-playing world, (aka. virtually all of the Commonwealth - with a third of the world's population). If you don't know what an over is then your commentary on this nomination will carry a reduced significance. Edit: it seems that his death has passed virtually unnoticed, even in the media of cricket-playing countries. DeterenceTalk14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't see this as big news anywhere outside of India. British and Australian/New Zealand papers could also probably report on the news, but not really frontpage large font material. Lynch715:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now - So what? I'm not familiar with cricket, but I can't imagine a comparable situation in any other sport that would be worth posting. Am I wrong to say that?
Comment Know little about cricket but this seems like a non-story from my perspective. Of course one could argue systematic bias, but if the captain of Chelsea F.C died of lung cancer, would it be ITN worthy? Or perhaps cricket is more analogous to American baseball than football. WikifanBe nice20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He was fairly successful at his chosen sport, but is not exactly a household name even in cricketing circles. If we ever post 'ex-sportsman dies' then they had better have been one of the very best to ever play that sport Pataudi was not. Modest Geniustalk22:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Big news in numeous venues. Opposers to the execution include the Pope and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Article will need an update but otherwise seems in good order. Additional Note: Regarding several comments about the blurb, Here is a quote from the New York Times article I cite above - "...Mr. Davis became an international symbol of the battle over the death penalty and racial imbalance in the justice system." Jusdafax03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generally I don't support posting legal cases that have been sensationalized and blown way out of proportion. But this is a high-profile case, has been going on for more than twenty years, and has (possible) widespread effects on issues surrounding legal reform and/or death penalty abolition in the United States. So a vote for support. I would, however, replace "worldwide opposition" with something like "after a series of high-profile appeals and delays" or something of that sort. JimSukwutput03:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTelevision news in New Zealand reported today that the execution was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court minutes before it was due to take place. Evidently, the stay of execution was for only a few hours. DeterenceTalk03:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was just about to nominate this myself anyway, but it seems that "despite worldwide opposition" may be a violation of NPOV. I think something like this would be better: "Troy Davis is executed in Georgia, USA, after more than 11 years on death row."
An execution is nothing special and not a good use of ITN. The blurb for this case needs to stand out to show why it is remarkable, so at the very least one would have to name drop some of the prominent supporters of Davis. Resolute04:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Executing a man despite the absence of any physical evidence, after 7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and after serious questions have been raised about the lack of competence and integrity of the police officers and prosecutors involved in this case, (due largely to the fact that the victim was a police officer). For a country that lectures the world about "justice", ad nauseum, this appalling case provides some notable focus on the true nature of the USA's justice system. DeterenceTalk04:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 7 out of 9 witnesses recanted testimony, no physical evidence, and they executed him anyway. However, I feel I cannot support as this is not the first nor last time such questions have surrounded an execution. This may be a more extreme case and the media has certainly drummed it up but I don't think it's actually that unusual, which speaks to many things but somewhat diminishes the notability of this exact execution. I do not expect this to have any lasting effect. States are not going to abolish the death penalty over this. As macabre as it sounds, I think this is only notable if he is indeed found innocent at a later date. N419BH04:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This was, according to many, a horrendous miscarriage of justice. But let's be clear: that is not why this is significant. This particular execution was significant because of the international, very high profile opposition to this execution. Former president Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, the NAACP, Amnesty International, numerous celebrities, and at least hundreds of thousands of people around the world protested this execution. Without a doubt, significant and of wide interest. Swarmu / t05:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding worldwide interest, this was one of the leading news stories in every English-based international media outlet I checked. However, the NAACP would object to the execution of a black man even if they knew he was guilty, and the Pope opposes all executions on philosophical grounds, so I'm not sure their positions carry much weight. DeterenceTalk06:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we're not talking about being against this execution generally, we're talking about specific protests. The Pope doesn't specifically protest every execution that gets carried out around the world. And the NAACP doesn't specifically protest every execution of a black person. And perhaps it wouldn't be a big deal if it were just the NAACP, for example, but since the NAACP is joined by a former president, a former FBI director, the Pope, numerous civil rights organizations, numerous celebrities, petitions signed by hundreds of thousands around the world, it's significant. This isn't remotely the first alleged or proven execution of an innocent person, it's the high profile, extreme controversy that accompanies this execution. Swarmu / t07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to POV concerns. The most fundamental description of the case is 'man found guilty; executed', which in not ITN worthy. I doubt there is any way to present a sub-issue succinctly enough for ITN without endorsing one side, and, while I respect that some of us may feel very strongly about this case and I am not going take a stand that he is guilty, after reading up on this outside of ACLU press releases I am not comfortable with supporting a blurb that must inevitably highlight a certain single point of view. We shouldn't be pushing a page onto ITN because we want to illustrate how "humans are barbarians". JORGENEV06:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the blurb should be modified (see my suggestion above), let me just point out that "worldwide opposition" isn't just an interpretation but a very factual claim. Wall Street Journal (a reliable source that in its editorials have pro-death penalty leanings) reported this: "The U.S. state of Georgia executed Troy Davis on Wednesday despite high-profile opposition and an international outcry due to considerable doubts about his 1991 murder conviction.". JimSukwutput07:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Man found guilty of offence receives the sanction determined by law" The crass inhumanity of that law does not change the fact that it has been in place for many years, and many verdicts of courts are contestable. Kevin McE (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since time immemorial, injustice has been dispensed in accordance with the law. However, in the present case, the evidence and the law are at odds and the highest court in the land has allowed the execution of a man with this in mind. DeterenceTalk09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clear that this case has garnered far more worldwide attention than most executions in the US. But suggest different wording. Maybe simply refer to a "controversial execution", which surely can't be doubted. --FormerIP (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A lot of the comments here are approaching this from a POV that the death penalty is inhumane, and by extension, this execution was wrong. Wikipedia is not here to push a POV. Executions happen on a regular basis around the world, and frankly I'm not seeing a lot of fallout here.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the alleged inhumanity of the death penalty that makes this case notorious in the eyes of the world, (personally, I would love to flick the switch on a few of those animals). Its notoriety stems from the uncivilised determination with which the police, the prosecutors and the Judiciary pushed (and allowed) for his execution in the face of evidence of Davis' incompetent and under-resourced legal representation, overwhelming evidence of massive witness tampering by the police (threats, intimidation and out-right violence) and the near-total collapse of the prosecution's case (7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and there was no physical evidence against Davis) - they killed the man despite the near-absence of anything to show that he was guilty! DeterenceTalk14:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While the case (what little I know of it) is remarkable for the level of support Davis received, Jorgenev makes a very good point. We can't really provide an NPOV hook. Resolute14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that the planned executions of people (especially women) in repressed countries also often receive "worldwide opposition". Why is Davis more special than any of those cases? Resolute14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suppprt Major story - appears in international news headlines. Of course we can make an NPOV hook that notes the facts that he was convicted and later executed amidst wordlwide protests. Notability is not dependent on whether the execution was just or unjust, but on sheer news coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice is completely irrelevant; executions in the US will always be contentious – the anti-execution lobby will make sure that executions are seen as 'barbaric', irrespective of the actual facts of the case. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite a few people misunderstand the nomination here. It's not about whether it was fair or not, it's about the media attention it garnered, the publicity around the whole thing and the high-profile people that spoke out. Sheesh. Reanimated X (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I misunderstood this nom: this story is totally US-centric – few outside the US know or care about it. The "hikers" in Iran is actually a bigger news story. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Few outside the US know or care about it"????? Please tell me you're joking! That's just an irresponsible thing to say, because it reveals that not only are you uninformed by actual news sources, but that you didn't even read the above comments (though I grant you that some are very inappropriate). The POPE protested this execution! UN human rights officials protested this execution! Swarmu / t16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Swarm here - this news story has been picked-up all over the world. Even here in New Zealand, (where the people pride themselves in keeping their distance from the USA), this story has been one of the leading news stories in all the media outlets that cover international news. DeterenceTalk20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I've racked my brains trying to come up with a blurb that would be completely NPOV and still summarize well why this is notable, but I've got nothing. I really think this is worthy of ITN due to the statements from high profile people, seeming complete lack of evidence, and sheer amount of media coverage it received...what makes me not care about the NPOV enough to be neutral is that really what's notable here is the POV/widespread opposition. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This case was quite notable outside of the US. The French government even called on the State of Georgia to commute the sentence. The Western World is very shocked about this, and it will complicate matters to criticize Iran for executing people. E.g. Britain criticized Iran for executing a 17 year old who stabbed someone to death a few days ago, but world leader now cannot mention that in their UN speeches with a straight face without saying something about the Troy Davis case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very high profile case, among other aspects it has been one of Amnesty International's principal campaigns for the last few years. Whatever one's views on the death penalty it is clear that this case in particular case has attracted widespread controversy and serious allegations of a possible miscarriage of justice. Finally, while stats.grok.se is not showing yesterday's stats for some reason there is a clear spike on Tuesday, up to 10,000 hits, even before the actual execution: this is clearly of interest to our readership. Again, regardless of one's views of the death penalty, depriving someone of their life is the most extreme act a state may take against that individual. That process must be subject to widespread public scrutiny to ensure that people are happy with the act being carried out in their name. As for neutrality concerns, I frankly do not see an issue. We report on matters of controversy all the time and we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't. It is not POV to cover the execution, nor is it POV to cover the controversy of this specific case. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support. I am very surprised that this high-profile and important news has not already been put on the main page. The blurb should reflect wide-spread opposition to the execution, domestically and abroad. -- Evertype·✆17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shame That this was posted is pure POV. Why not the execution by Texas of white supremacist Lawrence Russell Brewer whose crime, the death by dragging of James Byrd Jr., was a much more notable? What, exactly, is the difference between these two executions? μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the execution went ahead despite prosecution's case against Davis having been almost entirely discredited (there is substantially more than "reasonable doubt" as to Davis' guilt) makes this significantly more notable than your average run of the mill death penalty case. DeterenceTalk23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're licensed to practice law in the relevant US State (Georgia, wasn't it?), and you have access to all the evidence (not just the bits that sell newspapers), I don't think you're in a position to determine what is and isn't reasonable doubt. No comment on the substance of the nomination for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just surprised you didn't further narrow the group of people allowed to determine reasonable doubt in this case to those who were actually in the court room for the duration of the trial and all the appeals... There was no forensic evidence, 7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony, there was a glaringly obvious alternative suspect and there is overwhelming evidence of witness tampering by police officers who were upset (to put it ridiculously politely) by the murder of a fellow cop. Even a former Director of the FBI sees reasonable doubt in this case (despite is lack of a license to practice law in the State of Georgia, lol). DeterenceTalk00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have mixed feelings about this one. Would we be considering this for an ITN spot if it was about a couple of Iranian hikers being released from the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp? DeterenceTalk01:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if these theoretical "Iranian hikers" in Guantanamo were widely considered to be nothing more than political prisoners and their release entailed international mediation attempts, then absolutely. Of course, Guantanamo's a different issue entirely. Swarmu / t06:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The chorus of international criticism of the abuses at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp has been deafening. There has been infinitely more international pressure regarding the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp than has been exercised regarding the two hikers. DeterenceTalk07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons essentially given in the last nomination. Too much sensationalism involved and too little actual significance. Some hikers (or border guards) made a mistake, some section within the Iranian government decided to express their dislike of Americans by jailing them on frivolous charges, and then the entire American media and government took the opportunity to tell us how evil some foreign countries are. Ultimately, nothing important happened. JimSukwutput03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Please explain how allegations that they were spying (against Iran) distinguishes this case from hundreds of similar cases (where detainees are accused of spying/fighting/plotting against the U.S.A.) at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp. DeterenceTalk04:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking they were not just accused, but actually tried and convicted of spying. (Though I wouldn't exactly say that a closed trial in an Iranian court is all that impressive.) Dragons flight (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wikifan. This isn't just frivolous charges as a result of a mistake. The hikers claim that they were kidnapped, they were charged, convicted, and sentenced for espionage, despite the fact that, according to Amnesty International, "All available evidence strongly suggests that the Iranian authorities have known all along that these men were not spies and should have been released." Their release became an international issue with other countries trying to mediate. Ridiculous to suggest that this is a non-issue. Swarmu / t06:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The hikers claim that they were kidnapped, they were charged, convicted, and sentenced for espionage...", as compared to the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp who were kidnapped, not charged, not convicted of any crime and face indefinite