This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Nominator's comments: Top one day race in genuinely international Olympic Sport, that this was in the offing was used as reason not to post the Vuelta a Espana result two weeks ago. Yes, there were also women's (and age restricted) events, and I would not object to those results being added, but the difference in level of professionalism and coverage throughout the year is vast. --Kevin McE (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, an article about a power outage. I honestly never thought I'd see that. Love the image by the way! I'm not even going to... Nightw17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here are some more articles for you to be amazed at. As for the nomination, I suppose the article would need some work, and regarding notability - while its mentioned in many international newspages, I cant really spot this amongst the headlines. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for obvious reasons, the main one being "just a blackout". They happen so often in places far bigger than Chile that it's not even worth talking about. — Joseph Fox18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now, based on significance and update size (see Criteria). I would like to see what, if any, noteworthy effects the blackout has had or will have; absent such information, it is difficult to see how a one-hour blackout is sufficiently significant (notability is another matter (Added 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC):, and the blackout likely will prove to be notable)). Also, new event-specific articles should have approximately three "complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" before being posted to ITN. -- Black Falcon(talk)19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added two paragraphs to the article, so it is now almost 1,500 characters long. This should satisfy ITN's length criteria, but significance is still questionable, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon(talk)20:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scale of the blackout for developed countryis very impressive and unusual. The duration was short and it was a time of night where the impact was low. Had this been longer blackout and had it been during the work day this would have been a speedy post situation. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Obvious reasons, but relevant coverage of women's political rights in Saudi seems sparse and there is no dedicated article. FWIW, I've updated the relevant content and posted a request at the Feminism Wikiproject.
Support This extraordinary news is one of the most notable developments in Middle Eastern politics in years. I see no journalistic value in waiting until the first election before posting this in ITN. DeterenceTalk13:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the update: [2]. There doesn't seem to be any additional information from today's news sources that could be added. What additional info might be proposed?--FormerIP (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but note that Saudi Arabia does not hold any elections beyond the municipal level. The significance of this story is that they are now, under the law, only a little inferior to men. But this does not mean that common women (or men) would hold actual power. JimSukwutput18:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I'm having a little local difficulty with an editor mass-reverting the updates to the article. For the time being, please refrain from voting "not ready", because you may not be looking at the updated version. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while this item has a strong support, it is better to wait until the editorial conflict settles, then it's ready to post. --Tone21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle when updated, but that blurb needs reworking. How can you retain this year's title? Which title anyway? I don't know the subject well but there's at least the men's and women's, and probably a wheelchair class as well. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wish people would stop calling it a world record, and comparing it with the 100 metre world record. The 100 metres is run on very standardised tracks, always flat and with strict limits on wind speed, etc. Marathons are run on very different courses in every different place. It's silly to compare the times on a flat course with a tail wind to those on a hilly course with hot head wind. Some courses are deliberately designed to allow faster times to be achieved. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Significant event in the cultural history of Spain. Ban on bullfighting article is appropriately short. Controversy section unsourced at present. I've been through and improved the citing.
Weak Support Blurb should be expanded, maybe something like "After x many years of bullfighting, the state/region/whatever of Catalonia imposes a ban on the sport/practice/whatever." The "last" bullfight isn't the issue, the ban is. WikifanBe nice03:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable development in the politics of animal rights. Spain's first regional ban of bullfighting of will be of great popular interest, particularly around the Western world. Just don't tell Hemingway. DeterenceTalk04:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have no problems in supporting this normally, however, the voting took place almost a month ago, i.e. it is old news. Secondly, the BBC article was news because it states that: "The ban takes effect on 1 January, but Sunday's fights in Catalonia will be the last events of the 2011 season." This being the case, both the article and the blurb need to mention that the last fight has taken place. I presume, by the time this is published (if it gets there), then this would be the case. If not, then this item will be without proper context. --SMasters (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I'm moving to an oppose for this time. We can't claim that, "The last bullfight takes place in Catalonia..." because we do not know that for sure. The ban only comes into force on 1 January. They could still have practice sessions or other show events legally. --SMasters (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have a bullfighting season which ends today. If we get caught out that way, though, we'll only be in the company of all the worlds' media. --FormerIP (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of that. I am saying that the blurb is misleading and wrong. Since it has been posted before, waiting for 1 January would be a lot better. It's only in a few months' time. – SMasters (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather err on the side of publishing than not. It's not like a 2nd posting is going to break ITN - we have dozens of Israel-Palestine ITN posts to do that for us. DeterenceTalk13:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—we post developments in the same story regularly. Twice in 14 months is nothing compared to some other stories we've repeatedly posted. Swarm16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care much about this one way or the other to be honest. I was generally supportive but then I though about: it's only Catalonia which has generally not been a big bull-fighting region anway. I also don't like any rationale based on it being the first region to do so: that implies to me the rest will inevitably follow. I agree its notable but it is also easily overplayed. ITN material? I'm not sure myself. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support. A significant milestone. This has been part of the culture for hundreds of years. So what if we've posted something about it before, we're obviously not going to be posting it again! Nightw17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not that we posted something about it and it's not a new development. It is the exactly the same thing that we posted before. There are a lot of stories on ITN that are more important than others (the end of DADT, for example), but we don't post them more than once just because of notability. JimSukwutput18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This almost reads like a rallying call from the cult of Einstein that has emerged for unspecified reasons in recent days. There's no way I'm supporting this counter-attack while the exceptionally notable announcement by CERN/OPERA is withering in the drawing room. DeterenceTalk11:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Seems the article had been ready in March already, and there were some more news on the topic since then, though for some reason it became widely publicized only this week. Better to submit it for DYK I think. Anyway too much Russian news. GreyHoodTalk11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Posted] Vladimir Putin accepts Dmitry Medvedev's proposal to run for the Russian Presidency
Updated by Nanobear (talk·give credit) and [[User:>|>]] ([[User talk:>|talk]] ·[{{fullurl:User talk:>|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BDmitry+Medvedev%5D%5D§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Dmitry+Medvedev&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])
Support Obviously an extremely notable development in Russian politics, especially given that this virtually guarantees that Putin will return to the Presidency. (I'm confused. Like the President of the USA, the Russian President has a two term limit. How is Vladimir Putin legally permitted to run for a third term?) DeterenceTalk11:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was speculation that Putin would do this from the very moment Medvedev was set to succeed Putin as President. Legally, a third non-consecutive term is not prohibited.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Maybe we should mention that Medvedev himself is not yet term-limited, which makes this event even more humiliating notable. Colchicum (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again your hyperscepticism towards Russian politics. Why should he be humiliated if he has done exactly what half or more of Russia's population expected him to do? GreyHoodTalk11:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Skepticism of Russian politics, particularly Putin, is hardly uncommon and frankly is warranted in this case. Of course we should be objective in our coverage of Russia, but this isn't a Wikipedia article, it's a forum and some POV should be tolerated for debate. (A point I was reminded of myself earlier). Personally, I don't know if it's humiliating though it certainly is strong evidence that Medvedev was subservient to Putin all along, which was widely-believed all along anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with simpler blurb - But if a proposal is not a requirement for running for president like I think it is, I would just eliminate any mention of Medvedev. At the United Russia Congress, Vladimir Putin announces his candidacy for the President of Russia.MarcusQwertyus16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't like that. Putin didn't just come and announced; first Medvedev proposed, then Putin accepted. Giving the fact that Medvedev in turn accepted to head United Russia, the majority party, at the elections, this is important. GreyHoodTalk16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant development in Russian politics and effectively means Putin is going to be the next President of Russia. Hut 8.519:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even more importantly, could someone reset the timer, which is still red? I'd do it but don't seem to be allowed to, not sure if that's an adminny thing or what. Jusdafax21:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
