September 5, 2011 (2011-09-05) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters
International relations
- South Korea announces that it will start sending emergency aid to North Korea next week after devastating floods. (Yonhap)
Law and crime
Politics
Television
|
|
September 4, 2011 (2011-09-04) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Disasters
Politics and elections
Sport
Science
- At least 19 people have died in Japan. Seems to be very important. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - major typhoon.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Blurb? Update? N419BH 04:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The event is really underrepresented, but combined with such world record it probably would be sufficient for including. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- was just trying to nominate this myself. Support when updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support once there's an update. Obviously the biggest athletics event of the year. Jenks24 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Oh thank you, an apolitical story! Nightw 13:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally would Support but the article is not ready. The bidding process makes up most of the prose. So, oppose until that's worked out. RxS (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ofcourse. major sport event. and world record.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose It is not notable that a sporting event, scheduled years in advance, ended on schedule. Deterence Talk 22:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So let's not post the Super Bowl either, which we know will finish on February 5, 2012. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you're aware of this "news" 5 months before the event, it is not even remotely newsworthy that the Super Bowl will finish on February 5, 2012. Deterence Talk 23:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No I agree, but it is notable that this particular sport event ended with a world record in one of its most anticipated events.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article at the minute is a table and a picture gallery. It needs a lot more prose if it's to be posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support: Notable sports event. Support, subject to article being updated suitably. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Ready] UN Palmer Report of Israel's Gaza blockade
Nominator's comments: This report (the Palmer Report) is important for many reasons, one of which is that the UN is generally quite biased against Israel and nearly always criticizes it for everything it does (see United Nations and Israel), so a statement to the opposite, largely vindicating Israel, is far more significant than it otherwise would have been. The Palmer Report is also the underlying event that triggered Turkey's expulsion of Israel's ambassador (see current ITN blurb), not Israel's refusal to apologize, as the blurb asserts. IMO the report is far more newsworthy than the ambassador expulsion itself, which is basically just a minor incident, one of many in a string of actions related to Turkey and Israel's deteriorating relations over the last two years. Listing the expulsion in an ITN blurb but not the reason for it -- and in fact, giving an incorrect reason -- presents a quite distorted picture. In fact, the current ITN blurb statement about the reason for the expulsion being due to Israel's refusal to apologize is even more factually inaccurate than this. Turkey has explicitly stated that apologizing wouldn't be sufficient; Israel would have to end the blockade. Turkey has been making these demands of Israel for quite awhile now; Israel has made a statement of "regret" but not apologized. Nothing in Turkey's demands or Israel's actions towards Turkey has changed recently. What changed is that this report came out, which not only declared that the blockade was legal but largely vindicated Israel's subsequent diplomatic behavior: It called for Israel to express regret (which they have already done), and said that Turkey should resume full diplomatic relations with Israel. This significantly undercut the rationale of Turkey's case for insisting that Israel must end the blockade and for cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel. This greatly angered Turkey, which is why they expelled the ambassador now rather than earlier. (I would actually suggest removing the current ITN blurb about the ambassador expulsion in favor of this report.) Benwing (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I proposed a similar blurb in the Turkey ITN but didn't go through the formal process. I believe this compliments the blurb on Turkey's expulsion of the Israeli ambassador but also think IMO it is superior in terms of notability and neutrality. I would expand legal with "legal under international law" as that is what the Palmer report concluded. Legal itself is ambiguous - what laws? Israel's? WikifanBe nice 04:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Should probably combine this with the blurb about Israel's ambassador since the two appear so closely related. N419BH 07:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and combine with current ITN on the Israeli ambassador; it adds context and due weight.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The article nominated has a maintenance tag on the top, so obviously that will have to be addressed. Also, the proposed blurb is too lengthy and clumsily written. It should be reduced. Nightw 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in principle but NightW more or less took the words out of my with respect to the concerns. Firstly the issues templates are something that was raised in the diplomatic expulsions item, and I don't see it going away quickly. The blurb is not only too long but arguably unbalanced: it selectively quotes and elaborates on only a pro-Israeli argument. In view of the length requirements I don't see we have space for any quotes or elaboration so I'll trim that out of the proposed blurb now. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Looks good. Nightw 17:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it rely on pro-Israel argument? It summarizes the Palmer Report - Israel's blockade is legal, Israel faced violence on the flotilla raid (even includes several pages describing the threats they believe Israel faces from Gaza justifying the blockade), Israel used unreasonable force when they boarded the flotilla. Report also said Turkey should have devoted more time in trying to prevent the flotilla. I'm sort of okay with the current blurb, but it doesn't make a lot of sense because " but excessive force was used in the flotilla raid" is ambiguous. Who used excessive force? Here is what I propose: The Palmer Report concludes Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law, but excessive force was used by the army during the 2010 Gaza Flotilla Raid. Somewhat wordy, but there needs to be some emphasize that Israel used excessive force and the blockade is legal under international law. Personally, I think the previous blurb was perfectly fine. Editors should read the cliffnotes of the Palmer Report before weighing in here. WikifanBe nice 18:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not get too hung-up on the "International Law" aspect. International law is such an amorphous beast that lawyers, politicians and governments can make "International Law" say whatever they want it to say. Deterence Talk 22:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I don't really think "... under international law" needs to be said. What other law would the UN reasonably consider? Certainly not Israeli or Turkish law. Benwing (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I would be neutral on this personally, but I'm opposing on the principle that this is an attempt to restart a closed discussion where this has already been extensively discussed. JimSukwutput 14:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support conclusion of a major event,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support But, the language seems a little clumsy. I suggest something like: "UN's Palmer Report finds that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law, and, that the IDF used excessive force against flotilla raid."
- Also, as has been stated above, (see commentary by User:N419BH and User:NortyNort above), this story should probably be merged with the existing ITN item about Turkey's expulsion of Israel's ambassador. The two stories are distinct, but very closely connected - is it possible to have two stories linked to two different sections, of the same article, in the same ITN item? I acknowledge that this might be impractical simply because the blurb would become unwieldy. Deterence Talk 22:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which article is to be bolded? Also, what are we going to do with the current Israel-Turkey blurb if or when this goes up? Are we replacing that blurb with this one? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked a similar question (above) and wondered whether it was possible to have two bolded links to different sections/articles in the same ITN blurb/item. Deterence Talk 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest either eliminating the current blurb, or merging it, e.g. as a simple add-on statement "Turkey subsequently expelled Israel's ambassador." (Or possibly "In response to the report, Turkey expelled Israel's ambassador.") I don't think the statement about the cause being Israel's refusal to apologize needs to be said, and it's not really accurate anyway -- see my comments above. I agree that adding this statement would make the blurb rather long, although taking out the words "... under international law" (see my comments above) would remove some of the wordiness. Benwing (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have rewritten the lede of Gaza Strip blockade to remove the out-of-date info, and removed the tag at the top. Many of the problems at the time of that tag (May 1, 2011) had already been addressed. Benwing (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the original ITN, I suggested we simply do away with the Turkey expulsion because that was simply part of the whole downgrade in relations between Turkey and Israel. I don't think the current posted blurb has to be replaced with this one as Turkish officials said they were going to expel the ambassador if Israel didn't apologize for the raid, regardless of what the Palmer Report said. So linking the two could be possible but it would take up the space of two blurbs opposed to one. I'm okay with the current blurb right now. WikifanBe nice 04:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also Ben, we can't say "in response to" because Turkey did not expel the ambassador because of the report. Two separate events though they are part of the same situation. WikifanBe nice 04:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's arguable what's really going on. The NY Times [1] says:
- The decision to expel the Israeli envoy from Turkey on Friday came after the leak of a United Nations report on the episode. It defended the embargo on Gaza and said activists on board had attacked the raiding naval commandos, but also accused Israel of using disproportionate force.
- They also say [2]:
- Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey said an apology and compensation would not be sufficient to return Turkey’s ambassador to Tel Aviv. Israel also has to end its naval blockade of Gaza, he insisted.