incarceration. As for being an "international issue", the breaches of the Rule of Law, the U.S. Constitution and basic Human Rights at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp have been the focus of intense scrutiny (and criticism) from every corner of the world. Indeed, they were arguably Obama's primary election pledge for the 2008 Presidential election. DeterenceTalk07:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any articles that draw analogies to the American hikers charged with spying to people held in gitmo? This is major news, feel free to submit ITN about events relating to gitmo situations. WikifanBe nice10:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary on Gitmo is unproductive and off topic. It's entirely an unrelated topic. Deterence, as was suggested above, if you want to nominate Guantanamo-related news, nothing is stopping you. However, trying to bring the topic into this thread isn't helping whatsoever. Swarmu / t16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I was not expecting such a large woosh-factor when I raised the obvious comparison with the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp. DeterenceTalk20:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the problem, the two situations aren't comparable. The "injustice" of Guantanamo and the "injustice" of this incident are, literally, two different issues. The issue with Guantanamo is the lack of normal rights the prisoners have (i.e. being held without charge, not receiving expedient trials). An injustice on its own, sure, but not the same situation. These people were arrested, tried, and convicted solely for political reasons. It's not an obvious comparison in the least and you're mistaken to assume it is. Swarmu / t20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you know what I meant by "woosh-factor", which is rather poetic. My original point stands: if this news item was about the release of Iranian hikers who had been detained after they strayed across the U.S. border while hiking in Canada then there is no way it would be seriously considered for ITN. DeterenceTalk20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have a large segment of American readers that will be interested in this. Not the biggest deal in the world but of interest to our readers. @Jim Sukwutput you can boil anything down to insignificance by attributing events to human error and agenda. That's hardly a reason not to post a topic. The articles in good shape and there is world-wide coverage. RxS (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to oppose. I think had this been lets say "norwegian hikers" I dont think this would have made international headlines in the way it did. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it did make international headlines, so it would seem perfectly reasonable to post, no? Does it really make sense to oppose because you don't feel something should be 'in the news'? Swarmu / t16:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because otherwise we'd be continually posting ITN items based on which celebrity is sleeping with which other celebrity, the latest routine sports results, and the winner of the X factor. All of those make international headlines, but aren't suitable here. We have to assess the encyclopaedic importance of the story, not just how many media outlets have covered it. Modest Geniustalk22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two American hikers, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, are set free on bail by Iran as a humanitarian gesture, after being detained in prison for over two years under allegations of espionage. (Chron)
Nominator's comments: The highest Russian political office for a woman for more than 200 years. Also many view this as an important factor in the upcoming legislative and presidential elections in the country. GreyHoodTalk12:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs many more references. As for the relevance to the upcoming legislative and presidential elections of Valentina Matviyenko's "election" to this position, (amid allegations of electoral fraud), her Wikipedia article reads like she's nothing more than a puppet of Vladimir Putin. In which case, this development - yet more corruption to further entrench Putin's despotic authority over Russia by appointing another stooge - is not the least bit novel or surprising to any of us. That said, it is quite notable that a woman is appointed to such a prestigious position in a country like Russia. DeterenceTalk13:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda clichés and drama language aside, you are technically right, she is Putin's man woman. That doesn't make her unimportant political actor of course, right the opposite. GreyHoodTalk13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of politics in Russia is one of those rare beasts where anything we write is inevitably open to criticism: if our analysis is critical then we are accused of bias; if our analysis is not critical then it is probably a lie. DeterenceTalk14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to approach Russian politics as if they were too much different from politics in other major countries. If we can use the normal term "political ally", there is no need to talk about puppets. GreyHoodTalk15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good for her and everything, but 'first female X' is only really worth posting if X is itself a major notable office. I can't imagine that we would post the first female Lord Speaker, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, President of the Senate of Brazil or their equivalents in other legislative systems. First female President or Prime Minister of Russia would be a story, but Chairman of the Federation Council just isn't significant enough. Modest Geniustalk17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly comparable position (in fact the Upper House of Russian parliament would be nominally even more significant). Also we did post the sack of the Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov as a rare and major change in Russian politics. Matviyenko's appointment follows her resignation as a governor of Saint Petersburg, and she has replaced the former head of the