South Korean prosecutors raid the offices of seven savings banks whose operations were suspended last week, with the president of one bank committing suicide. (Yonhap)
Support pending announcement of the outcome of the application. This is one of the more notable milestones to appear in the endless nausea of the Palestine-Israel Shakespearean saga. DeterenceTalk15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only once it has happened, when it will undoubtedly need a different blurb. Also, does the template on the article indicate that it may not be ready? --FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All they've done is submitted an application. No voting is going to be taking place until at least October. And since something will definitely come out of this, I'd say we just put off posting something until it happens. Nightw15:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yeah I guess. But I imagined that we were talking about the next day or so. My "support but" meant inevitably yes but get the exact hour right. It now seems that's not how it will be. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that (unless the United States has been setting up a big practical joke on Israel or Dr Rice arrives to the UN Headquarters on meth) the United States is going to veto the Palestinian bid on Monday, do we put this failed bid up then? Or should we wait to see if they ask the UNGA to consider becoming an observer state? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely well informed about the UN, but I see no reason why the US would get a veto here. Isn't this just a General Assembly matter, not a Security Council one? NW(Talk)01:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Obama has already indicated that there will be a veto. I'm not sure if the timetabling of Monday is correct or not, but that's what I meant above when I said "will undoubtedly need a different blurb" - one that will include the words "US veto". --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This story has been big throughout much of September, and the drama surrounding it has been simmering for months. How you have managed to stay away from this news story, and the fact that the UNSC and the U.S. veto are relevant to Palestine's admission as a full member, is beyond me. But I suppose -- in some way -- you can consider yourself lucky. -- tariqabjotu04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In his/her defence, after all these years of the same stupid sisyphean crap my eyes tend to glaze-over when I see news reports about the Israel-Palestine problem. DeterenceTalk06:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His, and yep. I read the New York Times daily, but sort-of-kind-of-not-really on purpose, have basically ignored Israel for the last while; the whole thing just annoys me too much. I haven't read anything substantial on Israel–Palestine since at least summer 2010, when I picked up a copy of John Stoessinger's Why Nations Go To War. NW(Talk)07:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could flick through and get something if I had the energy but I'm a bit pre-occupied. Continue to discuss if you wish. Nightw07:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Support once outcome is revealed, irrespective of what the outcome is. Even if the US vetoes it (which it almost certainly will), it would still be important. This has been widely reported internationally and has significant international ramifications. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, when the UN acts, then it will be news. If it's posted now, I would oppose a repost if the expected result occurs, unless we want to post that the sun rose each day, which is rather remarkable and led our ancestors to doubt, cherish and worship that event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support when it falls. This is the first time in my remembrance such thing to occur, and its importance raised through the media to point the right place of the blow receives already a widespread attention and worries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get what the big deal is - space-junk falls to Earth all the time - but this seems to have captured to attention of the world's media. DeterenceTalk14:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supportonce it falls. This is significant because it's not just "space junk", it's a bus-sized satellite that will not fully burn up, and its debris might land in the United States, injuring people or causing damage (very low possibility, but still there). It's been in the news a lot because until recently they really had no idea where the debris will land.
Oppose It apparently just landed in the ocean, I don't even think they know where. It turned out to be a non-event. Swarmu / t11:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well if it might land in the USA, that is significant. We'll just have to hope that it lands in one of the other places in the most recent forecast, like Canada, Africa, or Australia, where any damage or injury will be less significant. Kevin McE (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an astoundingly inappropriate thing to say. I'm equally concerned about human life everywhere in the world, and for you to suggest that I only care about this because it might've landed in the US is totally insulting. I would ask you to strike that comment. Thanks. Swarmu / t11:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made two comments in this thread that only referred to the possibility of it causing damage in the US: you made the area of your concern quite explicit. If you want people to believe that your concern is universal, you will have to consider your comments more carefully. Kevin McE (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't just "say that" due to a personal bias as you're suggesting, I was basing it directly from NASA's live updates. NASA initially didn't know where it would land. They then narrowed it down to it potentially landing in the United States, which is the only reason I mentioned that country at all! If NASA predicted a possibility of it landing in Bangladesh or Argentina, of course I would have supported and mentioned those countries instead, but they didn't. Perhaps you should look in the September archives to see the earlier nomination for my position on the matter. Perhaps you should have followed the link I provided to see where I was coming from. Or, best of all, perhaps you should read the "please do not" section of the header before you jump to conclusions and make such wild and completely unfounded accusations of ethnocentrism, something I utterly loathe, and am nothing short of shocked to be accused of. Swarmu / t14:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the link that you put up: that's where I got "the other places in the most recent forecast, like Canada, Africa, or Australia" from. Like I say, if you are concerned about the conclusions that people might draw, be careful of what you say. Kevin McE (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you had considered Jim's comment below before continuing to push this. Again, I was following live updates. At the time I looked at it, "Update #10" was the most recent update (I left my comment hours before "Update #11", the first to mention other countries, was posted). You could've pointed out that there was a newly-reported possibility of it landing in other countries, and I would've happily amended my comment. That would've been much more constructive than accusing me of ethnocentrism. If I made a mistake due to carelessness, I'd happily admit it. However, as my comment was simply based on outdated information, I would respectfully ask you to at least acknowledge that this is a misunderstanding. Swarm22:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also initially read it the way Kevin did, but, Kevin, Swarm's explanation from 14:02 (UTC) should have definitively cleared up why he only mentioned the U.S. Your curt repetition of the discounted claim even after that comment is rather insulting. -- tariqabjotu03:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I felt the same way as Kevin McE when I initially read your comments. Note that the only reason NASA mentioned that some debris might hit the U.S. is because they previously said that they won't - NASA had predicted that all the pieces will likely land elsewhere, such as Eurasia (they thought the pieces will re-enter during Friday afternoon, when it won't be flying above North America). Your comment about it being significant because it might hits the U.S. then gives the impression that you're discounting the even higher possibility that it'll land elsewhere. But given this series of exchange I think it's probably because you haven't been following the news on this item so closely (a good thing) and had misunderstood the situation. So let's simply regard it as a trivial misunderstanding. JimSukwutput16:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Re-entries happen on average once every day. This one just happens to catch more attention because it's bigger and the possibility of causing damage is slightly higher. But that is still an extremely small possibility. Ultimately this will likely amount to nothing, except another demonstration of the fearmongering abilities of the mass media and the incredibly poor grasp of statistics among the public. JimSukwutput16:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a low probability any debris that survives re-entry will land in the United States, but the possibility cannot be discounted..."[8] ← That is not normal. Swarmu / t17:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The chances of a particular person getting hit by debris is a few thousand times lower than the chance of the same person getting killed by a falling coconut today. So why aren't we posting the imminent ripening of thousands of coconuts on Earth?
