• edit
• history
• watch

• 2011 Battle of Tripoli
  • Heavy fighting continues in the Libyan capital Tripoli as Muammar Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi leads a counterattack despite earlier reports of his capture. (ABC News Australia)
  • Rebels capture Muammar Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia compound after heavy fighting. (BBC)
• Turkey claims to have killed 100 Kurdistan Workers' Party terrorists in bombing raids on positions in northern Iraq since last Wednesday.(Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review)
• Suspected Islamic insurgents kill two Thai Army soldiers and wound 14 other people in southern Thailand. (AP via Google News)
• The United Nations Human Rights Council orders an investigation into alleged human rights violations by the Government of Syria in the 2011 Syrian uprising. (BBC)
• At least one Palestinian is killed and several injured following an Israeli drone aircraft attack on Gaza shortly after an informal ceasefire was reached. (Al-Jazeera)

• Swiss bank UBS AG announces plans to cut 3,500 jobs. (Financial Times)

• Hurricane Irene reaches Category 2 strength as it hits the island of Hispaniola containing Haiti and the Dominican Republic. (CNN)
• A magnitude 5.8 earthquake strikes near Mineral, Virginia; a nearby nuclear reactor is automatically shutdown due to the quake. This is the most powerful earthquake to hit Virginia since 1897. (New York Times) (The Guardian)

• Thailand says it will recognize the State of Palestine during its September bid at the United Nations General Assembly. (Ma'an News Agency)

• A judge in New York City rules in favour dropping sexual assault charges against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn. (New York Times)

• President Obama provides temporary relief for illegal immigrants who are students, veterans, the elderly, crime victims and those with family, including same-sex partners, as part of immigration reform in the United States. (Los Angeles Times) (New York Times)
• An e-petition calling for the British Government to release of Cabinet documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster collects 100,000 signatures - enough for MPs to consider a House of Commons debate on the matter. It is the first government e-petition to reach the target. (BBC)
• News International phone hacking scandal
  • The BBC reports that former News of the World editor Andy Coulson continued to receive a severance pay package from News International while working as Director of Communications for the Conservative Party. (BBC)
• Hattiesburg Mayor Johnny DuPree is declared the winner in the Democratic Party primary election in Mississippi, becoming the first black candidate to win a major party nomination in a gubernatorial race. (Clarion Ledger)

UN launches inquiry into Syrian uprising

• Nominated by Master of Puppets (talk · give credit)

• Support. This is more of a tentative suggestion to see if people think this is noteworthy. The death toll was around a hundred in March. I'm just not sure how to go about updating, so I thought I'd just bring it up and see where that takes us. m.o.p 05:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose unless they take some important decision. GreyHood 06:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, these conventions usually do little to nothing to ease matters. Doubt that the people of Syria will stop the uprising or the Syrian government will change the regimes or stop opposing the protesters due to these talk. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per GreyHood. I don't see any reason to post this, if there is no exact outcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Update: they've launched an inquiry now. Is that outcome exact enough? m.o.p 18:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Now we should wait for the outcome of the inquiry ;) GreyHood 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Earthquake

• Nominated by Medeis (talk · give credit)

Support Little or no death or damage but a rare event widely experienced. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Capitol and Pentagon were evacuated. If this is rated higher than 5.8 (some reports have said 6.2) it will be the biggest in VA in recorded history. See http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1897_05_31.php μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems very prude of us to put this in with the goings-on in Libya, but support, seems notable enough in that it's a rare event and is (starting to) get coverage. — Joseph Fox 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No real development on this, so looks like it's just a passing thing. Probably going to oppose for the time being. — Joseph Fox 21:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

