October 3, 2011 (2011-10-03) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters
- Eight people are injured following an explosion and fire at a factory in Surrey, United Kingdom. (BBC)
Law and crime
Politics
Science
Sport
October 2
|
|
October 2, 2011 (2011-10-02) (Sunday)
|
|
October 1, 2011 (2011-10-01) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Law and crime
Politics
[UPDATED] Bolivian protests
Lihaas (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt blurb?
- And ready?Lihaas (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 12 on the page and more if you tpye in "bolivian protests" in goog.le.Lihaas (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RE NOM as unanimous consensus and ongoing over the weekend too.Lihaas (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Worldwide attention has been brought to bear on this issue - 4 dead protesters, countless more missing, predictably extreme violence from heavy-handed security services, the resignations of the Defence Minister and the Interior Minister. Obvious notability in the politics of environmentalism and indigenous/cultural rights and civil rights. Deterence Talk 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] 700 arrested in Occupy Wall Street protest
- Support What started as a relatively trivial event is building into quite a spectacle, (in part because of a few power-crazed retards from the NYPD). Note, the article (and media reports) put the figure at over 700 arrested. Deterence Talk 04:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to think if you can't bother commenting on nominations without making soapbox-like comments, you shouldn't comment at all. I don't know if you're doing it to be funny, but more often than not, your comments spark unneeded side conversations. -- tariqabjotu 06:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you have no idea what has been happening at the Occupy Wall Street protest. This trivial little non-event wouldn't have even registered in the media spotlight if it wasn't for the behaviour of the NYPD. The police brutality at this event even made it onto the Daily Show and that guy worships the NYPD, lol. Deterence Talk 06:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- An article with video of the coverage by the Daily Show (click on Continue Reading link for video). There are countless other WP:RSs (goggle) if you don't like this one.
- "media and public interest in the protest swelled after an NYPD officer pepper-sprayed several protesters last Saturday." (source). Deterence Talk 07:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I follow the news, thank you very much. What I am saying is that the news item could have been supported (or opposed) without resorting to juvenile language like "power-crazed retards from the NYPD" that overtly presents your position on the matter. -- tariqabjotu 07:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't give a damn about those protesters. I'm still not even sure what they're even protesting about. But, I know police brutality by an out of control cop when I see it. That said, you have a point, I could have chosen my words much better and will endeavour to do so in the future. Deterence Talk 07:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How many demonstrators? 5,000? NY is a high profile city no doubt but this appears to be an extremely small minority of people creating a lot of drama. Not notable enough for main page IMO. WikifanBe nice 07:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- As a pinko-lefty demonstrator of the 60s and 70s, I say without any doubt in my mind that 5,000 demonstrators in a city the size of New York is trivial. Whether the 700 arrests is significant will need to be shown by a better explanation of what the arrests were for. (Trespassing? Disrupting Traffic? Or something more significant.) The issue of police brutality will need clearer facts plus more and better referencing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah, Police are thugs--that's quite a POV. To be clear, I have no issue with callingthis policeman a thug, but not police in general, or the NYPD in general.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To put it bluntly, if any Western cops deserve the label "thugs with badges", it's the NYPD (and the LAPD). Those guys are notorious, even down here in New Zealand. That said, I agree that it is inappropriately POV to describe the NYPD as "thugs", notwithstanding the countless WP:RSs illustrating this fact. Deterence Talk 09:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply can't find any better description of the pepperspray-video. And the problem is not that there is one bad apple, it is that his actions are being defended by the police department. Thue | talk 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment #2 So for clarity, is this nomination based on the arrests or the protests? 700+ arrests is certainly eventful for New York City but mass-arrests typically are not the main element of a proposal. It seems the people arrested were a distance away from the "occupation on wall street" activism. NY Post frames the incident as borderline vandalism. WikifanBe nice 09:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My support is based on all the Wall Street protests up to now. Thue | talk 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems this item has enough support to be posted. However, there's a cleanup tag on top of the article - though I am not entirely sure what's the reason for it. When this gets resolved, I am ready to post. --Tone 15:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - 700 arrests is notable, as is the widespread coverage. Because of the political nature of the protests, the article is under dispute, which is not unusual. Suggest posting, tag or no. In my view the tag is unjustified, as the article is sourced and coherent. Jusdafax 18:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. --Tone 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-Oppose I