:::: I'm hallucinating. [[Vilaweb]] is the first news media in Spain to be based entirely online! --[[User:Davidpar|Davidpar]] ([[User talk:Davidpar|talk]]) 09:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
:::: I'm hallucinating. [[Vilaweb]] is the first news media in Spain to be based entirely online! --[[User:Davidpar|Davidpar]] ([[User talk:Davidpar|talk]]) 09:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::First doesn't mean reliability. I head that same WP article, and what I read is that this is a self published news site with a forum and web directory, created by a former journalist. See [[Drudge Report]]. --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 10:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::First doesn't mean reliability. I head that same WP article, and what I read is that this is a self published news site with a forum and web directory, created by a former journalist. See [[Drudge Report]]. --[[User:IP98|IP98]] ([[User talk:IP98|talk]]) 10:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Relevant event from my point of view really.
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).
Chinese Vice President and Paramount Leader-designate Xi Jinping is shown on television for the first time in weeks, debunking rumours of serious illness. (Xinhua)(AFP via Google News)
Tens of thousands protest against Putin in Moscow. (Businessweek)
Protesters in Tripoli, Lebanon, set fire to a KFC and a Hardee's restaurant, sparking clashes with local security forces. One protester is killed and 25 people wounded, including 18 police officers. (BBC)(AP via The Globe and Mail)
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge begin legal action after the magazine Closer published topless pictures of the Duchess taken during a holiday to France last week, and which their spokesman describes as “a grotesque and totally unjustifiable” invasion of privacy. (BBC)(The Telegraph)
HTV-3 detaches from the ISS for a burial in the Pacific Ocean. ATV 3 thrusts the ISS' orbit two kilometers up. TMA-04M will land on 17 September. ATV-003, named Edoardo Amaldi, is planned to disconnect on September 25th and burn up itself and a load of trash in the atmosphere over the same ocean. (RIA Novosti)(RIA)(ESA)
The linked CNN story got it wrong when it claims "The scientists say it is only the second discovery of a monkey species in 28 years." The scientists in their own source [1] actually say "the second new species of African monkey to be discovered in the past 28 years". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note, superlatives become less significant with the number of qualifiers they include, eventually it just seems like a grasp to aggrandize the subject without justification. When we're down to the second new species of African monkey in (arbitrary timeframe) it is toeing the line of rediculousness. Which is not to say that I wouldn't support this if it were shown to be a major story in the relevent science press and the article was in a good state. But this just highlights the problems when we try to make the case based on superlative statements rather than based on evidence of news coverage and article quality. Just about all things in existance can be described in superlative terms if you pile on enough qualifiers. If this is going to generate significant support, it would be best to frame the debate around showing actual evidence that the science press finds this a major story, and also on ensuring that the article itself is up to standard. Puffing the discovery (or passing on the puffery of others) with superlative terms does the process no justice. --Jayron3213:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no ITN template, no article, etc... Isn't that groundbreaking outside of the realm of biology to have a sufficient impact. Interesting for DYK, but not for ITN. --Activism123421:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protestors breach the walls of the U.S. embassy compound in Sana'a, Yemen. Yemeni police fire warning shots in the air and four people are killed. The Egyptianministry of health says 224 people are injured in demonstrations around the embassy in Cairo. In Kuwait, 500 people gather and chant near the embassy. (BBC)(AFP via Google News)
The U.S. deploys destroyers and surveillance drones to Libya to hunt for those responsible for the attack in Benghazi. U.S. officials say they are investigating whether the protests over a film privately produced in the US denigrating the prophet Muhammad were used as a cover by the attackers, rather than being spurred by them. The Libyan Deputy Interior minister says there were two parts in the attack - the second attack was on the safe house of which the location was previously leaked. (CNN)(AP via Detroit News)[permanent dead link]
The US consulate in the suburbs of Berlin, Germany, is briefly evacuated due to suspicions over the contents of an envelope. (Reuters)
More details emerge about the privately produced anti-Islam film that sparks unrest in the world. Sam Bacile is also the name a Washington-based activist assumed to initiate forwarding the link last week. One reporter points to the suspected real name of "Abano(u)b Basseley". (Wall Street Journal)
Nominator's comments: 2nd Globe and Mail ref and the Canada.com ref are the sources verifying the claim that he is the greatest, while the first three websites cover his death. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't report the deaths of heads of provinces/sub-national entities. And "considered one of the greatest Canadian premiers"? Not NPOV at all. Most people have never heard of Peter Lougheed. Mocctur (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is quite possible he is one of the greatest of Canadian premiers, we would just need some really good sources to say that. I somehow doubt other sourc es would say he wasn't, but if he did we would reference them too--that is the essence of NPOV--not the refusal to say anything at all. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think what the OP meant was he was named the greatest Canadian premier in the last 40 years recently this year. And I'm not too sure on this - his death was met with international reaction and he was a very notable politician in Canada, so I can see why we could post this. – Connormah (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Rewrites the history of film technology. The footage was previously considered mythic and had never previously been seen because the film-maker died before designing a projector to show it. Seven years older than the first Kinemacolor film. BTW, spot the ENGVAR issue... Formerip (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would not object to DYK, except that it is a discovery, just like a new pyramid tomb, earliest stone tool, Roman coin hoard, etc. - it's just that not such a long time has passed since. Nine years is quite a large chunk in the history of cinematography. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
unknow - the new date is really very diferent? like when was invented the Iphone in 2003 or in december of 2002, by Steve Job of by his co-workers, on west los Angeles or east L.A.? sure is good data but I dont know if it is a news, something really change? --Feroang (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That it would have been the first had he actually succeeded opens up how many cans of worms? per Bzweebl, and we don't decide these matters. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for I'm not too familiar with the DYK nomination process. However, if it doesn't fit DYK then it's not news or a notable enough event in the realm of motion pictures. --Τασουλα (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it either neeeds to be a reasonably sized new article or a largely expanded old article (like fourfold) for DYK. It's nothing to do with the subject itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filling me in. Well, all I can say to that is...>__> wait for suffient update then someone can nominate it. If anyone remembers too XD --Τασουλα (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for ITN; does not meet and is not likely to meet DYK criteria (I wish the folk who continually suggest DYK for these things would remember this because sooner or later you're going to end up with an editor whose nomination could have passed here, certainly won't pass DYK, and will abandon either route in future). As for the merits of this one, it's a surprising anachonrism that not only stands on its own and would attract interest but it's a refreshing change from militias, disasters, corruption and the Paralympics/Olympics. GRAPPLEX12:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather odd. Where did anyone get the notion that DYK noms require ITN support or are harder to get? DYK criteria are rather clear and quite easy to meet, I have done so myself every time I have wanted to. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luo Zhaohui, the head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Asian department, vowed China would "never accept Japan's illegal occupation or so-called 'actual control'" of the islands. (Chicago Tribune)