oppose unless there is atleast some damage. at the moment its more a novelty item... ooh we felt an earthquake...rare or not 5.8 isnt big enough -- Ashish-g55 18:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Tyrol5 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support in 2 hours after it stops being crazy --Guerillero | My Talk 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose It's worth noting that it was felt in Eastern Canada as well. Evacuations were ordered as far as Fredericton. I have no particular position on posting this though, as it is relatively minor. I've changed my position... this is a pretty rare event but that's all it has going for it; there is no actual implication other than its rarity. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Highly notable in its field. But hold for the moment. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't think anyone's saying it's a national crisis or disaster in the US or anything, it's notable in the field of earthquakes because it is very rare to have ones of such strength in that part of the world. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely the biggest on the eastern shoreboard since the 1897 Virginia 5.9 quake, if not the 1886 South Carolina 7.3. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support if the article is suitably expanded. GreyHood 19:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The article currently has 11 sentences and 17 refs at about 6000 bytes. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is a non-event. Its only newsworthy component is that it has frightened earthquake ignorant people. --TruckOttr (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to see your opposition is based not on newsworthiness, but your personal attack. We'll have to give it extra weight. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now. News coverage thus far seems to have focused more on precautionary reactions to the quake (the evacuations) rather than the quake itself, and that it not something I'd consider particularly notable. Damage does not appear particularly widespread (nor should it - ~6 is fairly tame) but if significant details emerge I'll be happy to reconsider my position. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

Oppose Notable for its rarity, but its not really a news event; there hasn't appeared to be significant damages as a result. I would suggest adding it to the 'did you know' section instead. Seleucus (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose if a burst water pipe is all that resulted then no ITN--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support It is really notable for its rarity, but not just that but because it was felt from South Carolina to Toronto, Canada, including Ohio. It also prompted evacuations of the Pentagon, Monuments in Washington D.C it also prompted evacuations of the Capital Building. So, I consider that notable enough. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Absolutely notable earthquake. Swarm 21:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment This event has international impact, is an historical event more rare than tropical cyclones hitting Europe, and has nothing to do with people being scared but with being a rare geological event. The article is well more than updated, has no tags, and is ready to post if someone will mark it so. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

what international impact? rain does more damage than this lol. Just being in an area where normally there arent many doesnt make it that notable. That happens every single day in other parts of the world. If it did any damage then i would have no problem with it but this did nothing. -- Ashish-g55 21:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You made your scorn evident above. Unfortunately its not a wikipedia criterion. If you have anything more helpful than to imply that Canada is not an independent nation or that this isn't the biggest in a hundred years of its type of event, please make your point. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

i am quite aware of wikipeida criterions. And i dont really understand how you got "imply that Canada is not an independent nation" out of my comment. I'm in toronto so i find that really dumb. I think i made my point quite clearly... stop trying to take out random implications from it and lashing out at people who oppose. You did it above too... twice is enough now -- Ashish-g55 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you need to ask "what international impact?" I find it hard to believe that you even know enough about the subject to comment on it. Swarm 00:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