Ultimately this attracted attention because it's a curiosity. You know, debris "falling from the sky". But we don't post items based on how curious they are. That's for sections like DYK. JimSukwutput18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless it hits someone or does some damage. It isn't at all unusual for objects such as this to re-enter Earth's atmosphere (one falls per year according to [9]) and the only interesting thing about this one is that the probability of humans being injured is 1 in 3,200 rather than the 1 in 10,000 NASA aims for. If someone does get hit by the satellite then that would be newsworthy (only one person has ever been hit by space debris, and she wasn't injured) but that's extremely unlikely. Hut 8.517:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support once re-entry is confirmed and the article reflects this information. Although I do not consider the event to be particularly significant (for reasons noted by others above), it is "in the news" and the article and update are decent. In general, I think that it is worth posting marginally significant news if it helps to highlight relatively good-quality articles that are of interest to our readers. The article received almost 15,000 views yesterday, up from <50 one month ago. -- Black Falcon(talk)19:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative blurb suggestion: On this slow-news day, the sun rose, the paper was delivered, the cat meowed and more crap fell out of the sky. Just like every other day.DeterenceTalk20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Chances are that the re-entry will happen over populated areas, making this a once in a lifetime spectacular event. You can find if there are passes of the UARS visible to you on the Heavens Above website. Check for all passes, including invisible passes, the UARS will be visible when it re-enters even if it is in the Earth's shadow. Count Iblis (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support purely down to the coverage this is getting (which is unarguably "a lot"). If it hits something, then that's een more reason. — Joseph Fox02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the debris has already landed at unknown locations (most likely in the ocean) 12. Let's see how much more coverage the media can manage to squeeze out of this non-event. JimSukwutput06:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
election commission is collating final results for publication, though officially annunced with 95% counted. Is that the only thing thats not ready?Lihaas (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. I mean the article does not currently meat LEAD requirements, there are maintenance tags, and it's just generally too small in my opinion. Nightw05:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
meaning who and which? its not effective of the result and ITN is not as stringent here as DYK. (answered 1 tag, and 1/4 of the other tag)
more crappier election articles have been posted. It ddeals with more issues and content (violence, criticism, etc) than other articles we posted. (Hungary comes tio mind)
Are we here to discuss other nominations or this one? Perhaps you should spend your time on the article you nominated instead of whining about others... Oppose for now. Nightw10:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This topic is ITN/R, so we're just assessing whether it is ready. The article shows promise, but there is virtually no content about the results of the election for the representatives of the General Assembly. Indeed, if it wasn't mentioned in the lede then the casual reader might believe it was solely a Presidential election. I'll await an update of the voting results before supporting this. DeterenceTalk07:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No obvious issues with the article. Expecting an FA candidate for an article about a general election in a developing country is systematic bias. --FormerIP (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. He's been sworn in now. I take the point about the parliamentary election results being sparse, but there is sufficient information about the presidential election to warrant posting it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My only issue with the article is that it is entirely about the Presidential election and has no content about the general election for representatives of the General Assembly. I'm not even sure there was a general election, (in addition to the Presidential election), which would make the title and the lede of the article quite misleading. DeterenceTalk20:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In presidential systems, the term "general election" stands for the election of all positions in government, probably including the local positions (in some places). At least that's how I understand it in my neck of the woods... –HTD12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on significance and update quality. Saleh's return to Yemen is noteworthy but its significance is not altogether clear yet. After all, he wasn't exactly driven out of the country so much as he left for reasons of health and/or security. Also, the size of the update – only one sentence, currently – is insufficient, perhaps because there isn't (yet) much more to say about this development. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any connection between Saleh's return to Yemen and the assassination of Rabbani, other than that they occurred within a few days of each other, so I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question. -- Black Falcon(talk)00:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose unless confirmed. If it's true, it's obviously one of the most important experiments for decades. But it's far more likely to be a systematic effect on the data. Even the team themselves aren't claiming a detection. Nor has it been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Also, the neutrinos are made at CERN but detected at Gran Sasso, who made the announcement. Modest Geniustalk21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. Wikipedia does not publish gossip or original research. Remember that this is an unverified observation. They are not saying it could not be just a bug in their equipment. Reproducibility is one of the central pilars of science, and these results have not yet been reproduced. It would be truly groundbreaking if the observation was reproduced by an indepdendent team, but given that particle detectors at this scale are very complicated instruments, I suggest holding the ITN until an indendent team of researchers verifies this claim using their own equipment. --hydrox (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC) (edit: support for new blurb 21:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
"PR department of the highest science agency in all the land"? I guess you must be refering to CERN, which has made no press release. Assuming the BBC and AP have not suddenly become the PR department at CERN. --hydrox (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are reading the reports utterly wrongly as is demonstrated below. CERN are not reporting this. Due diligience is an important part of ITN and you're not apllying it I'm sorry to say. Pedro : Chat 21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spokesman in the telegraph.co.uk article above is apparently from CERN. He is the "spokesman for the international group of researchers". Nevertheless, the point is there is no gossip here. MarcusQwertyus21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Travelling faster than the speed of light. CERN has the highest reputation in the international scientific (cosmological physics) community. If you know anything about physics, you know that this is a very big deal - Einstein is having conniptions in his grave. DeterenceTalk21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a) no-one at CERN has said anything, as far as I am aware. The report comes from Gran Sasso. b) CERN is indeed a top particle physics institute. It is not a top 'cosmological physics' (by which I assume you mean cosmology) institute. Modest Geniustalk21:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. It is a particle physics lab. I have a PhD in astronomy, I know what I'm talking about here. If you still don't believe me, see how many times the words 'cosmology', 'cosmological' or 'Big Bang' are used in our article on CERN (hint: it's zero). Modest Geniustalk22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> Various commentators on this item have suggested that those !vote oppose simply doesn't understand the science, so shouldn't pass judgement. I thought that was relevant information that demonstrated that I am indeed qualified to know what is and isn't cosmology. Your opinion obviously differs. Modest Geniustalk00:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm less than impressed by argumentum ad hominem. Especially given the number of ignorant morons I know who have been awarded degrees. As far as the my degrees are bigger/more numerous than your degrees argument goes, I haven't been beaten in years, but how is that in any way relevant? DeterenceTalk06:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it, certainly with the blurb proposed I know a lot a decent amount about physics as it goes, and I also know a lot about what journalists want to put on the front page. CERN have announced nothing like "neutrinos are breaking the speed of light". For a start it's a member of the OPERA collaboration [12]. Let's not descend to front page GOTCHA journalism here. Pedro : Chat 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. CERN has made no press release. They were detecting particles generated at CERN, but the Italian OPERA project is the head talking, not CERN. This is fodder for the science fiction mind, but instruments/data have given erroneous results so many, many times before, that this should not even be news. --hydrox (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No one really believes that the neutrinos in this experiment really travelled faster than light. The problem is that the experiment seems to indicates this, and that's mostly an experimental problem (these experiments are very complicated). Einstein's theory of relativity won't be overthrown by this, because special relativity is nothing more than saying that Lorentz invariance symmetry holds (i.e. if you perform an experiment inside an isolated box and someone peforms the same experimennt in another isolated box that moves w.r.t. to you, the results should be the same, so you there is no such thing as absolute motion). Now Lorentz invariance has been tested to enormous accuracy at very high energies, so we can be confident that this holds also in the regime at which this particular experiment was performed. Then the issue with something going faster than light while Lorentz invariance still holds is this paradox. So, if we assume that neutrinos really do go faster than light in this experiment, then you could build a device that allows you to send messages to yourself into your own past. So, yo could today receive a phone call coming from yourself from tomorrow. But then you coud decide to not call yourself up tomorrow if you receive a phonecall today and vice versa, leading to a paradox. This causal paradox is the reason why no one believes that you can send information faster than light (at least as long as we assume that there are no violations of Lorentz invariance, but no such violations have been found). So, repeating the statements from the news articles that "Einstein's relativity could be overturned" would let us look rather dumb as unlike the news articles, Wikipedia is thought to be edited by experts. Count Iblis (talk)
Not yet. Count Iblis may be right, but if he is wrong and the results seen are confirmed then this will be very big news indeed. At the moment it is an interesting finding which needs explaining. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Apparently this is just very very slightly faster than the speed of light, so it is not that impressive after all. Ok, seriously, neutrinos may travel faster than light but ITN updates on science topics do not travel faster than a peer-review paper... --Tone22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate (and even support) why responsible editors would want to wait for CERN to make a formal announcement before publishing this (alleged) discovery in ITN, requiring peer-review of the discovery is unnecessarily restrictive and such an approach is not supported by precedent when other scientific and medical discoveries have been announced. WP:RSs together with appropriate caveats is sufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia's ITN. DeterenceTalk22:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't help but feel most of these opposes are themselves based on interpretative OR. CERN know what they're doing and while they've been guarded in how they've announced this (it is more a request for explanations rather than a concrete announcement) a lot of the negative comments here strike me as the "I understand this stuff, me" variety ("explaining" this when the best scientists can't) rather than a genuine evaluation of what is proposed. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Crispmuncher, I can only echo Modest Genius and add that you clearly couldn't be bothered to read this debate properly. If you want to throw a few more off hand ad-hominem attacks in, then please head over to WT:RFA where they are the norm. Better yet stop accusing people of "I understand this stuff, me" variety and actually follow the conversation before commenting in the future. Ta. Pedro : Chat 22:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I probably was bordering on incivility there so I will apologise for that. However I stand by my substantive point: I have no time at all for many of the oppose arguments presented here. To re-iterate, two teams of professional scientists at prestigious institutions have spent years working on this and they can't explain it. Therefore I do not feel it wise or supportable by the project's policies on OR to be casually dismissing their findings when we are for the most part a collection of well-intentioned amateurs reading a press release and a couple of news reports.
For example, take Count Iblis' comments regarding the tachyonic antitelephone. I know Iblis from Speed of light and I have the utmost respect for him. However, we only need to ask ourselves one question in response: Don't you think they have thought of that? They understand the significance of what they propose and the problems it creates in existing theories if confirmed. The fact this finding would mean those theories need to be re-assessed does not make it wrong. Is relativity wrong because it contradicted Newton's Laws of Motion and the SUVAT equations? Of course not. The fact that it caused a set of the most trusted rules of physics to be re-appraised is indicative of the utter significance of the theory, not that it must automatically be wrong.
We have to ask ourselves who is in a position to be able to independently verify these findings. The obvious contender is Fermilab. They have already announced they will pursue this as a priority and indeed note that they have got similar results in the past, albeit with higher error bounds that made it impossible to assert anything of note.[13] If this can be brushed aside so easily why are they bothering? The answer is that they are approaching this with proper scientific rigour instead of a simple response that this must be in error as is being made here. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I endorse Crispmuncher's clear and concise analysis of this issue and reiterate my earlier criticism: not only is Iblis guilty of the theory-dependence of observation, he is trying to force that dubious approach upon CERN and the rest of us simply because he doesn't like the scientific implications of the data. DeterenceTalk00:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Support We're not here to referee scientific claims, we're here to provide information and content on subjects our readers are interested in. This certainly qualifies. If the actual details are still at issue our readers can work it out. They don't need us to babysit them. RxS (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We use reliable sources for our content. Tweak the blurb if needed but there are loads of reliable sources to support this. As opposed to your adorable if vacant rhetorical mutterings. RxS (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This attack is ridiculous. The blurb is factually wrong. CERN made no such announcement, and if you bothered to read any of the sources cited they will tell you the exact same thing. JimSukwutput18:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there on CERN's front page. They were a bit tardy getting a press release out, but CERN representatives were talking about this almost straight away the news broke. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they reported it! The point is that they didn't announce it. Saying that would be just as inaccurate as saying NYT announced it because it's on their front page. Huge difference. JimSukwutput19:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Be very very careful with this. This isnt saying that speed of light is different than what we know its saying something can break the speed of light. ITN is still part of this encyclopedia and saying Einstein was wrong should not be taken lightly. Let this be verified by 10 sources then it may stand a chance... -- Ashish-g5522:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But by that point it won't be news. Besides, there is no sudden tipping point when a theory or finding becomes generally accepted: it is a much more gradual process than that. It is in the news now and as evidenced by the speed this debate has grown there is clearly a lot of interest in it. Sure, there are issues and we need to be careful to present what has been found in a balanced manner lest false impressions are created. If we don't seek to address those concerns and present this finding in the proper context then who will: the mainstream media certainly won't. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
A news should still contain facts. The fact here is that a group of researchers cant explain what they have discovered. what they have discovered can re-write half the physics out there so unless they can explain their discovery, i would stay far away from this. -- Ashish-g5500:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you are saying but i dont think a small blurb on ITN can explain those implications. At best we can make it sound like a rumor and that'll just look awful. -- Ashish-g5500:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You make a point that this is now news, and it won't be news should this be confirmed later. I couldn't disagree more. If this is actually confirmed, it is the biggest single thing in physics in decades, if not centuries, something I would maybe compare to observing alien life forms in outer space. It will be BIG news. As an encyclopedia, I think we have a duty not to publish this before it can be verified. --hydrox (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. No evidence has been presented that CERN supports this claim. As hydrox pointed out, CERN has made no press release. It appears that neither has OPERA itself. Their actual work is supposed to be presented Friday and hasn't been seen by anybody yet as far as I can tell. Mainstream media often mess up in eager to report breaking science news without scientists writing or reviewing their story. The scientific Nature (journal) has a sceptical story on the claim.[14]Antonio Ereditato is a redlink and I'm not sure of his status in science. We should be careful per WP:REDFLAG, especially on the main page. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Antonio Ereditato is their spokesperson (Telegreph says "Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the international group of researchers"), I wouldn't expect him to have Wikipedia article and I don't think it's fair to judge the nomination on the basis of the notability of an individual associated with it. C628 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a qualified statement (using terms such as "appears", "seems", and/or "claims") once the conference takes place tomorrow. After all, whether it's true or not (I'm trying not to hope), it is news.-Link (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, at least until the announcement on 23 September, when we will (hopefully) have more information. If this is confirmed in a few months or years, it will still be ITN-worthy; until it is confirmed, it's more difficult to judge, and hopefully additional details will be released soon. The scientists who reported this observation took measurements for "over three years"; let's wait a day before giving students everywhere an excuse to ignore their physics homework. :) -- Black Falcon(talk)01:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wait until confirmed, per the above. I'm not generally against posting unconfirmed findings or preliminary test results, but this is simply too big of a claim to get behind unless it is indeed confirmed. Swarmu / t03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Wait (support new blurb, see comment below) - No reason to hurry. This is not going to go away any time soon. Let me just make three observations:
The blurb is factually incorrect as of now.