have to give post-posting oppose to this in the footsteps of WikiFan and others above. This event has received very little RS attention, it still remains a small demonstration, and the article is a mess. The 700 arrestees were promptly released, a fact the article failed to mention until now. Also, I think for the first time, I had to clean up a statement citing Twitter as source from a section directly linked from the Main page. Posting hysteric items based mostly on first-hand accounts is a path I would hope ITN didn't go down. --hydrox (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose to posting. How the hell did this get posted? Half the comments are silly soapboxing, and the other have no clue about what actually happened. Strongly suggest retracting the factually incorrect blurb, and I suggest Deterence stop making intentionally misleading comments to push whatever political agenda he has in mind. This is utterly ridiculous. 128.151.150.17 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another strong oppose - Tiny demonstration by world standards. The arrests seem valid. The releases happened. This is NOT major news. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why was this posted? Hardly a consensus and not a lot of reason to post. Like Hilo said, a lot of soapboxing. I'm too lazy to take this to errors. WikifanBe nice 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-Oppose. 700 is a rather small number of protestors in the United States. By comparison, Troy Davis' funeral had more than a thousand people attending, including family, activists and supporters ([1]). SpencerT♦C 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a global encyclopaedia. Surely the comparison must be on a global basis, otherwise we can post the biggest demonstration in any country. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-Support. Honestly, I find this interesting, though not in the same way as some of the POV comments above. These arrests are the largest mass arrest in New York City since the 2004 Republican convention, which counts for something even though the arrests appear quite justified. In addition, it is a piece of a larger news story about Wall Street that has been going on for a while. While Occupy Wall Street is certainly not anywhere near the same scale as the protests of the Arab Spring (which they cite as their inspiration), it is still somewhat unusual for the Western world to have protests this size continue for weeks. I don't see any fundamental problem with putting this in ITN, though arguably the article could be a bit better / clearer. Dragons flight (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-support - 700 arrests is a lot. Swarm 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the 700 breaches of the law, and the 700 subsequent releases. There is little real news here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it equally notable that 700+ people were prepared to be arrested, and receive criminal records, as a consequence of their civil disobedience for the cause they're fighting for (whatever that cause may be)? The vast majority of the civil rights protests in America's South during the 1960s had far fewer arrests than 700, but few (educated) people will deny the notability of their sustained campaign for change through civil disobedience. Deterence Talk 23:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anybody been convicted? Do you end up with a criminal record for one (hypothetical) disturbing the peace charge in the USA? Wow. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even American police officers cannot arrest people unless they've committed an (alleged) crime. Deterence Talk 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Disorderly conduct", which is what most of the participants were cited for, is considered a "violation" which in NY State is a level of offense even below misdemeanor. A person convicted of a "violation" is not considered to have committed a "crime" under the NY definitions and would not be formally considered to have a criminal record. Dragons flight (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Question were there any charges laid? if all or most of those 700 were released then i fail to see the importance here. G20 regularly causes more arrests. It sounds like 700 were detained and then let go. Even if this thing is going to stay on ITN then blurb needs to be updated to reflect that everyone was released within a few hours -- Ashish-g55 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coerced detention, without an arrest for an alleged crime, is also known as kidnapping. Even when it's only for a few hours. Deterence Talk 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, NYPD issued over 700 summons and desk appearance tickets, mostly for disorderly conduct. This is alternative process where a person accused of a very minor offense is assigned a specific future time to report to criminal court to be arraigned. But in essence this is the same as charging 700+ people with a minor offense (punishable by no more than 15 days in jail, but usually resolved by a fine). Dragons flight (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The day that an offence carrying a sentence of 15 days locked 24/7 in a cell of concrete and steel doesn't count as a crime is the day we need to re-examine our definition of "crime". Deterence Talk 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] AFL Grand Final
Nominator's comments: ITN/R and sufficiently updated (16 refs and 11 kB of prose), so I'm assuming this will be uncontroversial. Jenks24 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Tariq, will do so; I'm not sure why I was using all caps; I have some vague memory that it was done earlier, probably wrong.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final month BoSox collapse (baseball)
Eternally cursed Boston baseball team set 137 year record for worse September collapse, a 9 game lead blown at the end of the regular season. (to do this they needed to lose at a 74.1% rate (20 of 27) plus for the competition to start winning faster)