i asked a question and instead of a decent answer got 2 random sarcastic comments that make no sense. The only reason to post this would be the rarity of it. Dont kid yourself by thinking their was some international impact unless the meaning of impact has changed. dont know enough about subject matter lol... i mean come on jeez. if you dont have an answer dont reply. -- Ashish-g55 02:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you've never seen the word "impact" defined as "impinging" but that's not really my problem. Swarm 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on rarity and impact. Loss of life does not have to be sole measure of impact. Geez. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Notable enough to have an article, but I don't feel it's ITN worthy (I suggest nominating at DYK if this does not get posted). All coverage seems pretty US/Canada-centric and it doesn't appear to have add any serious impact (deaths, damage, etc.). Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Kindly do everyone a favour and avoid pointing at US-centrism. — Joseph Fox 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  Would you care to explain how coverage of an event that occurred in the United States and Canada could be anything other than "US/Canada-centric"? —David Levy 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I am not an ITN regular, so I didn't realise the negative connotations that came by using US and centric in the same sentence. I was not trying to say that those supporting were being US-centric, merely trying to note that all news coverage I could find (either in the article or google news) was from US or Canadian news agencies and there was minimal, if any, coverage in by the BBC, Reuters, AFP, Al Jazeera, Xinhua, etc. Although saying something is only of local importance is apparently not a valid oppose rationale, I have seen quite a few natural disasters that do not get posted because there were only a few deaths or there was only limited coverage outside the country(ies) involved. I still fail to see the significance of this event, but I look forward to seeing everyone who supported here supporting natural disasters of equal importance in the future. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  I didn't interpret your comment as an assertion that "those supporting were being US-centric"; I interpreted it to mean that coverage focused primarily on the U.S. and Canada.
  Regarding your argument's clarified meaning, I'll note that I see numerous news reports originating from other countries, including coverage from all of the sources that you mention above (the BBC and AFP, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Xinhua). I don't know how many predate your original message.
  Indeed, we do sometimes reject items on the basis that relatively few fatalities and little property/infrastructure damage occurred, but death and destruction aren't the only possible measures of notability. In this instance, the earthquake is noteworthy because if its extreme rarity in the region in which it occurred and the massive public response — justified or not — that followed as a result.
  When a comparable (nonfatal and largely nondestructive, but nonetheless highly disruptive) event occurs elsewhere in the world, please point me to the discussion on this page. —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, even as I was clarifying my argument, I realised how weak it had become, but I can assure that at the time I opposed I could not easily find coverage of this earthquake in the sources I mentioned. I agree with you that death and destruction aren't the only measuring sticks for ITN and if the discussion here had continued there is a good chance that if people had provided the sources you just did, that I would have switched to support. I do stand by my original oppose at the time, though I will refrain from referring to US/Canadian-centrism. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I find it disappointing that some regard an earthquake as sufficiently noteworthy only if it results in death and destruction. This one was the region's strongest since the 19th century, directly affecting millions of people along North America's Atlantic Coast, in both the U.S. and Canada (myself included, for the record). How, by any sensible measure, does this fall below the inclusion threshold of a section that often contains items about sport championships?
  I realize that earthquakes of this magnitude are common, but not in the area in which this one occurred. I'm sure that people in earthquake-prone areas are laughing about our "overreaction," but that doesn't negate the impact experienced here. —David Levy 23:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support per Clarkcj12 and David Levy. Ks0stm 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - There clearly isn't no damage, as the area immediately near the epicenter and the National Cathedral have sustained damage, and the historical rarity of such an earthquake in this area of the world make a blurb being added appropriate. Hello32020 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So far the only opposes we have are based on claims of US-centrism, odd, as David Levy, points out, or complaints that not enough people were killed, or that Earthquakes are common elsewhere. But the point has been from the beginning that this is a very rare event where it did occur which is of great interest to readers. Are there any valid structural complaints against this being posted? Do we lack enough of an update or reliable sources? Comments would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support While a 5.8 is not uncommon, it is in this area and was felt up and down the East Coast. There was a lot of talk about it and 2012 nonsense. Also, there was a communications disruption, flight delays, etc. Its no different than a blizzard would be in LA or Florida. Metallurgist (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean Manila or Darwin.

Oppose Absolutely not significant on a global scale. It really does look like US-centrism. That it was widely reported is simply because of where it happened being the home of a lot of news sources, not the real, historical significance of the event. There will be none. This is a classic example of a proposed addition where the locations of those supporting should be posted. (I'm Australian, btw, and happy to stand by my uninvolved view from far away.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not US-centrism -- the East Coast happens to bear a large portion of the developed world, and one unused to earthquakes. Analogously, think of news coverage of an incident involving several dozen protesters in the People's Republic of China -- absolutely insignificant for most democratic countries, but quite significant in repressed ones. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 02:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HiLo, I think you should refrain from commenting on these discussions. Too many of your contributions to this section reek of WP:POINT, and frankly, you're obviously just trying to provoke American editors. It's really disruptive and completely unnecessary. I'd also like to cite the top of this section, which reads, "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should ease up on the paranoia and personal attacks, and read my post properly and fully. What impact will this still be having tomorrow? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read it again. You accuse us of US-centrism, you claim that the media attention is because most of the media is stationed in the area, and then state a bit on how it's not historically significant on a global scale. My point still remains that you are provoking editors here with your constant ad hominem arguments and it's not helping the discussion. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 04:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This quake is significant given the rarity for the location. It would be just as significant had it occured in Liverpool. And it wouldn't have been mentioned had it occurred in California. As for historical significance, like what? The latest cricket playoffs or protest march in Minnesota? μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support For starters, significance on a global scale is not an ITN criteria. This isn't a huge deal but it's of interest to a large segment of our readers. The articles in good shape. It's a novel story that people will read about. RxS (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. A lot of our readers felt it and will be looking for information on it. This is what ITN is for -- not deciding what's important on a global scale. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• There seems to be a marginal consensus to post here, so marking for an uninvolved admin to take a look. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose per reasons given by several users above, in particular Crispmuncher. I would have elaborated more, but then I might be accused of anti-Americanism and the other insults that tend to get thrown around in discussions like this. I think I'll stay out of it. JimSukwutput 02:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Posted --Jayron32 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Seriously stop accusing those who oppose of being US-Centric or vice-versa for supports. There were 2 points here rarity of event and no damage done. Deal with those. Cant even have a decent conversation without people finding hidden implied US-Centrism out of the comments. Others dont even want to get involved due to it. Its very annoying and disruptive. I will be taking this to admins and repeated cases need to be dealt with. Happening way too often. -- Ashish-g55 03:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do. We really do need to raise the standard of discussion here. The key elements of my post were ignored while I was again accused of provoking Americans. If some Americans (or people from anywhere) post rubbish, they should be called on it. If those Americans happen to be more sensitive than others, that's their problem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's probably the most blatantly hypocritical post I've seen. You yourself made the accusation of US-centrism! You have no logical basis to be defensive. Swarm 03:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's an important distinction that needs to be understood. "US-centrism" is a description of the content of the nomination. It may be a legitimate criticism. You may disagree with it and respond to such accusations by stating why you think it's not US-centric; however, too many users instead respond to such comments by directing attacks against the user, accusing him of being anti-American or so on. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion and unhelpful.