There is a disappointing amount of personal attacks in this discussion and not enough substantive debate.
With technical topics like this, it's very important to know what we're talking about and getting it right. I am ignorant about this specific topic, hence I will defer to Wikipedians with more expertise. There are some people here who should probably do the same. JimSukwutput04:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CERN has now made a cautious press release called "OPERA experiment reports anomaly in flight time of neutrinos from CERN to Gran Sasso".[15] Quotes: "appears to indicate that the neutrinos travel at a velocity 20 parts per million above the speed of light", "The strong constraints arising from these observations makes an interpretation of the OPERA measurement in terms of modification of Einstein’s theory unlikely, and give further strong reason to seek new independent measurements." Their list of Press Releases [16] doesn't mention the speed of light when the press release is mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With that press release in mind, I think we would be highly negligent not to post an ITN item about this development after OPERA's Seminar at CERN later today (tomorrow? time-zone?), albeit with all the appropriate caveats and qualifiers. This development is what all non-knuckle-draggers are talking about, and for very good reasons (such as its potential for relegating E=mc2 to the history books of science). Waiting through years of replicated experiments before even acknowledging that this possibility has raised its head would be akin to delaying media reports about the first flight by the Wright Brothers until other engineers had replicated their approach to powered flight. There's a difference between journalist prudence and simply burying one's head in the sand because we don't like the implications of what we see. DeterenceTalk12:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe I have a way of making everybody happy. Say that CERN is "requesting verification of its reports of superluminal neutrinos" or something to that effect. It's true; CERN and OPERA are asking Fermilab to investigate and duplicate this result. This gets it into ITN without nailing it down as true.-Link (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is what has annoyed me throughout this discussion (I am not referring to you, Link) - NO ONE here is arguing that these findings prove that these neutrinos (or anything else) were travelling faster than the speed of light. Instead, it is merely been argued that these (3 years of) prima facie findings by an internationally reputable institution be reported in ITN because of their extraordinary notability, with all due caveats and qualifications. Yet, such suggestions have been met with a vicious intolerance akin to the ITN equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition - all that remains is a little trial by ordeal until we swear allegiance to Einstein. DeterenceTalk12:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wait for confirmation. If true its the biggest discovery in physics and possibly all of science in maybe a century, but considering how ground breaking it would be, Occam's Razor would lean towards it being a mistake/misunderstanding. - CWY2190(talk • contributions) 14:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A day and one press conference later, we now know lots more. CERN has come out with a press release. I watched the press conference, and the researcher community seemed very receptive of the findings, and no one was able to at least immediately point anything fatally wrong with the experiment. Also, the experiment is expceptionally well designed, and verified by multiple redundant systems (like two independent GPS-based timing systems). Given a different blurb, I could consider supporting an ITN entry based on the spirit of the CERN press release. --hydrox (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. A modified blurb, perhaps similar to the one suggested by Link, would work well. Perhaps something along the lines of: The OPERA experiment reports measuring superluminalneutrinos and invites independent replication/scrutiny/verification of its experiment/measurement/observation. It is premature to claim that superluminal neutrinos exist and inaccurate to say that CERN claims that they exist, but it is a fact that the OPERA experiment has reported the observation. -- Black Falcon(talk)19:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the blurb doesn't mention "faster than the speed of light" then there's no point.
JimSukwutput, there was no need to react to my use of hyperbole with a deliberate misinterpretation of the point that I was clearly making - intolerance and booking-burning by zealots. DeterenceTalk20:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until confirmed. If this is true it would be a huge development in physics and certainly ITN-worthy. However it isn't confirmed and CERN hasn't actually claimed that these neutrinos were travelling faster than the speed of light (per the press release linked to above). The only reason that this has been published is so that independent scientists can examine the experiment and try so see if there's anything wrong with it or try to replicate the result. If we post this and the experiment does turn out to be flawed, as probably will be the case, then we would look like idiots and we would have severely misinformed our readers. Hut 8.519:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will change my strong oppose to a support given a suitable blurb. The news is too big to ignore and the experiment (not the results) seem to be backed up by CERN (atleast cautiously). The blurb however must not state that neutrino broke the speed of light. Only that the results of the experiment imply it did. -- Ashish-g5519:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support suitable statement. I agree that due to the huge media circus about this, one cannot ignore this story. But let's do our best to report this in a better way than the media are doing now. While the media are jumping on "Einstein may be wrong", the involved scientists are scratching their heads to find an explanation for a 60 ns systematic error in the measurements. Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support new blurb. Not perfectly satisfied with the wording, but I won't propose changes so as to keep the discussion focused. I put this new blurb in the nomination and stroke the old one (for reference). JimSukwutput06:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two articles that sum up the issue excellently: 12. Here is a revealing quote from the first article: 'Chang Kee Jung, a neutrino physicist at Stony Brook University in New York, says he’d wager that the result is the product of a systematic error. “I wouldn’t bet my wife and kids because they’d get mad,” he says. “But I’d bet my house.”' JimSukwutput06:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support current blurb, but also suggesting to replace it with semantically similar but more concise "The OPERA experiment measure neutrinos traveling at 1.00002c, and request verification from the international research community". --hydrox (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support not a blurb: Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam. 174 scientists in fact publicly calls for help about an inexplicable measurement that they prefer to think of as an error. The problem is that they have failed to find one themselves during a period of 3 years and thousands of measurements, and that the problem identification has a scary sigma 6 significance. In press, it is called "faster-than-light" something because the neutrinos travel faster than light. Not exactly a blurb IMHO. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Presenting as supposedly scientific discovery that which is bogus is tabloidism at its worst: a bunch of scientists muck up an experiment yielding seemingly impossible results that they cannot explain. That's news. This will be much like the "life on mars meteorite" and Hitler's diaries - nothing momentous. If the scientific community explains that what they have shown is correct and that the speed of light isn't a universal speed limit, that would be news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46, CERN and OPERA are more than just "a bunch of scientists" - they're leaders in their field using top of the line equipment. They have not presented their claims as a "scientific discovery" - they have published some data, using extremely cautious language, that they cannot explain as mere statistical/equipment error, that appears inconsistent with the contemporary laws of physics and have therefore asked for independent replication of their experiment and verification of their results. Your rhetoric, (Hitler's Diaries? seriously?!), your abuse and your insistence that they must have "muck[ed] up" their experiments (for 3 years!) and that current cosmological theories cannot POSSIBLY be wrong (even though we know they're not coherent, or we would have a GUT), shows just how appallingly unqualified you are to comment on this issue. God knows how venomously you would have reacted to the first publication of Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica or Galileo's The Assayer. Scientific integrity requires us to approach our data with an open mind. DeterenceTalk21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I count 12 supports and 9 opposes, even after including opposes that were directed to the original blurb (but not those which have been struck). Marked [Ready]. JimSukwutput21:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is achieved when the criticisms underlying the "oppose" votes are addressed, which they have been. A good portion of the oppose votes have been recanted.--WaltCip (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Posting this is akin to posting that "Hitler's diaries" have been found. News is supposed to be factual not fantastic. I guess those who have been waiting to find the replacement for the News of the World need look no further. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that was a good blurb, well done. After all, that news triggered quite some interest in the scientific community and this is what made it a good ITN item. An independent verification (or rejection) will be another story, then. --Tone18:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - might be that im from a country were cricket is a non-sport basically. but I dont personally see how this qualifies for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose As the captain of one of the world's leading cricket teams for 8 years his death will be notable in the eyes of the cricket-playing world, (aka. virtually all of the Commonwealth - with a third of the world's population). If you don't know what an over is then your commentary on this nomination will carry a reduced significance. Edit: it seems that his death has passed virtually unnoticed, even in the media of cricket-playing countries. DeterenceTalk14:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't see this as big news anywhere outside of India. British and Australian/New Zealand papers could also probably report on the news, but not really frontpage large font material. Lynch715:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now - So what? I'm not familiar with cricket, but I can't imagine a comparable situation in any other sport that would be worth posting. Am I wrong to say that?
Comment Know little about cricket but this seems like a non-story from my perspective. Of course one could argue systematic bias, but if the captain of Chelsea F.C died of lung cancer, would it be ITN worthy? Or perhaps cricket is more analogous to American baseball than football. WikifanBe nice20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He was fairly successful at his chosen sport, but is not exactly a household name even in cricketing circles. If we ever post 'ex-sportsman dies' then they had better have been one of the very best to ever play that sport Pataudi was not. Modest Geniustalk22:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I suppose this is going against the flow here, but he is important enough to have the India-England trophy named after him. This is the second headline on the BBC South Asia page [17] and the top headline on the cricinfo page [18]. He is a major legend in Indian cricket who captained and transformed Indian cricket despite having only one functional eye. While I understand that criteria for ITN deaths are high and this is likely to be shot down, it is very unfortunate to hear that he is "better known for his beautiful wife and flamboyant son than his own talents". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thats silly ignoratn comment. its the complete opposite. is son is known as his son, less so with his wife but its somewhat true. he was also bigge than hi s father, playing for TWO international teams.Lihaas (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Big news in numeous venues. Opposers to the execution include the Pope and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Article will need an update but otherwise seems in good order. Additional Note: Regarding several comments about the blurb, Here is a quote from the New York Times article I cite above - "...Mr. Davis became an international symbol of the battle over the death penalty and racial imbalance in the justice system." Jusdafax03:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generally I don't support posting legal cases that have been sensationalized and blown way out of proportion. But this is a high-profile case, has been going on for more than twenty years, and has (possible) widespread effects on issues surrounding legal reform and/or death penalty abolition in the United States. So a vote for support. I would, however, replace "worldwide opposition" with something like "after a series of high-profile appeals and delays" or something of that sort. JimSukwutput03:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTelevision news in New Zealand reported today that the execution was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court minutes before it was due to take place. Evidently, the stay of execution was for only a few hours. DeterenceTalk03:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was just about to nominate this myself anyway, but it seems that "despite worldwide opposition" may be a violation of NPOV. I think something like this would be better: "Troy Davis is executed in Georgia, USA, after more than 11 years on death row."
An execution is nothing special and not a good use of ITN. The blurb for this case needs to stand out to show why it is remarkable, so at the very least one would have to name drop some of the prominent supporters of Davis. Resolute04:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Executing a man despite the absence of any physical evidence, after 7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and after serious questions have been raised about the lack of competence and integrity of the police officers and prosecutors involved in this case, (due largely to the fact that the victim was a police officer). For a country that lectures the world about "justice", ad nauseum, this appalling case provides some notable focus on the true nature of the USA's justice system. DeterenceTalk04:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 7 out of 9 witnesses recanted testimony, no physical evidence, and they executed him anyway. However, I feel I cannot support as this is not the first nor last time such questions have surrounded an execution. This may be a more extreme case and the media has certainly drummed it up but I don't think it's actually that unusual, which speaks to many things but somewhat diminishes the notability of this exact execution. I do not expect this to have any lasting effect. States are not going to abolish the death penalty over this. As macabre as it sounds, I think this is only notable if he is indeed found innocent at a later date. N419BH04:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This was, according to many, a horrendous miscarriage of justice. But let's be clear: that is not why this is significant. This particular execution was significant because of the international, very high profile opposition to this execution. Former president Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI, the NAACP, Amnesty International, numerous celebrities, and at least hundreds of thousands of people around the world protested this execution. Without a doubt, significant and of wide interest. Swarmu / t05:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding worldwide interest, this was one of the leading news stories in every English-based international media outlet I checked. However, the NAACP would object to the execution of a black man even if they knew he was guilty, and the Pope opposes all executions on philosophical grounds, so I'm not sure their positions carry much weight. DeterenceTalk06:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we're not talking about being against this execution generally, we're talking about specific protests. The Pope doesn't specifically protest every execution that gets carried out around the world. And the NAACP doesn't specifically protest every execution of a black person. And perhaps it wouldn't be a big deal if it were just the NAACP, for example, but since the NAACP is joined by a former president, a former FBI director, the Pope, numerous civil rights organizations, numerous celebrities, petitions signed by hundreds of thousands around the world, it's significant. This isn't remotely the first alleged or proven execution of an innocent person, it's the high profile, extreme controversy that accompanies this execution. Swarmu / t07:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to POV concerns. The most fundamental description of the case is 'man found guilty; executed', which in not ITN worthy. I doubt there is any way to present a sub-issue succinctly enough for ITN without endorsing one side, and, while I respect that some of us may feel very strongly about this case and I am not going take a stand that he is guilty, after reading up on this outside of ACLU press releases I am not comfortable with supporting a blurb that must inevitably highlight a certain single point of view. We shouldn't be pushing a page onto ITN because we want to illustrate how "humans are barbarians". JORGENEV06:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the blurb should be modified (see my suggestion above), let me just point out that "worldwide opposition" isn't just an interpretation but a very factual claim. Wall Street Journal (a reliable source that in its editorials have pro-death penalty leanings) reported this: "The U.S. state of Georgia executed Troy Davis on Wednesday despite high-profile opposition and an international outcry due to considerable doubts about his 1991 murder conviction.". JimSukwutput07:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Man found guilty of offence receives the sanction determined by law" The crass inhumanity of that law does not change the fact that it has been in place for many years, and many verdicts of courts are contestable. Kevin McE (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since time immemorial, injustice has been dispensed in accordance with the law. However, in the present case, the evidence and the law are at odds and the highest court in the land has allowed the execution of a man with this in mind. DeterenceTalk09:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clear that this case has garnered far more worldwide attention than most executions in the US. But suggest different wording. Maybe simply refer to a "controversial execution", which surely can't be doubted. --FormerIP (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A lot of the comments here are approaching this from a POV that the death penalty is inhumane, and by extension, this execution was wrong. Wikipedia is not here to push a POV. Executions happen on a regular basis around the world, and frankly I'm not seeing a lot of fallout here.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the alleged inhumanity of the death penalty that makes this case notorious in the eyes of the world, (personally, I would love to flick the switch on a few of those animals). Its notoriety stems from the uncivilised determination with which the police, the prosecutors and the Judiciary pushed (and allowed) for his execution in the face of evidence of Davis' incompetent and under-resourced legal representation, overwhelming evidence of massive witness tampering by the police (threats, intimidation and out-right violence) and the near-total collapse of the prosecution's case (7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and there was no physical evidence against Davis) - they killed the man despite the near-absence of anything to show that he was guilty! DeterenceTalk14:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While the case (what little I know of it) is remarkable for the level of support Davis received, Jorgenev makes a very good point. We can't really provide an NPOV hook. Resolute14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that the planned executions of people (especially women) in repressed countries also often receive "worldwide opposition". Why is Davis more special than any of those cases? Resolute14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suppprt Major story - appears in international news headlines. Of course we can make an NPOV hook that notes the facts that he was convicted and later executed amidst wordlwide protests. Notability is not dependent on whether the execution was just or unjust, but on sheer news coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·14:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice is completely irrelevant; executions in the US will always be contentious – the anti-execution lobby will make sure that executions are seen as 'barbaric', irrespective of the actual facts of the case. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems quite a few people misunderstand the nomination here. It's not about whether it was fair or not, it's about the media attention it garnered, the publicity around the whole thing and the high-profile people that spoke out. Sheesh. Reanimated X (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I misunderstood this nom: this story is totally US-centric – few outside the US know or care about it. The "hikers" in Iran is actually a bigger news story. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Few outside the US know or care about it"????? Please tell me you're joking! That's just an irresponsible thing to say, because it reveals that not only are you uninformed by actual news sources, but that you didn't even read the above comments (though I grant you that some are very inappropriate). The POPE protested this execution! UN human rights officials protested this execution! Swarmu / t16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Swarm here - this news story has been picked-up all over the world. Even here in New Zealand, (where the people pride themselves in keeping their distance from the USA), this story has been one of the leading news stories in all the media outlets that cover international news. DeterenceTalk20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I've racked my brains trying to come up with a blurb that would be completely NPOV and still summarize well why this is notable, but I've got nothing. I really think this is worthy of ITN due to the statements from high profile people, seeming complete lack of evidence, and sheer amount of media coverage it received...what makes me not care about the NPOV enough to be neutral is that really what's notable here is the POV/widespread opposition. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This case was quite notable outside of the US. The French government even called on the State of Georgia to commute the sentence. The Western World is very shocked about this, and it will complicate matters to criticize Iran for executing people. E.g. Britain criticized Iran for executing a 17 year old who stabbed someone to death a few days ago, but world leader now cannot mention that in their UN speeches with a straight face without saying something about the Troy Davis case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very high profile case, among other aspects it has been one of Amnesty International's principal campaigns for the last few years. Whatever one's views on the death penalty it is clear that this case in particular case has attracted widespread controversy and serious allegations of a possible miscarriage of justice. Finally, while stats.grok.se is not showing yesterday's stats for some reason there is a clear spike on Tuesday, up to 10,000 hits, even before the actual execution: this is clearly of interest to our readership. Again, regardless of one's views of the death penalty, depriving someone of their life is the most extreme act a state may take against that individual. That process must be subject to widespread public scrutiny to ensure that people are happy with the act being carried out in their name. As for neutrality concerns, I frankly do not see an issue. We report on matters of controversy all the time and we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't. It is not POV to cover the execution, nor is it POV to cover the controversy of this specific case. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support. I am very surprised that this high-profile and important news has not already been put on the main page. The blurb should reflect wide-spread opposition to the execution, domestically and abroad. -- Evertype·✆17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shame That this was posted is pure POV. Why not the execution by Texas of white supremacist Lawrence Russell Brewer whose crime, the death by dragging of James Byrd Jr., was a much more notable? What, exactly, is the difference between these two executions? μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the execution went ahead despite prosecution's case against Davis having been almost entirely discredited (there is substantially more than "reasonable doubt" as to Davis' guilt) makes this significantly more notable than your average run of the mill death penalty case. DeterenceTalk23:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you're licensed to practice law in the relevant US State (Georgia, wasn't it?), and you have access to all the evidence (not just the bits that sell newspapers), I don't think you're in a position to determine what is and isn't reasonable doubt. No comment on the substance of the nomination for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just surprised you didn't further narrow the group of people allowed to determine reasonable doubt in this case to those who were actually in the court room for the duration of the trial and all the appeals... There was no forensic evidence, 7 out of 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony, there was a glaringly obvious alternative suspect and there is overwhelming evidence of witness tampering by police officers who were upset (to put it ridiculously politely) by the murder of a fellow cop. Even a former Director of the FBI sees reasonable doubt in this case (despite is lack of a license to practice law in the State of Georgia, lol). DeterenceTalk00:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment on the merit of this nomination here, but let me just point out that in the white supremacist case all three of those accused have admitted guilt and even said they "would do it again". In this case, the accused has for 20 years repeatedly denied guilt and there seems to be a fair amount of people who doubt it. Hence the distinction. JimSukwutput04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the international outcry is precisely what makes this item notable. Otherwise, as has been said many times above, it's just another exectution in the USA, and there's hundreds of them every year. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have mixed feelings about this one. Would we be considering this for an ITN spot if it was about a couple of Iranian hikers being released from the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp? DeterenceTalk01:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, if these theoretical "Iranian hikers" in Guantanamo were widely considered to be nothing more than political prisoners and their release entailed international mediation attempts, then absolutely. Of course, Guantanamo's a different issue entirely. Swarmu / t06:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The chorus of international criticism of the abuses at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp has been deafening. There has been infinitely more international pressure regarding the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp than has been exercised regarding the two hikers. DeterenceTalk07:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons essentially given in the last nomination. Too much sensationalism involved and too little actual significance. Some hikers (or border guards) made a mistake, some section within the Iranian government decided to express their dislike of Americans by jailing them on frivolous charges, and then the entire American media and government took the opportunity to tell us how evil some foreign countries are. Ultimately, nothing important happened. JimSukwutput03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Please explain how allegations that they were spying (against Iran) distinguishes this case from hundreds of similar cases (where detainees are accused of spying/fighting/plotting against the U.S.A.) at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp. DeterenceTalk04:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking they were not just accused, but actually tried and convicted of spying. (Though I wouldn't exactly say that a closed trial in an Iranian court is all that impressive.) Dragons flight (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wikifan. This isn't just frivolous charges as a result of a mistake. The hikers claim that they were kidnapped, they were charged, convicted, and sentenced for espionage, despite the fact that, according to Amnesty International, "All available evidence strongly suggests that the Iranian authorities have known all along that these men were not spies and should have been released." Their release became an international issue with other countries trying to mediate. Ridiculous to suggest that this is a non-issue. Swarmu / t06:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The hikers claim that they were kidnapped, they were charged, convicted, and sentenced for espionage...", as compared to the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp who were kidnapped, not charged, not convicted of any crime and face indefinite incarceration. As for being an "international issue", the breaches of the Rule of Law, the U.S. Constitution and basic Human Rights at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp have been the focus of intense scrutiny (and criticism) from every corner of the world. Indeed, they were arguably Obama's primary election pledge for the 2008 Presidential election. DeterenceTalk07:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any articles that draw analogies to the American hikers charged with spying to people held in gitmo? This is major news, feel free to submit ITN about events relating to gitmo situations. WikifanBe nice10:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary on Gitmo is unproductive and off topic. It's entirely an unrelated topic. Deterence, as was suggested above, if you want to nominate Guantanamo-related news, nothing is stopping you. However, trying to bring the topic into this thread isn't helping whatsoever. Swarmu / t16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I confess that I was not expecting such a large woosh-factor when I raised the obvious comparison with the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay concentration camp. DeterenceTalk20:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the problem, the two situations aren't comparable. The "injustice" of Guantanamo and the "injustice" of this incident are, literally, two different issues. The issue with Guantanamo is the lack of normal rights the prisoners have (i.e. being held without charge, not receiving expedient trials). An injustice on its own, sure, but not the same situation. These people were arrested, tried, and convicted solely for political reasons. It's not an obvious comparison in the least and you're mistaken to assume it is. Swarmu / t20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you know what I meant by "woosh-factor", which is rather poetic. My original point stands: if this news item was about the release of Iranian hikers who had been detained after they strayed across the U.S. border while hiking in Canada then there is no way it would be seriously considered for ITN. DeterenceTalk20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the US arrested Iranian hikers who strayed across the border, convicted and sentenced them for espionage with no evidence, the hikers were universally viewed as political prisoners, and their release involved international attempts at mediation, then we absolutely would be discussing this at ITN. Swarmu / t02:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have a large segment of American readers that will be interested in this. Not the biggest deal in the world but of interest to our readers. @Jim Sukwutput you can boil anything down to insignificance by attributing events to human error and agenda. That's hardly a reason not to post a topic. The articles in good shape and there is world-wide coverage. RxS (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have to oppose. I think had this been lets say "norwegian hikers" I dont think this would have made international headlines in the way it did. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it did make international headlines, so it would seem perfectly reasonable to post, no? Does it really make sense to oppose because you don't feel something should be 'in the news'? Swarmu / t16:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because otherwise we'd be continually posting ITN items based on which celebrity is sleeping with which other celebrity, the latest routine sports results, and the winner of the X factor. All of those make international headlines, but aren't suitable here. We have to assess the encyclopaedic importance of the story, not just how many media outlets have covered it. Modest Geniustalk22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same. This is an international event covered by international sources involving the international community. I don't see any similarities to X factor, Guantanamo bay, or routine sports results. WikifanBe nice02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree that a comparison to Gitmo is not required here and this ITN nomination has to be evaluated on its own (and Deterence, you should realize by now that the lives and liberty of citizens of one country/region are, unfortunately, not considered by all to be equal to that of another). However, from what I've read on this so far, I feel that this on its own does not have enough international notability - its just three persons who held no particular office or title and whose detention did not have much ramification (for example, the US did not attempt any "hot extraction", or threaten to go to war with Iran any more than it usually does). If enough material is there to show that this did, in fact, have serious international consequences, I am willing to change my opinion. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two American hikers, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, are set free on bail by Iran as a humanitarian gesture, after being detained in prison for over two years under allegations of espionage. (Chron)
Nominator's comments: The highest Russian political office for a woman for more than 200 years. Also many view this as an important factor in the upcoming legislative and presidential elections in the country. GreyHoodTalk12:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article needs many more references. As for the relevance to the upcoming legislative and presidential elections of Valentina Matviyenko's "election" to this position, (amid allegations of electoral fraud), her Wikipedia article reads like she's nothing more than a puppet of Vladimir Putin. In which case, this development - yet more corruption to further entrench Putin's despotic authority over Russia by appointing another stooge - is not the least bit novel or surprising to any of us. That said, it is quite notable that a woman is appointed to such a prestigious position in a country like Russia. DeterenceTalk13:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda clichés and drama language aside, you are technically right, she is Putin's man woman. That doesn't make her unimportant political actor of course, right the opposite. GreyHoodTalk13:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of politics in Russia is one of those rare beasts where anything we write is inevitably open to criticism: if our analysis is critical then we are accused of bias; if our analysis is not critical then it is probably a lie. DeterenceTalk14:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to approach Russian politics as if they were too much different from politics in other major countries. If we can use the normal term "political ally", there is no need to talk about puppets. GreyHoodTalk15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good for her and everything, but 'first female X' is only really worth posting if X is itself a major notable office. I can't imagine that we would post the first female Lord Speaker, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, President of the Senate of Brazil or their equivalents in other legislative systems. First female President or Prime Minister of Russia would be a story, but Chairman of the Federation Council just isn't significant enough. Modest Geniustalk17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly comparable position (in fact the Upper House of Russian parliament would be nominally even more significant). Also we did post the sack of the Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov as a rare and major change in Russian politics. Matviyenko's appointment follows her resignation as a governor of Saint Petersburg, and she has replaced the former head of the Federation Council and the head of A Just Russia party, Sergey Mironov, thus giving Putin's United Russia control of all top political positions in the country (government and both houses of the parliament) except nominally independent president's office. GreyHoodTalk19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GreyHood. If we should wait to post only a woman becoming President or PM, we'll post it either way by a simple rationale. The office is clear, and I doubt there is a misunderstanding what it really means with just saying that in Russia it's not so important as in the English-speaking countries. But the focus of the English-language media is apparently so much than it seems here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a combination of reasons, above. We have neglected Russian news stories on ITN so that's one thing. This is a significant position, and First women to something something has recently been added after the Danish elections so it's quite timely doktorbwordsdeeds07:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Poor job, ITN. How can it be "the highest political position attained by a woman in the country since the 18th century" if her new position has been widely seen as a demotion? Colchicum (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with possible blurb change - adds value to ITN, article seems reasonably updated (but a whole "disbandment" section would be better IMHO), wide ranging interest and that it's an FA. Suggest;
Members of US rock band R.E.M. announce they are splitting up after 31 years
I would guess their sheer longevity makes it fairly remarkable / noteworthy. I've no dog in this race however, and I take your point. Pedro : Chat 22:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very influential and popular band back in the day. This will be of interest to fans and non-fans alike. Swarmu / t06:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less than 10 hours between nom and posting, while Europe, Western Asia and Africa sleep, for a story that is by no means obvious, is unseemly and stands in marked contrast to the way that stories that received major news coverage have had to wait: Sikkim earthquake 25 hrs, Latvian election 72 hrs (although there were update issues) Pakistan floods 30hrs, Burhanuddin Rabbani 40 hrs and counting. I would also query as to how mainstream adult rock is considered a minority topic. For what it's worth, oppose, as for most non-fans, the only news in this announcement is that they have still been in existence since the mid 90s. Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
R.E.M. is not "mainstream adult rock" - that's like calling Radiohead a boy band. I don't know how "non-mainstream" you have to be in order to qualify for the culture criterion of minority topics, but given that R.E.M. were arguably the single most influential band in the indie rock scene for two decades, I can't think of a band more suitable than them. JimSukwutput07:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the minority topic status, we rarely post music-related topics of any kind, mainstream or not. The point of minority topics is to get more such stories posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just to add a post-posting support. I would expect any band which had existed for so long, and been such a significant part of world-wide music culture, to be considered for the front page. doktorbwordsdeeds07:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