Federation Council and the head of A Just Russia party, Sergey Mironov, thus giving Putin's United Russia control of all top political positions in the country (government and both houses of the parliament) except nominally independent president's office. GreyHoodTalk19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GreyHood. If we should wait to post only a woman becoming President or PM, we'll post it either way by a simple rationale. The office is clear, and I doubt there is a misunderstanding what it really means with just saying that in Russia it's not so important as in the English-speaking countries. But the focus of the English-language media is apparently so much than it seems here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a combination of reasons, above. We have neglected Russian news stories on ITN so that's one thing. This is a significant position, and First women to something something has recently been added after the Danish elections so it's quite timely doktorbwordsdeeds07:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poor job, ITN. How can it be "the highest political position attained by a woman in the country since the 18th century" if her new position has been widely seen as a demotion? Colchicum (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with possible blurb change - adds value to ITN, article seems reasonably updated (but a whole "disbandment" section would be better IMHO), wide ranging interest and that it's an FA. Suggest;
Members of US rock band R.E.M. announce they are splitting up after 31 years
I would guess their sheer longevity makes it fairly remarkable / noteworthy. I've no dog in this race however, and I take your point. Pedro : Chat 22:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very influential and popular band back in the day. This will be of interest to fans and non-fans alike. Swarmu / t06:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less than 10 hours between nom and posting, while Europe, Western Asia and Africa sleep, for a story that is by no means obvious, is unseemly and stands in marked contrast to the way that stories that received major news coverage have had to wait: Sikkim earthquake 25 hrs, Latvian election 72 hrs (although there were update issues) Pakistan floods 30hrs, Burhanuddin Rabbani 40 hrs and counting. I would also query as to how mainstream adult rock is considered a minority topic. For what it's worth, oppose, as for most non-fans, the only news in this announcement is that they have still been in existence since the mid 90s. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
R.E.M. is not "mainstream adult rock" - that's like calling Radiohead a boy band. I don't know how "non-mainstream" you have to be in order to qualify for the culture criterion of minority topics, but given that R.E.M. were arguably the single most influential band in the indie rock scene for two decades, I can't think of a band more suitable than them. JimSukwutput07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the minority topic status, we rarely post music-related topics of any kind, mainstream or not. The point of minority topics is to get more such stories posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just to add a post-posting support. I would expect any band which had existed for so long, and been such a significant part of world-wide music culture, to be considered for the front page. doktorbwordsdeeds07:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An investigation by Russia's Interstate Aviation Committee into the fatal crash of RusAir Flight 9605 in June 2011 finds that the disaster, which killed 47 people, was caused by a combination of pilot error, an inadequate weather forecast and inadequate ground equipment. It is furthermore reported that the aircraft's navigator was intoxicated at the time of the crash.(Wall Street Journal)
Did you ever stop to think that these people might be trying to collect spilled gasoline not because they're idiots, but because they're impoverished and desperate? People are dead. Rather than cracking jokes about it, try to have a little professionalism. Swarmu / t16:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Important judgement by one of the most important courts in the world. The claim that Russia misused the legal proceedings against Yukos has been widely circulated in Western russophobic circles and media - this decision will finally put these claims to rest: the court held "unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 18... concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings to destroy Yukos and seize its assets"[9] --Nanobear (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it looks like things are more complicated than that, and both sides have claimed victory. The BBC article you provided begins "The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in a case between the oil company Yukos and the Russian government - but not come down clearly on either side. It dismissed claims that Russia had abused the law to destroy the firm, but found its legal rights were violated." and later "seven ECHR judges said Russia had violated property laws and the right to a fair trial in its handling of the company. But the court held "unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 18... concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings to destroy Yukos and seize its assets".". Also, the blurb is currently contradicted by the text in the article itself. Modest Geniustalk17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the time-honoured fashion played out by all public officials trying to hold onto their positions and status, the ECHR sat on the fence to avoid unpalatable consequences. The ECHR would have lost credibility if they'd sided with Russia regarding some of the obviously legitimate legal concerns raised by Yukos; and the ECHR would have lost international prestige if they had awarded a $98bn judgement to Yukos because the Russian government would have simply ignored such a judgement. So, the ECHR gave a vaguely-worded final judgement - "no violation of Article 18... concerning whether the Russian authorities had misused the legal proceedings" - that doesn't actually follow from the numerous points of law won by Yukos.