That said, the argument applies both ways and I do agree that HiLo48 is unnecessarily provocative here by commenting on the location of supporters rather than sticking with the content of the nomination. JimSukwutput 03:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is again about the location of supporters. Maybe, before posting, topics like this should have to wait for the residents of the area involved to be asleep, so that the views of the rest of the world can be ascertained. This topic got a high number of posts, far more than equivalent events elsewhere in the world. One can only guess that the reason was that many of those who actually felt the earthquake posted. Surely it's up to those who didn't feel it to really judge the significance of the event. I still note that absolutely nobody has responded to the real point of my post - that the ongoing impact of this event, starting tomorrow, will be zero. I submit that WP:Recentism AND local centrism contributed to this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, HiLo48, but the location of the supporters is nothing except an irrelevent ad hominem point. It has nothing to do with why something may or may not be appropriate for ITN. --Jayron32 03:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In the past, I've supported items pertaining to events whose significance was unclear to me (due to geographic/cultural separation), specifically because editors from the countries in which they occurred attested to their impact there. I wouldn't accuse you of "Australia-centrism" for attempting to provide such an explanation, and I strongly oppose the idea of shutting out the users most familiar with a subject.

Perhaps you overlooked the 2:44 (UTC) message by Medeis (pointing out that we routinely post ITN items pertaining to events with little "ongoing impact"). —David Levy 04:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell us how many Support posts came from non-Americans, and I will perhaps change my view. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I neither know the answer nor see how it's relevant to what I wrote above.

Assuming that the split occurred along national lines, one could argue that Americans supported the item due to bias or that non-Americans opposed it due to bias (or both). I assert neither, as I don't fancy myself a mindreader or an impartial arbiter. —David Levy 08:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, I must say for the record that the first time I was made aware of the earthquake was when I was walking through a market last night and saw that the show on television was interrupted with a small banner at the bottom that had the breaking news that there was an earthquake on the East Coast of the U.S. The show and the banner was in Arabic, and I was in Syria. I don't think Syrian media has any bias toward the U.S. -- tariqabjotu 08:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my point about news sources. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• A crime against English Can someone please rework the current blurb? I haven't checked who the posting admin was but they deserve a good battering with each volume of the OED and in numerical order. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

  What wording do you suggest? —David Levy 08:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  A magnitude 5.8 intraplate earthquake, the largest in the eastern United States and Canada since 1897, was centered near Mineral, Virginia. Titoxd 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  The section is written in the present tense. —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Post-Posting Oppose, like Crispmuncher, HiLo48, Jim Sukwutput and others, I fail to see the significance in this event, I also don't see that there was a clear consensus to post this, there was not much more than a majority. Even if it is not pulled, the blurb needs changing to something resembling proper English such as A magnitude 5.8 intraplate earthquake shakes the eastern United States, centred near Mineral, Virginia, it is the region's strongest since 1897.Mtking 08:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. Consensus isn't determined via a simple vote count.
  2. A run-on sentence isn't "proper English." —David Levy 11:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Tripoli update