Law and crime
Police in Bosnia and Herzegovina arrest 25 people on suspicion of multiple murders, drug-trafficking and robbery in the biggest crackdown on organised crime since the Bosnian War. (IOL)
Nominator's comments: A large amount of deaths from a fire that was inside the factory building. I was not sure which article to link to...or if a new article should be created about the fires, so I did not include an article in the nomination. (If you find one that fits this event, or if a new article is created about this event, please do include it in this nomination). Andise1 (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen and heard it as a top story on several news sources. However, there is no article yet for me to read to decide if I should support or not. We've got the cart before the horse here. Create an article, let us read what is created, and then we can decide if it needs to be on the main page. --Jayron3203:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, an ITN item does not require a new article, just an update in the most appropriate place. We need to avoid the connection that the only ITN appropriate candidates are those with brand new articles and encourage consolidation into lists of events for a year when the event may not warrant an article but is likely ITN worthy. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, certainly notable event that has alleged connections with lax safety laws and since the article is created, it should be put to the related slot above.Egeymi (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support after updates: First, it's definitely a significant news item. Second, I totally admit to having a political goal here; it's events like these that eventually led to reforms that favored workers in many other countries, and in many ways contributed to the establishment of middle classes. This makes it potentially a watershed moment. However, we could do much better, perhaps with a map (like on the earthquake pages), some information about why so many people died, and perhaps a small compilation of any other information floating around about worker safety in Pakistan. Right now the article is really just a news blip. —Kerfufflerharass stalk07:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why have we rolled two fires together? News sources do not seem to be paying attention to the fact that there was also a fire in Lahore on the same day. Formerip (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to current article state.Support thanks to Mohamed CJ for removing POV content. Will glady support when fixed. For example "and did not bother to register them with any social security institute to get rid of workers' rights in any case." really has to go. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Sid Watkins (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Sid Watkins, world renowned neurosurgeon, former FIA Formula One Safety and Medical Delegate and head of the Formula One on-track medical team dies aged 84 (Post) News source(s):[4],[5]
Do not add simple "support" or "oppose" votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
Technically you are correct in citing the rules violation here but I do agree with Masem that this is far far from the notability threshold for ITN. On the BBC this isn't even making the F1 news page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting death that cannot command a full blurb, but could be worth posting on the Recent Death line. There has long been strong consensus in favor of instituting that, but I do not know whom I need to sodomize around here to get that done. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to be clear, even looking at the guy's page, I still have to ask "who?" Far far below the level of importance to the general world to be ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly notable enough under a death ticker. Clearly not on a par with killings at embassies, a Western democracy admitting to a systematic, institutional cover-up into dozens of deaths and the smearing of a city, or the passing of someone like Neil Armstrong. —WFC— FL wishlist10:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Clearly a highly significant figure in his field, and well-known to those concerned. But I'm not convinced he's well-known more generally. I agree with Medeis (though I don't feel his offer of sexual services is relevant), and disagree with Bzweebl - this would be a good entry if we had a 'Recent deaths' ticker. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Urgh, this is a tricky one indeed. The guy is clearly notable in his field a fair bit, but in his native country? As for "international fame" I don't think that should be coming into this, to be honest. He isn't being claimed as such...--Τασουλα (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Travelling the world on the F1 circuit and therefore mixing with the cosmopolitan world that international motor sport essentially is, I don't think there is any doubt about the world-wide renown of this individual. He was probably better known internationally than in the UK. Leaky Caldron11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This man was massive in F1, and motosport at wide as well. Jackie Stewart is now calling for the establishment of a permanent memorial. It's a good article, well-written and well-referenced extensive prose. The individual clearly fulfills criterion #2 "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Also, this is not at all UK-centric news; F1 is a global sport, and Watkins' persistence and medical field work saved or helped save the lives of at least the following drivers: Didier Pironi, Nelson Piquet, Gerhard Berger, Rubens Barrichello, Mika Häkkinen, Martin Donnelly and Karl Wendlinger, who between them have 5 driver's championships and 47 GP wins. I admit it's borderline case what comes to general notability, but given the good shape of the article and "minority topic" nature of this topic, why not? --hydrox (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recent Death All you people who are "supports" and "weak opposes" are wasting your time by not asking why this nom has not been posted under the well supported Recent Death Ticker. Who supports that? Vote recent death again and let's get this started now. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Never. It is never acceptable for us to endorse a commercial product (with commercial rivals) at launch. If the iPhone 5 goes on to achieve something far outside the norm, we could consider posting the story in that context. —WFC— FL wishlist20:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commercial hype. Short of some major breakthrough, such as running on free energy. this sort of commercial release it not likely to get my support. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)20:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, quite strongly, as a marketing hype story. At the end of the day, it's just another incremental upgrade to an existing product, nothing new or revolutionary in its field.[7][8] You could name it "Super Duper iPhonetor 2,000", or whatever the marketing department came up with, and it wouldn't change a thing. Also, similar Apple product upgrades have been unequivocallydeclined in the past. --hydrox (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commodity parts soldered together into consumer gadgetry. Why does every single apple product launch end up here? --IP98 (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meh. Not news for ITN, and the announcement isn't anywhere near as impacting as previous reveals of apple stuff. Don't get me wrong, I like apple products, I own an Ipad2 and an iPhone 4S, but this new system isn't exactly breathtakingly revolutionary. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I watched excitedly as the iPhone 5 was unveiled, along with probably millions of others. Fascinating. But don't think it's for ITN - significance, other than being a better version, isn't much, and is promotional. --Activism123400:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose We are not Apple's marketing department. Canuck89 (chat with me) 01:16, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I've reopened the discussion as I wanted to comment and while SNOW is clearly relevant here the discussion hasn't degenerated into name-calling or the like. Clearly there's absolute consensus here but I personally would consider supporting this item myself. I understand the strong desire to not advertise for Apple or any other company but if we posted this we would simply be following the vast majority of the international media, so I don't think bias would be an issue here--the Iphone launch is clearly 'in the news'. There are other valid concerns-do we post other similar product launches (and I could imagine that resulting is a massive debate of trying to figure out which phones are notable enough) but again, the international media clearly feels the iPhone launch is more notable than other phones so I think we would be safe here. For me the one argument that convinces me is that the Iphone 5 isn't particularly groundbreaking. That may convince me to oppose, but I feel that even if this was a groundbreaking device many editors here would oppose all the same. We didn't post the launch of the original iPad and I think we can agree now that that was an extremely groundbreaking event. And in response to the 'we aren't the Apple marketing dept' argument--Apple isn't paying wikipedia to post its news. I highly doubt that this was nominated by an Apple employee (an Apple fan, maybe). Again, it's legitmate news.