This is probably not gonna make it either.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Team fails to make quarter finals of (essentially) domestic tournament": oppose Kevin McE (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The Atlanta Braves basically did the same thing, though not entirely as dramatically. Much as I feel sorry for Red Sox fans, they really ought to be used to it by now. Kevin McE has it right, though he put it a lot more bluntly than I would have. NW (Talk) 14:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - This is a significant baseball news story (and one I like personally). But overall, there are countless records in sports that routinely get broken, we obviously can't post them all, and I don't really think this stands out enough to post. Swarm 16:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose There needs to be something special for this kind of story if it is to break out of sports stat trivia and into the major news. I don't see that here. I don't follow baseball but the "record" does not seem notable. What happened 137 years ago anyway? Was it beaten or was the league founded or something like that? Crispmuncher (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Oppose. Not that big of a deal. It may have broken some obscure record of a September collapse, but it's hardly significant. If the Red Sox had made the playoffs and then got blown out in their first series it wouldn't have raised any eyebrows.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this obviously doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making the main page. So why do people still feel the need to oppose it? Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the fifth editor to voice an 'oppose' vote here, I thought of that myself actually--was another oppose vote actually necessary? I suppose that part of the 'snowball's chance' logic here is that there's so much opposition, it's clear it won't be posted, but if people don't voice their opposition, then the SNOWBALL argument can't apply. I think as long as posts are civil and well-reasoned, there's nothing wrong with making the consensus crystal clear.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pile on opposes have their place: sometimes the most flawed logic is used here. Harry Potter was nominated three time before it was posted: the first two nominations clearly where not going to go anywhere. The third was more finely balanced but the posting admin argued that people who had not opposed in the first instance were in some way acting in bad faith.[2]
- The logic is utterly ridiculous of course, but if that is how a posting decision may be made it is necessary to state your position at the outset, even if it does become a pile-on, lest it is not counted when it actually matters. Don't blame me for that - take it up with Tariq. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Crispmuncher , your link is to the edit page for this section. Mistake? Deterence Talk 22:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undoubtedly. Link above now fixed. ;-) Crispmuncher (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Salmaan Taseer killer sentenced to death
Nominator's comments: Article needs some work, but the news reports are there to base that on. One of two politicians to be murdered in Pakistan this year because of their opposition to the country's blasphemy laws. --FormerIP (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If staying alive for 9 years after being sentenced to death makes the sentence a mere gimmick then most of the death sentences handed out in the USA are gimmicks - most of them sit on death row for considerably longer than 9 years (which is probably a good thing, given the appallingly high rate with which American courts sentence innocent men to death). Deterence Talk 21:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's likely to be as newsworthy by then. --FormerIP (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary it will likely be more newsworthy as likely half of Pakistan will be burnt down if the execution happens.[4]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOAPBOX. - Mar4d (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not WP:SOAPBOX to state the obvious in a talk page. Deterence Talk 02:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating that "half" of Pakistan will "likely" be burnt down is unneeded, opinionative soapboxing. Mar4d (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hyperbole. Deterence Talk 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- happy to correct myself. 1/4th of Pakistan will burn down if Qadri is hanged ;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deterence, thanks for the attempt at clarifying, but I have seen a lot of this user's immature anti-Pakistan trolling here on Wikipedia (in different places) that I think I am capable of distinguishing between hyperbole and soapboxing. Mar4d (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mar4d And I have seen a lot of your pro pakistan POV pushing and all of us know who tries to project the terrorist infested failed state of pakistan in a crazily positive light on wikipedia ;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
September 30, 2011 (2011-09-30) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and Culture
Disasters
Law and crime
Politics
[Posted] Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen
Can somebody add in the headline that he is american citizen as this is the first time american citizen has been targeted without a trial.Carachi (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Both yourself and Jusdafax have explicitly stated that his nationality is significant because his killing is a violation of the U.S. constitution. That's the only reason his nationality could be considered significant, and that's the viewpoint that we would be implicitly endorsing by specifying his nationality in the blurb (something we never do). The U.S. government has expressly rejected this claim; it's certainly disputable and debatable and hence it would not be neutral to specify his American citizenship. Swarm 22:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a shocker - the U.S. government has expressly rejected the claim that the U.S. government has violated the U.S. constitution. Regardless of the clear violation of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the fact that the U.S. government is now engaged in using its military to assassinate its own citizens is a notable development, in its own right. How is this not obvious? Deterence Talk 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is or isn't obvious to me is irrelevant. My opinions should play no part here and neither should anyone else's. I'm just looking at the press coverage, and based on that, his killing is significant because he was a senior al-Qaeda member linked to numerous attempted terror attacks, and additionally because his status as an American citizen raises legal questions (and we absolutely can not take a position on that, per WP:NPOV). There's also the matter of retaliatory attacks. The "dangerous precedent" point that you're trying to make is being raised by some news blogs and individual commentators, but in this article, a Duke law professor says that precedent was set back in 1942. So, while you're entitled to your opinion, it's clearly not a universally-shared one and that's why we shouldn't base any of our actions on it. Swarm 00:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ITN is in big trouble if "press coverage" is the predominant criterion for inclusion. Let's put our expertise and analytical skills on hold to make way for articles on Britney Spears, Brangelina and the latest fight in Jersey Shore.
- I am not the least bit impressed by a law professor providing a legal opinion in favour of this assassination, (you forgot to mention the strong opposition of the ACLU). Even here in New Zealand there is no shortage of law & order conservatives endorsing anything and everything done by our government in the name of fighting "terrorism". As for precedents from 1942, (which is woefully lacking in detail, I might add), the U.S. government began rounding-up Japanese Americans and herding them into concentration camps that same year, and that was also endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court. And we can point to all manner of historical injustices endorsed by the Supreme Court, including discrimination against women and blacks. Luckily, legal scholars are capable of learning a thing or two from history. Deterence Talk 01:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I'm not interested in debating, dismissing or discussing the various opinions on this matter, and, frankly, I think doing so is grossly inappropriate. I'm only pointing out that your particular viewpoint is not universally accepted, and that is the simple truth. You can argue with, dismiss, or attack those who disagree to your heart's content, talk about injustices, write a treatise on why you're correct and the other side is incorrect, but frankly, it doesn't make much of a difference. Your opinion is more or less irrelevant, because, yes, we absolutely do use press coverage (and other reliable sources) to make determinations. When this killing is widely considered to be illegal, I will wholeheartedly agree with you, but that is absolutely not the case right now. Swarm 01:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Er, what? The Supreme Court makes rulings that establish legal precedent. He says that in this case, the Court found that "U.S. citizenship of ‘an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of belligerency.’ In this instance, that ‘consequence’ is being targeted like any other enemy." That's the argument from a law professor from a prominent university, and I'd say that's notable. Swarm 02:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the case he was referring to, where an American was executed (in the electric chair) following his capture, his confession and a trial (military tribunal). Those circumstances are clearly distinguishable from the use of the U.S. military to assassinate named U.S. citizens in a foreign country. The quote from your Duke law professor is what we in the legal profession call a "half truth", (when we're being polite). Deterence Talk 02:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - That he was an American citizen is undisputed. That this is the first time America has performed an extra-judicial killing without court indictment of one of it's own people (two such were killed, actually, in the drone strike) is also widely reported. Just add 'American citizen' to the blurb and you have a factual, informative update. Without it, the average blurb reader has no clue as to what makes this notable, which defeats the purpose, as I see it. Jusdafax 20:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is obviously extremely notable that he is an American citizen. Indeed, the fact that the American government is now assassinating American citizens is significantly more notable than the death of yet another Al-Qaeda operative. Deterence Talk 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This sets a chilling precedence for the American legal system.--WaltCip (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The supports, and the proposed update, just reek of POV, and I could easily see most of them being discounted for that very reason. If people care to know he's an American citizen (and don't know already), they can read the article. The suggestion above is forced ("American citizen" -- yeah, what an amazing title) and selective. He's a dual citizen, but no one seems to push mentioning his Yemeni citizenship. If his nationality were to be mentioned, it should be accurate and complete and with a title other than "citizen" (e.g. "Yemeni-American imam"). But, in my opinion, that's far too unwieldy, repeating Yemen for a third time and providing little additional noteworthy information. Indeed, even if the aim here is to cast aspersions on the U.S. government, simply adding "American citizen" won't accomplish that, as the blurb currently says nothing about who actually killed him. Basically, there are a lot of changes that would need to be made to the blurb to present the conclusion the supporters above want. We should not be presenting a point of view on the Main Page, let alone bending over backwards to present one. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- is there even any proof that this is the first time ever, an american citizen was targeted by government without trial? Thats very hard to believe and even if it were to be true i would consider it an exceptional claim... and i agree with tariq above, he was a dual citizen. There is no way ITN can mention just part of his citizenship to make the blurb more spicy -- Ashish-g55 01:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen
This guy was a major al-qaeda player. Not sure about details yet though -- Ashish-g55 11:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. military reports that Al-Qaeda officer Anwar Awlaki is killed in an airstrike in Marib, Yemen.--WaltCip (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
|
|
September 29, 2011 (2011-09-29) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
- Maple Group, a consortium of Canadian concerns, says it is extending its bid to take over Canada's largest stock market operating company, TMX Group. (Reuters)
Disasters
Law and crime
Politics
Science
Sport
Ig Nobel Prizes
Nominator's comments: Light-hearted science story, a bit of a warm-up for the actual Nobel prizes next week. The bolded article is just a list, but it's well referenced and has a couple of sentences on each winner. Not sure whether editors will be interested in this one or not, but thought it was at least worth considering. Modest Genius talk 14:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Peace Prize: Arturas Zuokas, the mayor of Vilnius, Lithuania, for demonstrating that the problem of illegally parked luxury cars can be solved by running them over with an armoured tank." LOL Deterence Talk 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would actually be lovely on April 1. However, with the real Nobel prizes coming next week, I think we better skip these. --Tone 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Tiangong 1
Nominator's comments: Launch expected around 13:15-13:30 GMT Crispmuncher (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, upon launch and upon updates regarding the launch being included. This is INTR, so that takes care of notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, prelude to the first permanent Chinese presence in space. I will be around later to update. Marcus Qwertyus 06:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support when actually launched. Thue | talk 08:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support pending actual launch. Deterence Talk 09:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support once the launch has happened. --FormerIP (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with alternative blurb, it should contain a link to space station. How about "China launches its first space station, Tiangong 1, as part of its ongoing human spaceflight program". For the record launch has occurred and the spacecraft is reported to be in orbit. --GW… 13:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Posting. --Tone 13:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the blurb needs to be changed. Last time I checked there was no country known as China. Please change it to the People's Republic of China so the blurb retains a NPOV. --PlasmaTwa2
- There was recently a discussion in which, by quite a strong majority, it was decided that "China" is legitimately the English common name for the PRC. Talk:Chinese_civilization/Archive_26#Requested_move_August_2011. --FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Nesat
Nominator's comments: Breaking news for Asia becuase, it was the worst after a month of Hurricaine Irene. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for removing :) --FormerIP (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - at least one typhoon like this hits the Philippines every year. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 35 for the phillipines is nothing compared to recent typhoons such as Fengshen.Jason Rees (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A big impact on a whole country. Thue | talk 08:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Does anyone ever bother to read these weather-related ITN articles? These events occur dozens of times each year and they all look exactly the same. I'll to supporting these nominations only when there are exceptional circumstances. Deterence Talk 09:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does say "the most powerful tropical cyclone to directly impact the Philippines during the 2011 Pacific typhoon season", it it is a bit more than "exactly the same". Also, I assume that millions of people were directly affected; if millions are affected, then I am ok with posting it ITN, even if it happens relatively frequently. Thue | talk 14:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The typhoon is not done yet, as it has just hit China with 100,000 evacuations. No reports of casualities so far, but those opposing or not !voting may want to watch this story in the news in case human impacts increase. Jusdafax 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A State of calamity was declared in the Philippines following the typhoon. Several thouzands of people were affected and yet another typhoon just made landfall worsening the situation. This blurb when merged/modified noting the twin-typhoons that ravaged the Philippines this year, could be some big news. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:03, 1 October 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