• Nominated by Swarm (talk · give credit)

Oppose If there is no Gaddafi inside this is vain news, so we need to wait for more substantial and conclusive reports. Also, I'd suggest not posting any developing events of this conflict at all, only 100% sure events that had already happened and were confirmed by all kind of sources (either both sides of the conflict or by many independent sources). Remember that BBC, CNN, France Press, Al Jazeera and other coalition media are on one side in this war. GreyHood 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sniper fire is still being reported and rebels and journalists continue to claim that there are still pockets of loyalists. It's not captured. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's not captured? Hm. I better call the BBC and Reuters to let them know. Swarm 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better reports say it is fully captured now. They're also entering Gaddafi's house now. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 17:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support We might as well make sure that the blurb ITN reflects the latest development. Capturing Gaddafi's headquarters is a very symbolic event. And it seems to be confirmed now. Thue | talk 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I expect more people will call my comments nonsense.. But this is really LOL facts and I can't resist posting it here. Russian Channel One (one of the two main TV channels in Russia) questions Al Jazeera reports of the recent developments in Tripoli. Basically they say that the west of Lybia is still in the control of Gaddafi (the first journalist speaking after presenter, from Lybia). The LOL thing they say that according to many bloggers and independent journalists Lybian rebels might never ever reached the Green Square, Tripoli. All those TV reports were just fakes, filmed in a set of decorations imitating the Green Square, built in Qatar. The huge Potemkin village, hehe. According to a journalist (speaking in grey coat from around 4:30) who recently have returned from Tripoli (a week before the ongoing battle) palms and streetlamps are in the wrong places on Al Jazeera videos, and also there are no pitholes and constructions that were recently made on the real square. Russian TV report concludes with the statement that a massive information war is going on, and that the videos of rebels in Gaddafi's headquarters are not conclusive and need further confirmations. GreyHood 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that says more about Channel One and Russian journalism than it does about what is going on in Libya... Thue | talk 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The exact answer I've expected, almost word to word ;) GreyHood 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The nice part about Channel One's claim is that it is verifiable. If the compound was never taken, then we will hear about it later. Which in an ideal world would mean that people will take Channel One much less seriously in the future. Thue | talk 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The channel doesn't claim the compound wasn't taken. It just says that given all the previous misinformation and certain strange facts about the square videos the situation needs more confirmations. As for the taking news seriously, I wonder why everybody still takes Al Jazeera so seriously despite several notorious cases of misinformation. GreyHood 21:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Channel One should not be passing on conspiracy theories unless they had very strong indications that they were true. Thue | talk 22:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't exactly think that Channel One, owned by the Russian government (who, in turn, had strong ties with the Libyan government and was expected to veto Resolution 1973, if not for the fact that it wanted to protect civilians above all else), is in a position to make these claims. Especially considering that they've had their bouts of controversy already -- editing the Belarusian president's speech to warp what he said. I think that, considering the fact that AJ is on the ground, along with AFP and BBC, we should rest assured that our info is okay. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 01:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Russian government has much less interest in this conflict than NATO governments, some of which by the way established quite close relationships with Gaddafi in the recent years. And by the way other Russian state channels are more in line with AJ, BBC and others. Nevertheless, such reports as the cited one from Channel One reflect the level of distrust to the western media which was developed during the recent years in many countries of the world. GreyHood 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. Having contributed quite a bit to the Tripoli article, this is well-documented and reported (live footage can easily see the rebel flag flying above the Gaddafi house within Bab al-Aziziya now), and Bab al-Aziziya is essentially the defining structure of Tripoli, akin to the White House in Washington, or the Reichstag in Berlin (well, if those doubled as fortresses.) The current blurb does not seem to be accurate given the situation - fighting is still heavy, yes, but it's not significantly more than the level of fighting in the civil war before the battle began. Seleucus (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment So, whatever with the footage, there was no Gaddafi nor anyone significant in that residency. GreyHood 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment reply It's a symbolic moment that sums up the situation in the city at the moment. Like the burning of the White House in the war of 1812 (though of course the president had fled beforehand.) It was a major regime symbol, and now it's fallen. If this was an isolated event, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but this sums up the various advances the rebels have been making through Libya, which by themselves have been too small to report on the main page. Militarily, it is also quite a big deal, as Bab Al Aziziya was one of the main remaining loyalist strongholds in the city. Seleucus (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support If the story is worth keeping on the front page it's worth keeping updated. RxS (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Support -- I like the way Seleucus put it. Even PBS reporters are saying much of the gunfire is merely the rebels' precautionary fire when entering areas, as opposed to actual fighting. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Per RxS -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Posted -- tariqabjotu 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE NEEDED – It seems the the Libyan Army has retaken control of Bab al-Azizia on Thursday. My only reliable source so far is this video report by Euronews correspondent Mustafa Bag. The associated voice over is extremely censored, so you will have to "read between the lines" to understand what's going on.

