Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikifan12345 (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 3 September 2011 (→‎[Ready?] Turkey expels Israeli ambassador). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

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.

Nemo
Nemo

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • 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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • 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.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Suggestions

For future events in 2011, see Wikipedia:In the news/Future events/2011.

September 3

September 3, 2011 (2011-09-03) (Saturday)
Disasters

Chilean military plane crashes

Articles: 2011 Chilean Air Force CASA 212 crash (talk · history · tag) and Felipe Camiroaga (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Chilean military plane with 21 people on board, including television presenter Felipe Camiroaga, crashes in an unknown place near the Juan Fernández Islands. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua, Huffington Post The Huffington Post 2 CTV Canada BBC The Globe and Mail The Guardian The New York Times MSNBC
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 [1] 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]

September 2

September 2, 2011 (2011-09-02) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics

IEA new Executive Director

Article: Maria van der Hoeven (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs, Maria van der Hoeven, takes office as Executive Director of the International Energy Agency. (Post)
News source(s): (Wall Street Journal)
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]

[Posted] Wikileaks releases all cables unredacted

Article: United States diplomatic cables leak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ WikiLeaks publishes its entire cache of uncensored United States diplomatic cables (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian/El Pais/NY Times/Der Spiegel/Le Monde joint statement, Reporters Without Borders
Article updated
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]
  • 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]

[Ready?] Turkey expels Israeli ambassador

Article: Israel–Turkey relations (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Turkey expels its ambassador to Israel over the 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article updated

* 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) (see below)[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." [2] 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." [3] 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]

2011 India–Pakistan border shooting

Article: 2011 India–Pakistan border shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ One Indian soldier and three Pakistani soldiers are killed in a cross-border shooting. (Post)
News source(s): ABC, AFP, Al Jazeera BBC, CNN, Reuters
Credits:
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

August 31

August 31, 2011 (2011-08-31) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

2011 Texas wildfires

2011 Atlantic hurricane season

Law and crime

Arctic & oil

ExxonMobil and OAO Rosneft reach a deal which may reach $500 billion in projects in the Arctic.

An article would be required. Significant development for the Arctic, I'd say. And we're running red with the timer. --Tone 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, large business deal. --Kslotte (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending a well-referenced article. Massive economic and environmental significance. Deterence Talk 14:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is nothing to support ! Mtking (edits) 22:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody would write an article I would support just to give us something to post. Three nominations in the last 4 days, and two of them don't even have articles... There must be something going on in the world! Modest Genius talk 00:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been pretty quiet, now that I think of it. The Wikileaks ordeal and Libya is all I'm hearing as of lately. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about these two? (Note Beagel (talk · contribs) also deserves credit on the East-Prinovozemelsky field one) Suggest a blurb of Rosneft and ExxonMobil establish a $3.2 billion joint venture to develop Arctic and Black Sea oil fields or something vaguely along those lines (I don't particularly like the way the links to the two field articles are linked behind entirely different words). The Arctic field article is better, so I bolded that one. I put together the Black Sea article in a hurry, but if someone expands it further they could both get bolded. C628 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jawad al-Sheikh

Article: Death of Ali Jawad al-Sheikh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ali Jawad al-Sheikh, a 14-year-old boy protester, is killed by Bahrain police, inciting further unrest. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, The New York Times, AFP, AlJazeera
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Here is a picture of his corpse (warning: graphic). I think his story is similar to Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Saeed and Hamza Al-Khateeb -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have not posted any of the above. Besides, we even don't have an article. --Tone 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, We failed to do so due to the fact the articles were written after the window to post them passed. as for you other point, you did nominate "Arctic & oil" to be in ITN even tho it doesnt have an article. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What is the notability of his death? WikifanBe nice 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other who died in Bahrain, this one is well documented. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has it been confirmed that Mr. Al-Khateeb was actually murdered by the police? If so, please link to it. Here in Chile, there has been a lot of controversy whether a policeman killed or not a student protester called Manuel Gutiérrez; it was confirmed just yesterday by the Interior Ministry that a policeman whose Mapuche surname I can't recall killed him, so this may be the case too of the Bahraini guy?  Diego  talk  23:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its best to read the sources and decide for yourself. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see the significance (yet). JimSukwutput 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As tragic as that story is, it is just one unremarkable death among the countless thousands of innocent civilians who are killed by their own governments every year. Therefore, it is not sufficiently WP:Notable. Deterence Talk 04:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Tragic story, but doesn't meet our criteria for posting deaths. Swarm u | t 12:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

August 30, 2011 (2011-08-30) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics

False certificate for google.com

Article: DigiNotar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A false digital certificate for google.com, signed by DigiNotar, is found in Iran. (Post)
News source(s): Ars Technica
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The digital certificate system is a cornerstone of Internet security. Digital certificates protect against man in the middle attacks when using https. In their infinite wisdom, the designers made it such that any certificate authority (CA) can make a certificate for any domain. So the fact that a CA has apparently been compromised, and an unknown number of false certificates created, has potential security implications for all websites using https, not just google. See also Comodo_Group#Iran_SSL_certificate_controversy, which was a similar incident 5 months ago, also involving Iran. This incident will further motivate the current effort to redesign the security of the Internet, probably using DANE+DNSSEC. I am not aware of any other incidents than this one and Comodo, so this incident should be unique enough to feature ITN. Thue : talk 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Thue. jorgenev 00:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a technophobe who is suffering under considerable ignorance about anything to do with computers, I am struggling to fully appreciate the significance of this story. Can we see some comment about the wider implications of a compromise in the integrity of a Certificate Authority? Deterence Talk 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not much of a wider implication. One of the many CAs' credibility has basically crumbled, but all major browsers have already taken necessary action to 'untrust' the company. Therefore the danger is passed. This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs, such as VeriSign, now owned by Symantec. The Comodo controversy was caused by a flaw in the company's security, which is probably the reason for this forgery as well... but again, it means nothing for other CAs. Oppose for that reason. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, but you miss the point. The CA system is set up to be no more secure than the weakest CA. So it is irrelevant that "This doesn't question the credibility of bigger CAs". Thue | talk 08:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what I'm talking about, though. The Comodo controversy was caused by the hacking of the administrative user accounts -- those that issue the actual certificates -- due to a flaw in the company's security; not in the CA system. That's how I understand it, anyway. The hacker gained access to the actual issuing process and issued valid certificates to fraudulent websites. That would mean that the company needs better security... because regardless of how secure certificates are, there will always have to be an administrator account issuing those certificates. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trivial, techie story which has no major impact.  Diego  talk  01:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Iran has hacked the main Dutch authority provider 2) Iran has been impersonating Google 3) This will be a major motivation to redesign a fundamental part of Internet security. This is not trivial. Thue | talk 08:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to [5], "this is the first time that a fake certificate is known to have been successfully used in the wild". Thue | talk 08:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose singificant tech news, but not of public intrest. --Kslotte (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can certainly agree that most people don't get up in the morning and think about the current problems in computer authentication. But on the other hand, everybody is dependent on the CA system, for example when they check their web-based email. So I would argue that "the public is not interested", not "not of public intrest". IMO the ITN should be whether something is significant, not whether people are generally aware of it. Thue | talk 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Thue and the glaringly red timer. C628 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I wouldn't normally have a strong opinion either way on this, but due to the standstill ITN is currently experiencing I'm going to go with Thue on this one and support. FTR, I've also marked this as a minority topic as it's obviously a tech-related story. Swarm u | t 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a minority topic and a cure to the no new news for two days blues. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're a poet who didn't know it. Deterence Talk 10:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an administrator, I wouldn't post this no matter what support it had, in the state the article is in. The topic is certainly worthwhile, and newsworthy, and ITN-worthy, but folks, look at the article. It's an article about a company which says nothing about the company. Its a big, disgusting, textbook case of WP:COATRACK. If there were a three- or four-fold increase in the text of the article dealing with the company in question, which was not about this one scandal, then we may have something postable. But we simply cannot put this substandard tripe on the mainpage for the world to see. Please. Again, ITN-worthy topic, but definately NOT an ITN-worthy ARTICLE. Someone please fix it, and I will post it. --Jayron32 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.


For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=448267901"