- But I agree "subsequently" or "subsequent to" is more accurate. I actually have no problem keeping the two blurbs separate, I was just trying to suggest a possible way to combine them in case people don't want two of them. Benwing (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm good for now. Considering the timeliness of this event, I suggest the blurb be posted immediately before it enters stale-time. Any serious problems can be brought up at ERRORS. WikifanBe nice 06:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely agree. Benwing (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I bold-linked the "Palmer Report" text to the section of "Gaza flotilla raid" on this report. Benwing (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
September 3, 2011 (2011-09-03) (Saturday)
Iran-Kurdish conflict
Nominator's comments: New campaign in conflict with Kurds. Iranian government sources say 150 killed, not sure how accurate that is. War with Kurds doesn't get a huge amount of attention on ITN, so this would be a fresh and unique proposal. WikifanBe nice 02:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to see some independent WP:RSs, especially for the casualty numbers - history has shown that ALL governments routinely lie about the casualty numbers of the conflicts they're involved in. Reuters reporting that "Iran's State television says..." is not a reliable source for the actual casualty numbers. I would also like to know whether this is a sudden escalation of conflict between the Kurds and Iran (which would suggest that this sufficiently notable for ITN) or whether this is just another daily skirmish in an on-going war of attrition (which would render this story insufficiently noteworthy for ITN). Deterence Talk 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chilean military plane crashes
Nominator's comments: Huge news, at least in South America, but as seen above, it is covered by many other sources worldwide. Diego talk 00:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Plane crashes are always note-worthy. WikifanBe nice 03:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Certainly receiving coverage (on the front page of my preferred online news service), but I don't think this is particularly noteworthy. This was a military aircraft carrying a relatively small number of people, a few of whom were somewhat noteworthy. Had this been a commercial airliner or had the leader of a nation been on board then this would earn my support. N419BH 07:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, 21 (probable) fatalities are enough. I don't think the number of fatalities gives the items "more notability"; the crash is still important. Diego talk 12:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This plane crash is not sufficiently notable. Indeed, this item will be of little more than a passing interest to anyone who doesn't hold a morbid curiosity for fatal disasters. Deterence Talk 08:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not so notable. The Moroccan military accident with 80 fatalities was not on the main page. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Do you think that this Chilean accident is a big stuff, because you are from that country? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 12:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The same I would say when you write crap about earthquakes that nobody felt nor nothing was damaged; or stupid incidents which nobody cares about. Diego talk 13:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it mean 'stupid incidents'? Can you provide any example? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And...'Not felt, no damage, ...' earthquakes like that [3] that you have nominated for deletion? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like we're exaggerating some things in other nominations, and I don't want to talk about it. Probably this is not that significant in the term of the casualities, but it surely is if we take into account that this is a very rare plane crash in Chile and that the media coverage of this news is quite decent through the most frequent media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is basically an argument based on precedence. In deletion arguments it's not helpful because there are more than 3 million articles and the deletion process is not always 100% efficient. But here on ITN I can't see why it's a bad argument. Being consistent is pretty important, and here it seems we're being very inconsistent. JimSukwutput 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as creator. 21 deaths is a significant number, and it's the deadliest accident suffered by the FACh since 1977. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, posting this on ITN would give coverage to a country that doesn't get a lot of coverage at ITN (isn't there a guideline that adds a bit more weight to this point, can't think of its name) Mjroots (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ready for posting IMO. Definitely noteworthy. WikifanBe nice 00:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as well. Mainly due to the high profile victims and the widespread coverage. Both articles are also in good shape and ready to post. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Articles look fine but consensus here is sketchy at best, so I wouldn't go as far as to describe the nomination was "ready to post" yet. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First three opposes can be thrown a way because they're based on editor's opinion - e.g, "This isn't newsworthy, blah blah" or "not so notable because this crash killed more people, yaddayadda." Not fair or persuasive rationales. The event has been covered extensively by media organizations and one of the casualties was a person of public interest. I'm sure if this plane crash was American or European it would be posted immediately IMO. WikifanBe nice 02:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The confirmed death of popular journalist Roberto Bruce (who doesn't have an English Wikipedia article, yet) and presenter Felipe Camiroaga, would have been like... "OH MY F***ING GOD THEY'RE DEAD OMG WE'RE GOING NUTS IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD HOW THE **** WILL I WATCH TV NOW" if they were European or US-ians. Systemic bias, at their best expression. Diego talk 04:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I sympathize, English wikipedia is very much American/European as far as users go so it is only natural they would relate to, thus support, incidents involving their nations. A consensus is not a vote, so