• "Pockets of resistance in Tripoli as hunt for Gaddafi goes on". Euronews. 25/08 19:31 CET. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source for the battle:

• "Gaddafi tells troops to kill 'rats'". Daily Mirror. 26/08/2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Quote: Snipers loyal to Gaddafi were involved in the bloodiest battles in Tripoli's Abu Salim area, near the ruler's former compound in Bab al-Aziziya which was overrun earlier this week.

British war censorship again prevents the journal from telling who won the battle. The Euronews video however shows the aftermath; the the rebel camp abandoned and the Libyan Army firmly in control with civilian traffic flowing past. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to specify where you see this censorship and where you get this proof that Bab al-Aziziya is in the hands of loyalists, because I'm not seeing it. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 21:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkey-Kurdish war

• Nominated by Wikifan12345 (talk · give credit)

• Support. Sounds like an important military action across international borders. But how is this a minority topic? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I just pasted the basic ITN template. First time nominator. Wikifan 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Taking the liberty of removing that and the ITNR tag (This is definitely not a recurring item either) Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I created an article for ITN. Note the similarities between this conflict and the recent war between Gaza and Israel. Turkey's raids were in response to a surge in Kurdish violence, some say a very unique escalation. Although the Turkish offensive has killed many more people than Israel's response to similar violence. While Turkey does not have a "de-facto" truce with the PKK, it does have relations with Kurdish governments in Iraq and they say this raid was contrary to international norms. So? Wikifan 09:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support - Hundred fighters killed? Sounds like a very major military action. Definetely notable and should be on the Main Page. Polozooza (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per all above. GreyHood 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• In case people aren't aware, this isn't as major as it may sound - while death is death, Turkey and the PKK have been going at it for over a decade in a similar fashion. A new strike isn't notable. Rather, they've been talking about threatening war - I'd wait and see what comes of that. Something like this is (sadly) normal in said conflict. m.o.p 18:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources say this incident is a major escalation in the 27 year conflict. The scale of Turkey's operation par surpasses the traditional tit-for-tat conflict of the last decade or so. Wikifan 20:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? If Israel killed 25 Arabs in Gaza that would make world news, let alone 100. Please. This is major news. If we are going to have news, we can report what the mainstream is burying. Metallurgist (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Yes they have been fighting for some time, but 100 dead is still significant. Thue | talk 18:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to post this, given the state of the timer, the article needs to be expanded. What's there isn't bad, but there's not much of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Expand how much? Can you be more explicit as to what the redline is for posting? This is the state Gaza air raid was in when it posted. No complaints then. Wikifan 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlike DYK, there isn't a red line, and I'll concede that it's a bit subjective. But if you don't count the response (which is mostly canned soundbites from foreign ministers), it's quite a bit shorter than the Gaza air raid article and that itself is very much on the shorter side of what I'd consider postable. Bear in mind that DYK requires 1500 characters—we don't have a character requirement, but surely it's better to aim for something that's the best it can e instead of the bare minimum that will get it on the MP? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it's a very recent event. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with the article. I imagine the article would be polished within the first hour after its posted as more editors will see it. Right now it's just sitting here. Some MP postings don't even list original articles but defer to old articles under a new, brief section. Wikifan 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly support This is a major incident in a conflict that gets little coverage.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The figure of 100 deaths is, so far, an unverified claim by Turkey, and should not be reported as fact. The PKK has reported only three deaths (BBC), and the truth probably is somewhere between the two numbers. -- Black Falcon 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, doesn't change the notability of this topic. It should be posted. Meets the requirements. Wikifan 08:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why Black Falcon's claim doesn't change the notability of the nomination. There's a huge difference between a conflict of 3 deaths and that of 100. Besides, a large portion of the supporters' argument (Wikifan's and Metallurgist's) was based on the casualty count.