Comment. As far as I understand, the court's decision was that Yukos property rights suffered in 2001, years before the destruction of the company in 2003. This is why the blurb is correct, and the earlier story was not that deeply related to later events. Leaning Support. GreyHoodTalk23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Ready] Government of Slovenia
The government in Slovenia has been ousted following a vote of confidence.[10] The article with the best update is probably Borut Pahor but needs some more attention. I'll see what I can do later but I'd appreciate some help. --Tone16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mere receipt of a motion of no confidence is not notable. Such motions are routine (and even periodic) in most Democracies. The passage of a motion of no confidence is significantly more notable. DeterenceTalk22:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borut Pahor, the prime minister's article has been updated. Technically, a fall of a government is not listed in the ITNR, a change of head of the state is, but that will most likely happen only after early election and it's months from now. I suggest posting now for that reason. --Tone13:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I think the blurb should use the word "assassinated" rather than "killed" as it was a suicide attack deliberately aimed to cause his death. Mar4d (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High-profile assassination of pivotal figure in Afghan peace-talks. Obvious long-term implications upon his death. World-wide media coverage. DeterenceTalk21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the reference maintenance tag gets sorted out, I'd be willing to post this, although the update is just a tad skinny as well. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)16:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is a major milestone in civil rights history and military history for the United States. The article has a lot of information from the start to the repeal of DADT, which is good because the news articles don't have much information for younger folks on how DADT got started. --fmmarianicolon
Support This would have been an obvious ITN item if it hadn't already appeared in ITN when the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 was passed. Clearly, the passing of the DADT Bill was infinitely more notable than procedural technicalities such as the date of its implementation. However, the implementation of this Bill - which is in itself a decisive election issue in the USA - was unusually encumbered with hurdles and transition strategies that significantly obfuscated the date when gays would achieve equal rights in the US military, (this development could easily have been delayed until next year, according to the article). Those encumbrances make this date notable. DeterenceTalk07:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. I can see why some editors might see this as old news, but it really is a new point in civil rights in the US military. IMO the blurb should be amended - gay is redundant if it precedes lesbian and bisexual. Sexual minorities is more formal and less wordy. Here is my proposal:
Oppose this has already been covered, and I do not see a reason why it should go up for yet another time when other items are rejected on the same grounds. --PlasmaTwa215:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The official end of DADT has not been posted before, actually, so I don't know what you're talking about. This is far more significant than some people here would believe. Major event in civil rights with implications that extend beyond the US military. Frankly, if Wikipedia was around the US military was desegregated (now recognized as a major historical event), and we didn't post it because of some made-up procedural red tape, we'd be fools. Swarmu / t16:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We already posted this when it entered into law. The precise date of the implementation isn't really that relevant, notwithstanding Deterence's points. There's no need to post the same story again. Modest Geniustalk17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, this has been posted twice (and nominated a few more times). I know this is really great and important news for many of the commentators here, but there's really no need to post it thrice - once for passing a bill, another time for passing the bureaucratic process, and finally again when implemented.. JimSukwutput02:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - nearly 29,000+ results on Google News, of which about 2000 articles are recent ones, and it's been reported on all major news networks worldwide: clearly a notable news-piece. It's also a monumental event for the United States military, the most powerful in the world, and for the LGBT civil rights movement in the United States and the rest of the world, and I strongly agree with User:Swarm's statement. The US military is held with high regard in the United States, this event marks a major tipping point for the LGBT rights movement in America and that of the world. --Scientiom (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It's also a monumental event for the United States military, the most powerful in the world"... pretty sure that in terms of personnel, China is #1. how many tipping points are there for same news? its already been posted twice. -- Ashish-g5517:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An earthquake of approximately 5.8 magnitude, two lesser related quakes, and an accompanying series of landslides kill at least three people in a municipality 32 miles south of Guatemala City, Guatemala. (Huffington Post)
Comment Concur with King, though if Berlusconi does resign then it could be an ITN candidate. The scandal does seem to be getting a lot of press. I doubt a blurb like "The Prime Minister of Italy boasted of sleeping with eight women in one night" would gain a consensus. :D WikifanBe nice01:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Berlusconi has been embattled for years, his wife left him, that 17 year old girl calls him "papi" and now the leader of a G8, Nato and EU nation is charged with fraud and soliciting sex with a minor. That's a big deal, a much bigger deal than DSK who got plenty of front page attention before there was any sort of conviction. --108.132.169.195 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both articles specifically state that Berlusconi has NOT been charged. The blurb is recklessly misleading. As a further note, I will support such an ITN nomination if Berlusconi is charged with fraud and sex with a minor. DeterenceTalk02:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