don't sweat over the opposes. I believe this event is notable enough to be posted, and probably more would too if the plane that crashed carried Matt Lauer. WikifanBe nice 04:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record I would oppose the nomination of an airplane accident similar to this that carried a well-known American or European journalist too. Multiple factors go into my assessment of aircraft accidents and the notability of the passengers is one of them. Many others are involved too and in this case the crash overall just isn't that noteworthy. It's no longer being covered by my preferred online news service, a mere 24 hours after the accident. Unfortunately it will probably be forgotten by all but the Chilean media in the next couple days. N419BH 05:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your preferred online news service? The event is notable, and if the casualties were American journalists it would be on the main page right now. WikifanBe nice 06:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MSNBC. The crash is still on the main page of BBC for me. I continue to say the accident is not notable. If it were the President of Chile or if unusual circumstances were involved, say hijacking, then it would earn my support. The situation as it stands is an airplane crashed in bad weather and a well-known TV anchor was on board. Nothing is particularly noteworthy about either. I'd say the same thing if it were an American anchor. The media love to sensationalize plane crashes. They're machines piloted by humans. They can break, and humans can screw up. I'd argue we wouldn't be here debating this right now if it had been a car crash that killed this individual. His death isn't particularly noteworthy on its own, and neither is the accident on its own. I argue that even together there isn't enough notability for this to be on the main page. N419BH 06:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous airplane crashes have been featured on the main page, why not this one? Yes, the media loves to sensationalize plane crashes - derp. But that isn't our problem. WikifanBe nice 06:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally there are a lot, and if this were something like this or this or this it would earn my support. However, this accident is more like this and this. The only difference between this and the latter two is the presence on board of the news anchor. I don't consider the death of a news anchor to be worldwide front-page newsworthy. Certainly notable in Chile and perhaps more of South/Latin America but not very notable to a worldwide audience. N419BH 06:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not fair comparisons because the two later examples you give occurred before Wikipedia even existed and thus never had a trial at ITN. Smaller aircraft crashes have been posted on the main page, general commercial airline crashes have been posted on the mainpage. It's unfortunate American/European crashes are considered more notable than crashes in Latin America. Aren't human rights universal? If Barbara Walters was on that plane would it not be sent to the main page? WikifanBe nice 06:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Wikipedia existed (barely) in 2001... I'm not disputing that Barbara Walters dying in a plane crash would make ITN, but it would have to get through my Oppose !vote unless some other circumstance were involved. I'm also not disputing that if this were a regular American plane crash...Say Comair Flight 191 or Colgan Air Flight 3407 it would already be on the main page. As I recall Air India Express Flight 812 had considerable opposition before being posted on ITN, and it's fairly common for aircraft accidents occurring in Asia and Africa to be nominated for deletion. Systemic bias is alive and well here on the wiki. My oppose has nothing to do with systemic bias and everything to do with not considering the death of any news anchor of any nationality in any unremarkable plane crash to be notable. I fully respect your opinion that it is I simply disagree with it. Part of this opinion is because I don't generally buy in to the idea of celebrities/famous people actually being important. N419BH 07:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- N419BH, the accident is the deadliest accident involving military planes in Chile since 1982. It's not minor. Diego talk 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good find. Blurb should be changed to say this accident was the deadliest in Chilean Aviation History. WikifanBe nice 18:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chilean military history since 1982...not even close to "deadliest ever in Chile" N419BH 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, "deadliest in the last 20 years" or "almost 30 years." Jesus. WikifanBe nice 19:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deadliest in 20 years, 30 years by one. A 1991 crash killed 20 with over 50 survivors. I appreciate your enthusiasm and respect your opinion but you're not going to change my mind. N419BH 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second worse tragedy in Chilean aviation history. That's certainly not minor. Diego talk 00:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's not get into hypotheticals about who might have been on that plane, because it's a red herring. Matt Lauer and Barbara Walters were not on that plane, so the whole thing is moot Also, it seems that although it's the most serious incident in Chile for years, it's not in the world-wide scheme of things. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the best recent incident of comparison (in terms of "people on plane") I can find happened just last month, when one of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's longest-serving journalists and his news crew were killed in a plane crash. We didn't post that one, so the argument of "if this was Western world we'd post it" really goes flying out the window right there. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
September 2, 2011 (2011-09-02) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Politics
IEA new Executive Director