I'm going to Oppose for now unless a confirmation of a higher casualty count arrives. JimSukwutput 10:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

how high does the body count need to be Jim? This is a massive escalation in a 27-year conflict, Turkey entering another sovereign state (and not Simply Kurds in norther Turkey) very notable. Wikifan 22:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - significant escalation of the Turkey-PKK conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Strauss-Kahn indictment withdrawn

• Nominated by Crnorizec (talk · give credit)
• Updated by |Now it's official.]] (|talk]] · |action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BDominique+Strauss-Kahn%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Dominique+Strauss-Kahn&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])

• Support as nominator. We should publish this, since we published the accusations. Crnorizec (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Technically, the prosecutor filed a motion asking that the charges be dropped. However, the charges won't actually be withdrawn until a judge signs off (perhaps as early as tomorrow). Such motions are generally handled quickly and without controversy; though, in this case the victim's attorney filed a motion asking that the district attorney be disqualified based on allegations of bias and misconduct. If the judge decides to look seriously at those allegations (which would be very unusual), then it could hold up the processing of the withdrawal motion. Dragons flight (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - We made an exception to our normal practices and posted his arrest and charges. There should be no question whatsoever that this should be posted as well. Swarm 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the charges are dropped with prejudice, then support. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support Yes, we should post this, since we already posted the accusations. But it really becomes boring, and after the whole story was watered down, the significance enormously paled. However, I give some kind of support.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Swarm - redress. --Ohconfucius 01:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• ? Since when is "redress" a relevant criterion for ITN? μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Exactly what Swarm said above. JimSukwutput 03:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Redress is not a criterion here. We don't try and right wrongs...we post what's in the news if we have quality, updated content our readers might be looking for. Not too mention there's a single sentence update. RxS (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we did try and wronged when we posted accusations, rather then wait for a verdict. If those accusations were alluring enough to make us wrong, then their withdrawal must be as well, don't you agree? BTW, I fully support the decision to post those accusations, because the event triggered the change of the IMF head, and change of 2012 presidential election landscape in France. Crnorizec (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What did we say that was wrong? We did not allege anything. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