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with any apple product is the frequency of it. More than once or twice a year we get new version of same product with a couple minor changes. Apple fans like to treat them as a new revolutionary product thats never been produced before which is almost always far from the reality. We posted Windows 7 because it was basically known that it will be replacing long standing windows xp as the main os on billions of computers. I doubt we will post windows 8 and i will not support it in october even if nominated. Same goes here... this is just another product, nothing new or big. -- Ashish-g5515:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Weak support - only one region of Spain is still only one region, but the numbers are pretty big. But the article states it's due to happen. So natural wait. (Keh, seeing this makes me realise how different the situation in the UK is...) --Τασουλα (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The number seems high, but it's easy to get a large percentage of an ethnic minority to go marching in the streets. This is nothing more than a self generated bother. --IP98 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what do you mean by "it's easy to get a large percentage of an ethnic minority to go marching in the streets"? Who are the ethnic minority here? In what way is it easy? Do you have any evidence that what you claim is the case? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Catalonian nation" is the ethnic minority in Spain, but a majority in their region. Essentially a bunch of people skipped work to walk down the street crying for something impossible. This is staggeringly not news. Tragically it will go up, but it's not news. --IP98 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of which serves to reduce the notability of the marches. So an ethnic minority in the country, in their majority region, marched in the streets. Not exactly a surprise here. Like I said, people ditched work to walk down town complaining. Not exactly an arab spring, and not exactly news. No different from a bunch of protesting Basque. Not at all even a little bit news. 100% same as 400,000 students marching in Montreal. Self generated bother. --IP98 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To clarify on numbers, 600k estimate by the Spanish Government is the lowest of three. The other two being 1.5m by Barcelona police and 2m by organizers. The population of Catalonia is ~7.5m. Mohamed CJ(talk)16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not sure if we should to post this, given we posted a demonstration for same cause with similar attendance two years ago. However, I would definitely support posting if a referendum was actually announced. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The coverage of this event is ample. I've read it as the top, or near the top, story on several news websites, and was a major story on NPR and TV news today. The article is solid, and under those two most important criteria (level of coverage and quality of article) this seems like a no-brainer. --Jayron3217:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Fine article, as Jayron notes, and a huge demonstration that is worthy of ITN. The issue is nothing less than the breakup of Spain. I'd call that notable. Jusdafax17:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spain isn't going to break up because of a street marche. This is no different than upset students in Quebec or squatters in New York. It means precisely nothing. It took weeks of marches much larger than this to overthrow the Egyptian government. I repeat, this means absolutely nothing. Nominate the referendum when it happens. --IP98 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When a new state is formed, great, until then, it's yet another disgruntled European protest march. I see absolutely no different between a Spanish sourpuss and one in New York. 100% not news. --IP98 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This spring will probably be elections in Catalonia as a result of the demonstration and the main Catalan political party have the goal to achieve the "full sovereignty" of Catalonia. FT says that these elections will be de facto an independence referendum. --Davidpar (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, when that happens, and there is a referendum, and a new state is formed in Europe, please come and nominate it, because that will certainly be news. This is not. And gazing into a crystal ball and predicting a shake up of Europe doesn't make it any different. --IP98 (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only a couple of years ago, twice as many people protested. What's changed? This is a protest, it hasn't made anything happen. Certainly didn't make the news on the British or international BBC homepages... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support it did make to BBC homepage and has been broadly covered. How many times a year can you soee 1.5 million people demonstrating?--Arnaugir (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It will mark the future of Catalonia and Spain politics. @TheTamblingMan Anything happen? More than a million of Catalans claim to be independent. A couple of years ago they were against a recent decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court to annul or reinterpret several articles of the 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia]. Now is the first great demostration in support plainly to the independence. --Davidpar (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the amount of 600,000 people. That's what says the Spanih government. International media, organizers and police says more than 1,500,000:
You should take that up at the article, this is not the place for it. And the article last I saw gave the govt figure as only one among many. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't generally like posting protests, but this is very big in numbers and world coverage, as the collapsed section above shows. It was even big news before it happened. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The thing about "reported worldwide" is that it's not really that big of a deal. Consider some of the 16 sources above. Telegraph just ran the Reuters wire and NYT ran an IHT article. Using free internet web page space to re-post a wire story isn't exactly special. This march wasn't a surprise. NYT and Telegraph both could have sent correspondents. They didn't. They posted wire stories in the hopes of getting extra Google hits to generate more forum posts and get more ad revenue. It's not reporting, it's Google bombing, and it doesn't make this utterly worthless protest news. --IP98 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Obviously a major even for the Spanish economic crisis and Catalan separatism. I would also recommend to replace More than 600,000 people on the blurb with Up to 1,5 million, which is the number reported by local police.--Երևանցիասելիք կա՞23:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this should definitely be posted. Those who understand a bit about Spanish regions will realize, Catalona protesting for independence and autonomy as a region from Spain is rather significant, and has been making headlines. I think blurb should clarify though who the people in the streets were. Was I one of them? No, I wasn't. Meaning clarify we're talking about Spain, for people who will only glance at the ITN and will know what it's talking about. --Activism123400:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm uncomfortable with posting a figure disputed by a fairly large government, and would prefer "hundreds of thousands". I don't think this would do the numbers too much of a disservice. For example, it's widely believed that more than a million people attended the Team GB Olympic and Paralympic parade, but the BBC report the figure as "hundreds of thousands" due to uncertainty. —WFC— FL wishlist09:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off on two points. The day is an annual holiday, the rallies have been held twice, in 2010 and 2012. And something's not being on ITNR has nothing to do with mitigating against its current nomination on the merits. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Massive popular protests like this make headlines worldwide, and show that the news is not just about the acts of celebrities and individual politicians. I am baffled by IP98's objections - "So an ethnic minority in the country, in their majority region, marched in the streets. Not exactly a surprise here. Like I said, people ditched work to walk down town complaining." I have no idea why it's relevant or interesting that they 'ditched work'. What's important is that a large proportion of the region's entire populace demonstrated publicly for their right to self-determination. That's not nothing. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than numbers, I see no difference between this and the occupy marches (except that the occupy marches went on for weeks). A group of like minded people gathered en masse to express an opinion. So what? Jon Stewart got half a million people to come hear him make wise cracks at the national mall. This event is no where near the significance of the arab spring. In those demonstrations, people were genuinely rebelling against a government known for brutality. Spain is a democracy. These people are in no danger, and after an day in the sun they went back to work the next morning. This simply isn't news, and I don't like putting it on a pedestal. --IP98 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done "Catalunya Libertat" is hardly a WP:RS, or WP:NPOV. I'm just posting this now while I check the rest of the references. --IP98 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vilaweb is another one. It might be old, but it's essentially a self published blog. Drudge report in Barcelona. None of these sources are in English, and it's a hassle to search all the publication names on WP to see if they're legit or not. I'm done with these two. Lots of good sources too, BTW, it's a good article. --IP98 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so IP98 votes oppose. Let's hear from an admin why this has not yet been posted, because whatever the criterion it will be fixed immediately. Otherwise, get on with it and post this, per very broad and strong consensus. μηδείς (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First doesn't mean reliability. I head that same WP article, and what I read is that this is a self published news site with a forum and web directory, created by a former journalist. See Drudge Report. --IP98 (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Relevant event from my point of view really.
Oppose no doubt this clears a major roadblock, but I'm still opposed to posting various milestones for this. When it comes into force, I will certainly support it then. I opposed other ratifications, and even the original signing. --IP98 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose hasnt changed anything, it was going ahead. Only thing this could do was stop whats happening already and we posted the original mentionLihaas (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My clear impression was that the ESM would have been meaningless without Germany, so it wouldn't just have "gone ahead"; so this result has changed alot. Thue (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For practical purposes, it had already given support. Merkel said so, hadnt the legislative assembly passed it too? Judicialy was sort of an appeal (or in common law countries anyway)Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would have been ground-shattering news had the supreme court come to opposite overall conclusion. But with this expected result, it seems to have little practical impact, as it just means what was supposed to be done will be done with some more oversight. --hydrox (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Election is closely contested, which means government-forming is expected to be difficult and might take long (see e.g. [10]), even very long. That's one of the reasons why we always post elections when the official results are announced, if they are just reliable. I see no ground to depart from this practice. --hydrox (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite explicitly said im not sure how to do this hence i posted here ofr discussion (As do many others at ITNC). By precedence we post results and hence many people could WELL prefer it to be posted soon.Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lihaas does this all the time. Further down this page he says "Damnit, I was going to post that" as though he's just missed out on some point scoring or goal or something like that. His rush to gain kudos is why his posts are so badly spelled. doktorbwordsdeeds10:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doktorbuk does this all the time. NPA attakcs instead of COMMENTING ON CONTENT! Keep your slander to yourself!
I quite explicitly said im not sure how to do this hence i posted here ofr discussion (As do many others at ITNC). By precedence we post results and hence many people could WELL prefer it to be posted soon.
Did you then by any chance see fit to inform the original poster to "be civil". NPA are not civil. Comments should be made on content...which i explained to your post why i posted it now, (and in a civil manner)...and instead of this illy charade were upto its better to add contentLihaas (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i just said the same thing directly above your comment. That this was deviating and should end. pelase see that and the originalLihaas (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were right to hat this discussion as tangental to the main topic, but can I just say for the record Lihaas that I do think you post these things far too early, far too often. —WFC— FL wishlist15:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wait but post once we get results, per ITNR and every other election. If a government is formed while it's still on the template then the blurb can be updated. If later, it can be re-nominated (though might not be significant enough if it's as expected from the results). Modest Geniustalk12:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
receives (present tense) or 'received' (past tense) reads better then 'get'. Let me explain about 'Wins' with an example:
'wins' is a value judgement; it makes a judgement on a value, the value(or fact) is the receiving of most votes(or whatever unit is used), the judgement is that as a result of the value an individual or party 'wins' the voting process. The making of the judgement call maybe correct but it may also be incorrect. On the day of the results of the 2000 U.S presidential election with sourced news information using the win judgement wording would read "Al Gore wins a plurality in the United States presidential election, 2000", but the judgement wins in this case was false because George Bush actually became president. So it would behoove Wikipedia to stick to the facts not to make value judgements based on those facts. While even facts can change, it is not good practice to include judgements, especially in ITN which by definition has new information that could change. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)12:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 1: The British Prime Minister, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and The Sun newspaper apologise for their organisation's roles in the Hillsborough disaster (tribute pictured) and subsequent cover-up. (feel free to tweak this blurb as necessary) —WFC— FL wishlist16:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment Families are viewing the documents today. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19543964doktorbwordsdeeds 08:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Further Nominator's comment Clearly this story has moved on from the initial nomination. We know now that the police altered over 200 statements to their own advantage, that a Conservative MP may have fed fake information on behalf of the police to The Sun, and that the editor of The Sun who for over 20 years has been a defender of their controversial coverage has apologised. We now know there are question marks over the police, the ambulance services, Sheffield Council's regard for health and safety and Hillsborough's own safety concerns. To conclude, the nomination NOW should feature David Cameron's apology and some brief reference to the findings of the report. I make no apology for sounding passionate on this - I watched Hillsborough happen live on television, aged nine years old, and the images stick with me still today. I never thought I'd hear some of the findings or hear the depth to which the police and elements of the media plunged at the time. I hope that we can find a consensus to post this story on the front page doktorbwordsdeeds15:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the papers have already been released by a non-independent body? I'm really confused about this so I can't support or oppose. Too tired! --Τασουλα (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Another minor stage in a very long process with absolutely zero impact on anyone except the families. I can only assume the reason that this is even being covered in the UK press is because it's still silly season and they don't have anything else to talk about. Modest Geniustalk09:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a highly cynical and somewhat offensive stance. We're talking about the END of a process here, one which started not long after it had become clear that the initial Report in 1990 had significant holes within it. 96 people died by being crushed against each other, concrete walls and cages at a football game - how on earth can call this "silly season" I cannot countenance. doktorbwordsdeeds09:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's something significant in there, then there will be a prosecution or some other major development, which might be suitable. If (as seems more likely) there's nothing much there, then this is a non-event with no significant encyclopaedic value. Oh and the nomination is the release of some documents, not the event itself, so I don't see how your last sentence is relevant. Modest Geniustalk12:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the release of this report is not significant. The event itself would have been notable for ITN, but not a report on it. This will get very little coverage internationally as most have moved on. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Overwhelming evidence of corruption and evidence tampering by a British police force. Finally correcting a lie which has been perpetrated for 23 years. The idea that this is a 'silly season' story is one of the most idiotic things I've read on here in some time.yorkshiresky (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is completely silly and trivial, know why? Because this whole affair has been dragging on for ages and has been given disproportional amount of media coverage in the UK when most people don't care. It turned into something of a media circus and sensationalism all to often. Tragic sure, but important in the grand scheme of things here? Not by a long shot. The releasing of these papers actual brings nothing new, or stuff we already didn't know. --Τασουλα (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Really, nothing new? Did you know that the police amended 164 witness statements? Did you know that 41 people may have been saved? Or that the police tested corpses for alcohol and when they didn't they looked to see if they had criminal records?yorkshiresky (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the above Are you seriously saying the release of these documents didn't tell us what we already didn't know or suspect? This is a matter between the families and the police...rest of the nation is either too busy with the troubles of life to actually be too concerned. It's a story of little to no significance to most here. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a significant difference between was is officially acknowledged and what is 'suspected' or even 'known'. We knew/have known or suspected for decades that Israel, Pakistan, and India had nuclear weapons but the official admission makes a huge difference. As noted, the report has prompted a response from the PM, so there is significant impact already.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has a clue about this news story would regard it as "completely silly and trivial". It certainly shows a fundamental lack of understanding of modern British history. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm going to agree the PM's apology has given me a bit of persuasion. Clearly that goes beyond media sensationalism of something we seem to of already gone through before...--Τασουλα (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above I'd advise you keep such opinions on the merits of people's voting to yourself. Making sweeping statements such as that which have little context isn't helpful. Go ahead and deny it all you want, this story is of little historical importance to most of the UK. To most people it's just a curiosity. Offensive you might think, but the truth isn't always pretty. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A significant report detailing high-level corruption in a cover-up following the greatest British sporting tragedy ever, which as prompted an official apology from the Prime Minister.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is stirring up quite a little row, and since there was no wikipedia at the time of the original disaster, I see no reason not to post this. --IP98 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support based on the extent to which this report is being accepted: by Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and nationalists alike, and even by Kelvin MacKenzie for instance. "Leaning" because while I don't know how widely this is being reported beyond these shores, but my gut instinct is that it is.
I apologise for the inevitable fallout of the rest of this post, but I am saying this because I consider it absolutely pertinent to this discussion. I cannot allow the falsehood used to support one of the rationales above to go unanswered, nor the veracity with which someone who admits to knowing little about this asserting that the whole thing was "trivial" and that "most people [in the UK] don't care".
Regardless of whether or not this particular point of the story should be posted, and it is certainly legitimate to argue against posting, it is a categoric lie for anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of the UK to state that this process has had "absolutely zero impact on anyone except the families". EDIT: I am glad that MG has clarified that this is not his opinion of the Hillsborough disaster itself. The legacy of this was far-reaching: the impact of the incident itself and the Taylor Report on sport in the UK and further afield, the demonisation of an entire city for a generation, and a demonstration of the difficulty of trying to unearth the facts when the authorities are involved, even in a democracy. —WFC— FL wishlist 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Edited comments in italics, preceded by "EDIT:" —WFC— FL wishlist16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WFC. The significance of Hillsborough certainly goes beyond those families physically affected. As one commentator put it, Liverpool supporters were blamed for killing their own fans for years after the incident. And to show how the Hillsborough disaster has had reach outside the UK, a US based radio host had his show cancelled after he suggested that Liverpool fans were to blame for the deaths and Liverpool fans in the US organized a protest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the actual disaster, certainly. But the issue is the significance of this release of documents. Don't conflate the two - the nomination is for the latter. Modest Geniustalk16:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you have made that distinction. But today's announcement calls into question the Taylor Report itself, categorically refutes previously mainstream assumptions about Liverpool fans at the time (assumptions which in many quarters were made about all scousers), and openly admits to systemic problems with the British justice system with regards to incidents of this scale. —WFC— FL wishlist16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the updates to the article and lead, I'll change to weak support. It's clearly garnering lots of coverage, but the fact that it's an old incident, much like the dingo that ate her baby, prevents me from fully getting behind it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the documents do indicate that both the police and the ambulance services concocted lies and even implicates that Margaret Thatcher may have been aware of the lies. In any case, I'd support the listing at ITN, perhaps with a reword of the blurb to say that PM Cameron has issued a full apology following the release of the documents. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think the blurb needs to be modified to more accurately reflect the significance here, including the reaction of the British PM. The nominated blurb currently only mentions the release of documents, which many editors are perhaps validly opposing as not notable enough. Can someone suggest a wording which better reflects the aftermath?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That apology came before these documents were made public. He wouldn't have known about the police re-writing statements, about an MP briefing news agencies with false information or Sheffield Council knowing the ground failed health and safety regulations but allowed the game to go ahead. His apology now should be seen in the new context. doktorbwordsdeeds17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the "slightly different aspect" is the police service fabricating statements, the ambulance service fabricating statements, the local council being negligent, the fact 40+ people could have been saved if the services had been better prepared and the 23 years the families had to wait for an unreserved statement of regret? Modest Genius, can you confirm? Is that the "slightly different aspect" you're referring to, or is there something else? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article update and blurb re-write - The article has no mention in the lede of the report and what it means, and just a few lines for an update far down towards the end. There should be a solid, fleshed-out section, a quality mention of this in the lede, and a blurb that briefly indicates just what kind of malfeasance occurred. Then it's ready to post. It's a big story and worthy of ITN. Jusdafax18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Frankly, one of the biggest stories in the UK for months. The fact that there has clearly been massive corruption by the British police (apparently admired around the world) is huge news. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we could revisit the blurb (e.g. British Prime Minister David Cameron apologies following the release of the HIP's report) then we have a genuine good-to-go ITN, despite the early "this is trivial", "this is silly" etc comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"British Prime Minister David Cameron apologises on behalf of the country for the mishandling of the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster following an independent report citing police [corruption]"? (Where corruption should be reworded to reflect the fact that the police just covered their arses by fabricating a bunch of stuff... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Some of the comments above are quite unbelievable. One of the biggest cover-ups in Modern British history has been exposed, dominating all news coverage and people are marking it down as "silly season" coverage or a "non-event"? I genuinely cannot work out if this just ignorance of the story or deliberately trying to antagonise others? I totally understand if this has not hit headlines outside the UK but this is from UK contributors! Anyway, back to the story, a huge scandal dominating the UK news and i would presume of significance outside the UK too, so strong support Rcclh (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Conservative MP passed on fake information to the press, the police changed over 200 statements to their advantage, that sort of thing. I say that's newsworthy. doktorbwordsdeeds06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the article:
"On 12 September 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel[38] reached a conclusion that no Liverpool fans were responsible in any way for the disaster, and that the main cause of the disaster was a "lack of police control". Subsequent apologies were released by Prime Minister David Cameron on behalf of the government,[39] Ed Miliband on behalf of the opposition,[40] Sheffield Wednesday Football Club, South Yorkshire Police, and former editor of The Sun, Kelvin McKenzie, who apologised for writing the headline "The Truth".[41] McKenzie said he should have instead written headline that read "The Lies", although this apology was widely discredited by the Hillsborough Family Support Group and Liverpool fans all over the country, as it was seen to be "shifting the blame once again."[41]
Amongst the main findings in the Report, it was concluded that the safety of the crowd was "compromised at every level" and overcrowding issues had been recorded two years earlier. The paperwork suggested that the then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, Irvine Patnick, may have, in good faith, passed on inaccurate or untrue information from the police to the press.[42] The Panel concluded that "up to 41" of the ninety-six who perished may have survived had the emergency services' reactions and co-ordination been improved.[43]
The panel found that South Yorkshire Police and other emergency services had made a "strenuous attempt" to deflect the blame for the tragedy from them and onto the Liverpool supporters. 164 witness statements were amended, 116 of them removing statements which were unfavourable to South Yorkshire Police. In addition police carried out blood alcohol readings of the victims, some of them children, and ran computer check on the national police database in an attempt to "impugn their reputation".[44]
Labour MP for the Leigh constituency in Greater Manchester Andy Burnham, a former Secretary of State for Health, led the campaign for a full inquiry, promising to find results in 2011.[45] He thanked the Prime Minister "for every single word" of his statement to the Commons.[46]"
Apologies for what may seem as provocative language, but I hope those reading this will at least accept that I have not tried to play down the seriousness of the Penn State incident. Have I correctly understood the status quo here? If it involves America, a cover up within a school of one person of mid-level notability kiddy fiddling is worthy of plastering over the Main Page. If it involves Britain, a systemic cover up of 41 preventable deaths by politicians, police and the media (who had previously demonised an entire city), publicly recognised after decades of denial by people at the very top of all of the relevant fields, is not notable? It's not my intention to play the race card here, but I truly cannot understand the disparity. —WFC— FL wishlist07:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hillsborough-specific responses should be posted here, but I have started a related, general discussion on this subject at my talk page. I welcome all thoughts, regardless of your nationality, views on this story etc. —WFC— FL wishlist10:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and get on with it. Old news is stale. This should be on the main page today. Should have been on yesterday. State authorities having been found to have conspired to hide their causing of 96 deaths in a western democracy is big big news. --Tagishsimon(talk)10:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am marking this 'ready' again as it was so marked previously and I see no explanation of why the ready tag was removed and the article is clearly updated. The !vote count is now at 14-9 plus nominator FWIW.
Further comment. Unfortunately, few of the comments here reflect the primary purpose of this project--to link to quality articles about topics in the news which have been substantially updated. The article Hillsborough disaster is a fine article, rated 'B class'. The update is extremely substantial, comprising 7 referenced paragraphs. That is well above our normal update requirement or the normal size of the updates we post. I am neither a Brit nor a Liverpool fan (my relevant biases can be found on my user page) and while the international interest here is debatable, this is clearly of interest to our UK readers at least and most likely to readers interested in football, the most popular sport in the world, and we have excellent Wikipedia content to show off.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of someone trying to make head or tail of the consensus, can I point out that the report only entered into the public domain yesterday afternoon (UTC), that the prime minister's statement took place between 11:35 UTC and 12:50 UTC, and that the apologies from other organisations came in the subsequent hours. It's not for me to say whether those opposed would still oppose, but three or four of the opposes were made before the impact of this report and the apologies would have been evident. —WFC— FL wishlist15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the opposes are completely vacuous, containing no sensible counter-argument whatsoever. Not liking a nomination is not a valid reason to oppose posting details of the biggest "cover up" by public bodies in history. Leaky Caldron15:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to thank everyone who's worked on the article since the news was made public yesterday. Maybe if I'd waited until the afternoon the nomination would have had more chance to succeed? In any case I can't think of anything else I could add to sway people either way, so I guess it's up to a passing admin now to decide. doktorbwordsdeeds15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a reason why a run-of-the-mill election has been posted while this nomination languishes unposted? Can an uninvolved admin please quickly take a look here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but suggest alternative blurb. Neither David Cameron nor any other individual apologiser seems to me to have been a central focus of the story. How about:
An independent report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds that police and emergency services failed in their duty and manipulated evidence to blame the victims.
Gah, I don't want to stop this being published in a timely manner but I think the global significance would be drastically enhanced if we can include the fact that David Cameron apologised on behalf the British Government somehow. That's epic and gives gravitas to this story (beyond the obvious heinous lies of the emergency services and police)... An independent report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds that police and emergency services failed in their duty and manipulated evidence to blame the victim, resulting in an apology from Prime Minister David Cameron. ? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd blurb From the length of this blurb: An independent panel investigating the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds that police and emergency services failed in their duties and manipulated evidence to blame the victims, prompting an apology from British Prime Minister David Cameron, this is apparently the most important, or confusing, isssue ever posted to ITN. Shorten it please. This: British Prime Minister David Cameron apologises after an independent panel on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds negligent police and emergency services manipulated evidence to blame the victims would make a good start. μηδείς (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leave off the final, "prompting an apology" ending. It's quite political actually to highlight "David Cameron", how about the response from the opposition parties? Best left off which helps with shortening the blurb. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)17:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, part of the impact is that a world leader (and a reasonably prominent one at that) apologises for all this cover up. The opposition parties' view etc is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A car bomb targeting Yemen's defence minister, Mohammed Nasser Ahmed, kills at least twelve people, including seven bodyguards of the minister and five civilians in Sana. (The New York Times)
A suicide bombing in front of a police station in the western Istanbul suburb of Sultangazi kills a policeman, the bomber, and injures several others. The leftist group Dev Sol claims responsibility. (BBC)
Two people are shot dead at close range in the center of Milan. Hours later, another shooting in plain view shakes the financial capital of Italy. (Reuters)
China's Ministry of Defence says the nationalization of the disputed Senkaku Islands by Japan is "illegal and invalid"; that it would closely monitor the "evolution of the situation" and "reserve the right to take reciprocal measures". (Xinhua)
China summons Japanese ambassador Uichiro Niwa to lodge a protest over Japan's nationalization of the Senkaku Islands. Beijing warned it will take "necessary measures" to protect its claim on the islands. (Bloomberg)(The Hindu)
Newly declassified documents confirm that the United States deliberately ignored Soviet involvement in the 1940 Katyn massacre, despite credible evidence to the contrary provided no later than 1943. While until 1945 this choice could be explained as World War II grand strategy, it is not known why the White House remained silent on the matter until now. (AP via New York Daily News)
Sources tell the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper that the German military spying agency MAD tried to recruit Uwe Mundlos in 1995. Mundlos refused to cooperate and subsequently participated in ten terrorist murders with the nazi group NSU. He died in 2011; police say he committed suicide. (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)
Nominator's comments: before shouts of ZOMG US BIAS, consider the significance of this event - thousands of Egyptians protesting against an Egyptian ally and country that donates aid and enjoys friendly relations, but whose ties have been in the air following the Egyptian revolution. The implications of such an attack on the embassy of a foreign country can be huge.
Comment - What film? An article on the protests would have to be created. Not sure what's up with this yet. Protesters are enraged about a movie, but we are not sure which one? That's murky. No deaths or injuries yet. No doubt that it is in the news... but for how long? Possible that this could blow over... so I for one am standing by on this nomination. Jusdafax23:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the silly part about the whole attack... I think it's clear that the film was a pretext to protest, you or I probably wouldn't attack an embassy because civilians in that embassy's country are making a film... But 3000 people getting riled up over this could have far-reaching effects in regards to Egypt-US relations and Middle Eastern affairs as a whole. --Activism123423:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So We have about two dozen guys with bandanas on a wall protesting a film? Sounds more like a publicity event than anything else. Is there any source that shows this as a general uprising? μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here. Al Jazeera also makes a connection between 9/11 anniversary and the attack. Yes, scaling an embassy, tearing down a flag in mass numbers isn't cause for bombing, and may lead to no difference in relations, but embassies are a very touchy subject, look at the whole Julian Assange item with England and Ecuador.
The filmmaker's name is Morris Sadek, an Egyptian Copt who resides in the USA and has had his Egyptian citizenship pulled. There are some articles about this, which happened last year. [13] It seems he made a film that has a trailer on YouTube that someone recently dubbed into Egyptian. Sadek has no Wikipedia entry and appears to be fairly unknown to date. Here [14] is what the New York Times says is a link to the YouTube trailer for the "Muhammad Movie." And here is the NYT article [15]Jusdafax23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good info. But it's not the notability of this movie producer the nomination is about, but rather the attack on the embassy itself, which was a result of this movie, regardless of who made it. --Activism123423:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that two or three thousand protesters gathered outside the embassy walls and that a couple dozen climbed over and tore down and burned an American flag. "Attack" is a media buzzword in the headlines, but it appears that aside from the flag, no property was destroyed and no one was hurt. So we are left with the protesters who, it appears, have all left the embassy grounds. How many remain outside the walls overnight is unclear. I hesitate to cast a !vote on this as it stands. But there is no doubt it is in the news, no doubt at all. Which leads us back to the question... which article, if any, to link to, or does a new one get created? Jusdafax00:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on what Jusdafax has said, assuming it is accurate, and assuming Obama doesn't take this as an act of war and start bombing--it's just posing by the brotherhood and, with my general opposition to all protests and conferences, not something we need to encourage. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Important note - changing blurb to reflect that a member of the embassy in Libya died as a result of the attack (will reflect protests there as well). Also note here, they threw bombs and there were gunmen, which is pretty much an attack, and not just media sensationalism. In my view, the fact someone was killed out of this event makes it even more significant, not because it's 1 death, but because it's 1 death in international affairs with a world superpower. However, blurb could probably be rewritten to focus on details of the attacks, and I'm open to suggestions. --Activism123400:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While an embassy being stormed by 3,000 protestors certainly seems significant, the embassy was evacuated prior to the "attack" there appears to be no major damage or injuries, and the crowd has largely dispersed. The US consulate in Benghazi, however, was actually attacked by an armed mob who fired RPGs at the building and set fire to it. According to the Libyan gov, "There are fierce clashes between the Libyan army and an armed militia outside the US consulate" and "One American staff member has died and a number have been injured in the clashes". The two events in conjunction seem significant enough to post. SwarmX00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- This could develop into something bigger, but for now this is a simple pair of protests. Larger protests take place across the world all the time with multiple casualties. Activism's argument of "1 death in international affairs with a world superpower" seems weak to me; we don't post casualties in US wars, and I don't think we posted the Afghan police shootings. I really do think that even though this did take place in embassies, it is being overblown by the media, partly because of... US bias. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is on the front page of both the English and Arabic versions of Al Jazeera because of US bias. Totally. This story is borderline at best for ITN, but chalking it down to US bias? Give me a break. SwarmX01:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
US bias isn't only in American sources, as proven by your links. I also note that this is a regional story for Al-Jazeera, taking place in two North-African predominantly Muslim countries, so it is probably because of that that it's the number one story right now. Anyway, it's also been a slow news day, so for these three reasons, mostly the second, I'm not surprised that it is on the front page of Al-Jazeera. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so Al Jazeera, a Middle Eastern company repeatedly accused of being anti-American is actually biased towards the US...because you say so. Yup. Totally makes sense if you don't think about it. SwarmX02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my main argument was that they are biased towards predominantly Islamic countries, although I do think that they are biased towards reporting on the US also. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now unless this escalates into something bigger. As far as protests for misrepresentations of Islam go, this was somewhat tame. SpencerT♦C01:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not the first time an organised group to lunch attack on embassy in a country and far from one that brings something to raise concerns. We have never posted similar news with no indication on its notability. What makes it really notable? The attack on the "US embassy"? The nearly "3000 people" and the "death of an official"? The suspected but not proved "terrorist attack"? The event happening in Egypt when the country is "politically not stable"? Or the media coverage that is "pretty low"?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We posted the israel embassy attack in cairo last year (granted it was more unstable then). Although the more notable event is in libyaLihaas (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The burning and destruction of the embassy in Benghazi, Libya with a death involved is notable and approaches ITN-worthiness if only for the undeniable irony that the US was instrumental in the regime change and death of Ghaddafi, and the embassy burned was, according to CBS, the center of the US-backed resistance movement. CBS, by the way [16] says the filmmaker is one Sam Bacile of California, and Sadek is promoting it. I've gone from dubious to slowly accepting on this story which could change quickly and expand as the day continues in the Middle East. Is there an article yet? Also the blurb is confusing. Jusdafax05:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno why the ambassador is based in benghazi.Ambassador happened to be visiting Benghazi. Two of his security personnel were killed and oanother staffer, with 2 injuies. Anyhoo, this is more notable now...when was the last time any ambassador was killed? Repercussions will follow (how i dont know, no real effective central govt). And the high irony is that the weapons were likely from the US/france. Christopher Stevens could be the article, or a seperate 2012 attack on U.S. consulate in Benghazi coul e made.Lihaas (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for.... this article being posted as soon as its ready with the text about the death of the US ambassador. This is a massive story now and totally noteworthy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a re-drafted blurb to put the murder of the ambassador first. This is extremely serious stuff, currently making headlines around the world. And we desperately need a bio for the ambassador. (Related topic: is there a WikiProject for biographies of diplomats?) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with correct article(s) linked This is a fast developing event, as can be proven by the need to create a new article whilst updating the initial one. It's clearly worthy for the front page as a story, but the blurb should point to the correct article(s), decided upon here or elsewhere doktorbwordsdeeds10:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Even without the ambassador dying, the violation of an embassy is major news. This is even more so. Excellent article. --IP98 (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, just 2 question for the page. 1. which base in germany (im guessign Ramstein but no source), and 2. what should we add for "Weapons" in egypt.Lihaas (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be delib erate, Its uncertain at th emoment if its smoke inhalation or otherwise. Even if the car was shot, it may have not deliberately targeted him as ambassador.Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which goes to show that this information is still too raw, and as something that pretends to be an encyclopedia, we should have taken more time to get the facts straight before posting it. WP:NOT#NEWS. —Kerfuffler12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm normally vigilant on trivial news items being made into articles. This is a situation that has been brewing for 24 hr+ and has escalated into an international issue due to the deaths of the US embassy staff. The event is clearly now notable - per EVENT having an article on it makes sense, but it will take time for all the information validity to wash out, such as how exactly the ambassador died. As long as our blurb reflect the lower-common denominator - that 4 US embassy staff died - and not the hows or the whys that are unclear, we're fine. This is the type of coverage that Jimmy Wales has praised us for in the past even if it is fast-changing and developing. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current blurb says the Arab world, which is inaccurate. Violence happened in parts of the Arab world + other countries such as India. I suggest "Arab world" is changed to "several countries" or at least add "parts of" before. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the attack in Chennai is not yet clear, and isn't even mentioned in the article. I don't agree that it's necessary to use a broad phrase like "several countries" in order to encompass minor attacks that, as of now, haven't contributed to the death toll mentioned in the proceeding phrase. Now, "parts of the Arab world" vs. "Arab world"? What exactly is the difference? When someone says that ten people are killed in tornadoes in France, no one believes the entire country was engulfed in tornadoes. I sense that your objection is primarily due to a desire to downplay the widespread nature of the protests and attacks now. That being said, I think there needs to be a reevaluation of the article title and the blurb, as they focus solely on the attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions, while the article and the story talks about the protests on the KFC in Lebanon and the protests outside embassies of various western countries. -- tariqabjotu15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I see currently is that the blurb (and article) are mixing violent attacks on embassies with protests. I'll address this in article talk. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the description of the incident should be broaden or elaborated as protests are occurring across the world and only a minority of embassy and consulates are being attacked, as this is quickly becoming a global event, the protests are notable enough for ITN. YuMaNuMaContrib09:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