Nominator's comments: Taken from the WP:ITN/FE. Main energy organization in the world. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The IEA is an unremarkable organisation that few people have heard of. The appointment of a new "executive director" (yet another career bureaucrat who jumped through political hoops for 30 years) is not sufficiently notable to warrant a ITN. Deterence Talk 05:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the number of people have heard about the IEA may be limited. However, based on what you state that the organization is unremarkable? Beagel (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just another quango. Like most quangos, the only people who would even notice if it disappeared would be those with their hands in the till. Deterence Talk 22:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even checked before commenting what kind of organization is it? It is not quango. Beagel (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Wikileaks releases all cables unredacted
Nominator's comments: The release is significant, as is the criticism, including from previously-supportive Reporters Sans Frontières, the NY Times, et al. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the cat's out of the bag. Wikileaks' admission to this and the updated news coverage makes this more significant than within the previous occasion that this story was nominated. Seeing as this will end up being the last Wikileaks story for a while as a result, I would say support but urge that the blurb be modified with regards to the section "drawing widespread criticism" - either omit it, make the origin of the criticism more specific, or elaborate in some other means as to make it appear less POV.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but let's concentrate on the cables. The criticism is not very warranted, seeing that the cables were already available to anyone who really wanted them. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but drop the criticism bit. And it is arguably false that Wikileaks actually was the first to actually release the uncensored cables, so drop the first part of the suggested blurb too. Thue | talk 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clearly a notable event which will be has been picked-up by media around the world. But, focus on the content of the new material, the manner in which is it became available and any significant implications. Further more, I agree with EricLeb and Thue regarding less focus on the predictable criticism of Wikileaks by certain elements of society which is often sensationalised, exaggerated and tends to resemble a witch-hunt. Deterence Talk 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still no update so far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Edited the blurb in response to comments above. JimSukwutput 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose any blurb that does not mention the criticism. Wikileaks' friends have suddenly got a lot fewer as a result of this and it is important to reflect that in the blurb. We have posted Wikileaks' activities in the past and they have always been supported by more mainstream media organisations. It is important to point out that no longer applies in the interests of balance. It is very easy for an "anti-establishment" agenda to implicitly be covered in a favourable light. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Additional comment for the sake of clarity - I'm not interested in the cries of anguish from Washington or similar here - I think we can take that as read. The notable element here seems to be the condemnation from their former mainstream media partners. I that respect the orginin of the criticism may be legitimately made more specific in the manner suggested by WaltCip Crispmuncher (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an important caveat you make. Critical rhetoric from Washington cronies and uptight Tory MPs from the UK isn't worth a damn. But, the joint condemnation from the Guardian, the New York Times, German news magazine Der Spiegel, Spanish daily El Pais and France's Le Monde - the five media sources who proactively collaborated with Wikileaks for the initial publication of the redacted United States diplomatic cables - is very noteworthy and should be included. Deterence Talk 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm neutral on this. While I do agree with the reasoning here, I can also see why many readers would find the blurb biased if they have not went through the same kind of reasoning. And I tend to support keeping the blurb short and concise in these cases, as its main purpose is to provide a link to the article where the topic can be discussed in more detail. JimSukwutput 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? Anybody? No? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, for all the talking, no one seems to want this posted badly enough. For what it's worth, I oppose any blurb that does not mention any criticism, per Crispmuncher. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, that is not our problem. See the section on top: "In order to suggest a candidate: ... Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated." I know we often leave this to other users, but you're really supposed to update the article or have an updated article before you nominated, rather than expecting any other user to do so. JimSukwutput 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't our current practice, and should be changed. It's not my problem anyway either, I really could care less over whether WikiLeaks gets more coverage than it deserves. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
::::Naturally, you mean you couldn't care less.--WaltCip (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update done. We haven't posted anything in 4 days! Let's get something up. Nightw 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could some admin take a look at the complaint about the blurb at Errors Main Page? The request for a change in wording seems well-founded. Sharktopus talk 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Turkey expels Israeli ambassador
* Oppose - I dont find it much notable. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for now - Sorry, i blindly put that comment on. I am not knowledgeable of this topic. Just googled for it and found hundreds of articles coming up about it. Yes, it is sufficiently significant for an update. You see, there has been no news for three days and a sudden twist in the relationship between two nations is big news. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but is there an article or at least a specific section we can link to for details on the UN report? Otherwise maybe Israel–Turkey relations. Nightw 12:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - for Israel–Turkey relations.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per reasons above, but there's one point I'm confused about. Most of the articles I've read attribute the expulsion to the leaking of the UN Report, but at the same time Turkey has rejected the findings of the report (which apparently they have debated over with Israel for a few months). I don't think they're expelling the ambassador because of what's in the report. I think they're expelling him because of what's not inside the report (they're not satisfied with it and expelled the ambassador as an act of protest). Is that correct? JimSukwutput 13:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles suggested say anything about this development. I really want to post this given the dire state of the timer, but we need something resembling an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the sensitivity of this conflict, I suggest any posting must be thoroughly vetted and factually accurate. Time can wait. Sources attribute Turkey's decision to Israel's refusal to not apologizing for the flotilla raid. Turkey has been threatening this well before the UN report leaked. The Palmer Report was just icing on the cake, after it stated Israel's blockade was legal under international law. I suggest the blurb be amended to reflect the conditions of the report, rather than a focus on Turkey. Something like, "A UN report on the flotilla raid determined Israel's blockade of Gaza to be legal, but concluded Israel's raid was carried out with unreasonable force blah blah blah..." source. WikifanBe nice 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support one there's an update, given that this seems at least relatively significant and given that if the timer becomes much more dire ITN might spontaneously combust. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - according to Israel, the ambassador is has already finished his tenure, quote: "Regarding Turkey's decision to expel Israel's envoy to Ankara, the official said the ambassador – Gabi Levy – had already finished his tenure in Ankara, had taken leave of his Turkish counterparts in Ankara, and was returning to Israel in the coming days. No replacement for Levy, whose retirement from the Foreign Ministry has been known for months, was ever named." [4] Another reports says "Israel's ambassador to Ankara, Gabi Levy is currently in Israel on vacation and is retiring from the Foreign Service effective in the middle of September. Israel has not named any replacement for him." [5] It appears there is a downgrading of relationship - presumably the ambassador will not be replaced for some time - but this is not such big news, given the state of Israel-Turkey relations over the past year. The significant news seems to be the release of the UN's Palmer report stating that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was a "legitimate security measure" to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza but that Israel used "excessive force" against the ships breaking the blockade. PopularMax (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most expulsions of diplomatic staff are merely symbolic (its not like anyone cares who's working at an embassy). But, it is precisely that negative symbolism that makes this event notable. Deterence Talk 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per PopularMax links, looks like a real non-event. Mtking (edits) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Diplomatic expulsions generally are purely symbolic acts in any event, so musing on the actual impact of this seems moot, especially when this assessment comes out of Jerusalem. It seems to me that this UN report that triggered the event has been the biggest international story of the past day or so. I thought of nominating that myself but there are issues templates on the relevant articles which would probably take time to short out. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Support per above. Without meaning to play-in to the endless nausea of the Israel-Palestine political saga, this is a notable development in relation to a notable political/military event. The relatively sudden and substantial cooling in relations between Turkey and Israel is a notable development in itself. The fact that the report is authored on behalf of the UN also increases its notability, albeit at the cost of its credibility. Deterence Talk 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Flawed and POV blurb. Mention of report is too ambiguous. Blurb should be about the Palmer Commission, the details (that embarrassed Turkey) led to the Israeli ambassador being expelled. Although Turkey threatened to expel Israel's ambassador for not apologizing over the flotilla incident well before the Palmer Report was leaked. IF anything, the blurb should state the UN's finding explicitly - that Israel's blockade was legal and does not constitute an act of collective punishment (straight from the report). Blurb is not only one-sided but factually inaccurate. WikifanBe nice 00:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That itself would be POV. The report had two headline conclusions: 1) The Gaza blockade is legal and 2) Excessive force was used in the flotilla raid. Mentioning both is balanced, mentioning neither is similarly balanced. Mentioning one without the other is POV. As I noted above the report is the substantive story here but it is precisely that kind of distortion that stops us running with it. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Agreed with Crispmuncher here. There's some not-so-subtle POV-pushing going on here under the guise of neutrality. I don't think we have the perfect blurb, but I'm not going to let Wikifan use my comment to push his agenda (once again). So let me state for the record that I support posting this item. JimSukwutput 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, quite clearly, the blurb should include both statements. The current blurb is blatantly false - Turkey did not expel Israel's ambassador because of this report, they expelled the ambassador because Israel refused to apologize over the flotilla raid. It would be better to simply post the Palmer Report rather than have a one-sided Turkey blurb. Yeah Jim, again with your dubious accusations of "POV-pushing." Please take your insinuation to the appropriate noticeboards with proof. Stop poisoning the discussion with personal attacks. WikifanBe nice 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- *Support The sentence is "Turkey expels Israeli ambassador after this report", not ""Turkey expels Israeli ambassador because of this report".Dizikaygisiz (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC) It is not the same.[reply]
- the sentence is Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador "after details emerged of a UN report." Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador because Israel refused to apologize over the flotilla raid. We know this because the government has said it again and again.. They threatened to expel the ambassador before the release of the report. The current blurb suggests the Israeli ambassador was expelled because of the report - that obviously played a role - but the Turkish government official stance is different. If editors want the report to be mentioned, a neutral blurb would be "Turkey downgrades its relations with Israel after a report on the flotilla raid determined x, y and z." Or "A report released by the UN determined Israel's actions during the flotilla raid to be legal but found the army used unreasonable force. Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador blah blah blah." Prose needs work but I'm just throwing ideas out. WikifanBe nice 02:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikifan: No, I'm not going to take my discussion of this nomination anywhere else. If you repeatedly make inappropriate remarks and accusations in this section, you ought to expect to be called out for it here. Quite recently one of our most frequent contributors Lihaas (a very solid editor whom I respect) was blocked, justifiably, by an admin for turning this place into a political forum. While you have not reached that level of soapboxing, your continued politicizing of what should be a neutral discussion of significance and your provocative comments aimed at other editors (those presumably with opposite political views) are very close to being just as disruptive. This is not a political arena where you can start a crusade against allegedly "one-sided" blurbs. That kind of behavior might be acceptable at an article's talk page, provided that you back up your claims with reliable sources. But this is an internal discussion. This is where a bunch of very professional editors and admins work around the clock to get things posted on time. Your politicizing of every nomination that pertains to your area of interest, and your endless accusations of "POV" bias against other users who you know nothing about, are wasting a lot of their time that could be better spent on nominating more items or updating the articles. Plus it's immensely frustrating to deal with and, I presume, quite a bit insulting for the users who you accused of various heinous acts. JimSukwutput 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim, I think you might be projecting here. It is you who constantly accused editors of "POV-pushing. I did not accuse any editors of POV pushing. I said the blurb was flawed (it is), factually inaccurate (it is), and not neutral (a.k.a POV). I then provided proof to support my reasoning. Instead of responding to my reasoning, you attack me as an editor once again. This just embarrassing Jim. WikifanBe nice 02:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for me to respond to your reasoning because I pretty much agree with it (see my first comment). My issue here is not with your reasoning, it is with your inappropriate remarks coupled with your long history of uncivil remarks and/or hypocritical accusations of POV against other users who might or might not have a different political view from yours, for example here here here here and here (and I'm not even looking at your behavior outside the ITN - for example your grossly inappropriate accusations directed at an admin here).
- As for "personal attacks", I have every right to respond to your comment here. It is a response to your behavior, not your person. JimSukwutput 02:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made no inappropriate remarks here. I have filed an etiquette notice regarding your accusations of "POV-pushing." Feel free to include your grievances there. WikifanBe nice 02:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support depending on posting admin finding a suitably sourced update. Event of obvious diplomatic significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurb is POV if it would be changed according to user:Crispmuncher I would Support see below--Shrike (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The article has been updated. I changed the blurb and marked [Ready]. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait up. The blurb is confusing. What's the story being posted, the UN report or the diplomatic incident with Turkey? The expulsion of the ambassador was over Israel's refusal to apologise for the deaths of nine Turks killed in the incident. It didn't have anything to do with the UN's conclusion that the incident was legal. Nightw 12:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But we should give a context.The diplomatic incident with Turkey happened after the report was leaked and Israel didn't want to apologise becouse the report found that the boarding was legal though excessive force was used so I Support updated blurb --Shrike (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the Israeli government refused to apologise because it believes its troops acted in self defence, not because the UN determined the action to be legal. If the story being posted is about the findings of the report, the article being updated should be Palmer Report. The proposed blurb strays from the focus of the story into a completely separate story. Nightw 13:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've struck my support until the blurb is tightened. Stay on topic. Nightw 13:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose As with Night w, I have struck my support. The original blurb was not perfect but acceptable; this one is much worse. JimSukwutput 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh? I said the same thing Night said. Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israeli refused to apologize for the Gaza flotilla raid. In fact, Turkey threatened to expel the Israeli ambassador before the release of the report. This is why I suggest the blurb be about the actual report, rather than the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. Gaza flotilla raid received several main page postings, the conclusion of a UN investigation is very notable. The original blurb was just wrong - factually speaking. WikifanBe nice 18:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then feel free to nominate that story. You'll also need to update the flotilla article. Nightw 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is updated. I don't care too much, I'm saying a viable alternative to this blurb exists. The original blurb (Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador because of the report) was false, I explained why. Jim went on a tangent because I'm the one who said that, you say the same thing - in less words - and suddenly its an oppose. ITN is a bit of a joke in this situation no? I'm not against Turkey expels the Israeli ambassador, but the news is rather stale. The blurb could be revised to summarize a general downgrade in relations. Something like, "Report determines Israeli blockade legal, Turkey is pissed and and seeks an IJC investigation. UN/US call for a return to normalized relations, blah blah." Turkey's status as a NATO member, host of US nuclear weapons system, and historic ally of Israel is very notable. This 180 change in foreign relations is an important story but the expulsion of the ambassador is more of a symbolic gesture. The blurb could be something like, "A diplomatic row between Israel and Turkey is triggered following Israel's refusal to apologize for the Gaza Flotilla Raid and a UN investigation that determined Israel's blockade to be legal..." Sources suggest Turkey's new approach towards Israel is definitely about Gaza, and not just an apology. WikifanBe nice 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, well in the absence of any formal nomination of the other story and since you don't oppose posting anything about this story, I've amended the blurb again and marked the item as ready. Nightw 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still on oppose because Turkey didn't simply expel the ambassador over the flotilla raid. Blurb is too open-ended and no context suggests a conflict with NPOV (not to mention verifiability). I didn't know regular editors could amend a blurb they didn't start, is that allowed? WikifanBe nice 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am the nominator and I certainly don't mind the amended blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, obviously I support the nomination now. Can't speak for Jim. Nightw 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To re-iterate, I do not support the blurb because that is not the reason Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador. WikifanBe nice 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mistake IMO Mitchell. I suggest proof-reading a blurb before posting. See grammar issue? Going to ERRORS now. WikifanBe nice 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Mitchell, is it fair of admins to post a blurb they support? Is that a COI or something? Pardon my ignorance, I remember another editor bringing this issue up before in a different proposal. WikifanBe nice 21:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its ok as long as consensus is clear even without their own support. There is already shortage of admins, cant be too picky now. -- Ashish-g55 23:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, but it have been more credible for an uninvolved admin not part of the topic area to enforce the posting. Editors who oppose the current blurb have not been approached as of late. I made a report in ERRORS, hopefully the blurb will be taken down or amended to reflect actual sources. WikifanBe nice 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the above discussion and the one at WP:ERRORS, I've revised the blurb to read "Turkey expels Israel's ambassador following Israel's refusal to apologize for its 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla." This much is undisputed and reported by reliable sources. —David Levy 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 India–Pakistan border shooting
Nominator's comments: (1) Notability: Cross-border incident between two large countries with a not-so-pleasant history. Loss of life on both sides due to hostile fire. The cover story on the South Asia pages for BBC, CNN and Reuters. (2) Article Update: Updates added based on claims by both countries. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- How can a "Cross-border incident between two large countries with a not-so-pleasant history" even warrant a separate article? –HTD 04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didnt create the article, but I presume the same logic used for the creation of separate articles for Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and Battle of Daecheong were used (although admittedly the scale of both of these two were larger, but not by too much). I am guessing you are questioning the notability of the event - I concede that this is not earth shattering, but things have been (relatively) cool for some time now and both countries have just started talking to each other until this happened. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I created the article and there have been articles published before on such skirmishes. As far as the article is concerned, it is notable. Mar4d (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I initially added this (if you go through the page history) on ITN although later retrieved it. I think that while the event is notable and has made headines in some news, the occurence itself is not quite notable because there has been periodical unrest a number of times along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. This particular incident is nothing different. Mar4d (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Agreeing with Mar4d, India and Pakistan have been on a dispute for like... forever i must say. (I live in india), Something happening within the borders with just three or four people dying is very common these days. And also, the shooting doesnt require a separate article. It could possible be merged into one of the previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, there are no "previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history." If there was/were, then this could have been merged. I think we can always create an article on India–Pakistan skirmishes, similiar to how we have Pakistan – United States skirmishes and Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes. Interested editors can then update the article with some of the sporadic conflicts along the border that may have taken place in the past although that would require a lot of research and work (no guarantee that I will be an extensive contributor). Mar4d (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose agree with above. it is business as usual at the LOC.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose They've been using each other for target practice on that border for years. SNAFU. Deterence Talk 23:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
September 1
|
|
September 1, 2011 (2011-09-01) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
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.jpg)