We didn't post accusations. We posted formal charges and incarceration. There's a big difference. And no, I don't agree. The charges had a huge effect in several countries. The withdrawal didn't. RxS (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What was this "huge effect" in several countries that isn't being duplicated? There was a media frenzy, that's about it. Swarm 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? He resigned as IMF Managing Director, a role he won't get back. He was front runner for the Socialist nomination for President, not anymore. It created an uproar in France about the treatment of women, it created French criticism of the US justice system. RxS (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose along similar lines to RxS. Yes, we posted his arrest as a matter of fact, and the fact he was arrested is not in dispute. We have not slighted him in any way and we have no moral or other responsibility to report every development in the case subsequent to that. Blatant errors tend to be quietly withdrawn on ITN rather than a correction be made; why should we "correct" something that was not erroneous in the first place? Crispmuncher (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose: Because (1) Its premature, charges have not been withdrawn yet (based on the news sources quoted in the nomination) - as pointed out by Dragons Flight, the prosecutor has only made a motion seeking withdrawal. (2) There is no obligation to post withdrawal of charges merely on ITN because the arrest was previously posted on ITN. The notability of the charges being dropped will have to be independently evaluated. No such demonstration of notability has been made in any of the comments above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you guys don't think practical, basic, common sense moral considerations should play any role at ITN, fine. To hell with the moral obligations of the situation. Consider the reason that we made this exceptional posting of his arrest in the first place. We determined that it was of significance and wide interest. Where is the logic that the filing of charges is more significant than the dropping of charges? This is the textbook example of why arrests and charges should never be posted on the front page— we end up refusing to give balanced coverage to cases. I would also note that none of the above opposers try to claim that it's not of significance/interest, so one wonders what their reasoning is. Swarm 05:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• I wasnt party to the discussions there and I'm sorry if you understood what I said above to mean that filing of charges are more important than dropping of charges. I merely pointed out that its notability needs to be evaluated and established independently (when it occurs, its premature now as pointed out above). If that is independently established (not just because the filings were posted on ITN) and necessary updates are there, it can go on ITN as I understand those are the two criteria required - not moral considerations. The notability has to be demonstrated and cannot be presumed and the opposers cannot be required to disprove it when nothing has been put on the table in the first place. My oppose continues to stand for now. Willing to change if anyone can demonstrate notability and show the updates. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• My comment wasn't primarily addressed to you, though, in any case, I would argue that we've clearly already determined this case to be notable enough to post on the main page. Country A declares war on Country B. We post that. Months later, country A formally surrenders to Country B. Would it make sense to suddenly adopt the position that the war was insignificant? Of course not, that would be a suspect and bizarre move. Swarm 07:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If country A declares war on country B, I would agree with you that the declaration, major developments, and result (whatever it may be - truce, surrender, withdrawal or conquest) would all be important because we are talking about two countries at war. But if we take a different example - Anna Hazare supported by several thousands starts a 15 day fast against corruption in India is important enough but unless there is significant legal reforms or government response, are we going to post if and when the fast concludes after 15 days with no result? are we going to post if Anna Hazare decides to drop the fast on the 7th day (for whatever reason - lets say, because he wants to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution)? You cant take one example and use that as the rule. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just did a run of a few news websites - looks like this is receiving significant attraction even in local media in unaffected regions. Will change to support if and when court drops the case (I think its still premature). All that lawyering for nothing! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Swarm. GreyHood 05:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Wait until the charges are actually withdrawn. Currently there is only a request that the charges are withdrawn. Thue | talk 11:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Support now. Thue | talk 18:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Charges have been formally dropped. Swarm 16:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support, now that the charges have been formally dropped. We bent the norm to post the conviction, so we might as well abide by the norm and post the dismissal. I mean, why not? _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 17:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Note that it is not the judge who has dropped the charges with prejudice but the prosecutors who asked to have the charges dropped--and not because they believe DSK innocent, but because they feel they will not be able to overcome the credibility problems of the star witness. There is no exoneration here. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter. Even when he was under charges he was still considered innocent. This release doesn't exonerate him because he was never guilty of anything in the first place. Individual opinions of his innocence or guilt should hold no bearing whatsoever. Swarm 17:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the difference between dropping the charges with and without prejudice. A judge can drop the charges with prejudice because he finds the facts exonerate the accused. That is not the case here. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• And the appeal has been denied. Crnorizec (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ready for posting now that the charges have been officially dismissed. Crnorizec (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How is this ready exactly? RxS (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the ready tag. I'd rather it be marked by someone who is not an advocate for the posting. RxS (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Orange tags need to be removed before posting. Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case is in better shape, but needs a better update. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 18:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is ready now, I changed the blurb to highlight the case page. Cenarium (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Update is good. Definitely . JimSukwutput 02:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's only ready if you accept the argument that redress (and the lack of any other rationale) is a valid reason to post something. You might, I don't. RxS (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That wasn't the only rationale raised in this discussion. In any case, there are eight supports and three opposes, and the consensus is much greater than that received by the nomination for the Virginia earthquake which was just posted. We also have a high quality article with a decent update. JimSukwutput 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Right, the basis for posting isn't redress. I gave a widely elaborated rationale for posting without even considering the "redress" aspect. That rationale you either failed to read or chose to ignore. You then falsely labeled every support rationale "redress" and claimed that they're invalid because of that. That's called a strawman argument, FWIW, and it's not a pleasant way of conducting debate. In any case, we don't operate by personal opinions here, so even if there was a consensus to post because of redress, it wouldn't not be posted because of your personal opinion. Swarm 03:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • If anything, it would be posted because of the high volume of coverage the decision has seen. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 08:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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 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: