• edit
• history
• watch

• 2011 Syrian uprising:
  • The Syrian navy shells the city of Latakia, killing as many as 26 people, including Palestinian refugees from Ramel refugee camp in southern Latakia. (Al Jazeera) (The Daily Telegraph) (Los Angeles Times) (CNN) (VOA) (Jerusalem Post)
  • Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoğlu says that unspecified "steps" would be taken by Turkey if Syria fails to end the crackdown. (Al Jazeera)
• Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi gives a live address to the nation after rebels claim a number of victories in the 2011 Libyan civil war. (CNN)
• A double bombing in the Iraqi city of Kut kills at least 34 and injures 68 people. (CNN)

• Japan's economy shrinks by 0.3% in the April-June quarter confirming the country is in a recession caused in part by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and subsequent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. (Market Watch)
• Authorities in the north-eastern Chinese city of Dalian order a petrochemical plant, which produces paraxylene (PX), to be shut down and relocated, after tens of thousands of local residents protested through the streets on Sunday, fearing potential pollution. The protests resembled to a similar case, when citizens went on a protest "stroll" in the southeastern city of Xiamen in June 2007. (China Daily) (The Guardian) (The Atlantic) (The Wall Street Journal)
• Google announces a proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility. (Reuters)

• Tropical Storm Gert passes Bermuda. (National Hurricane Centre)
• A cold snap in New Zealand causes widespread snow on both the North and South Islands, disruption to power supplies and the closures of roads and Wellington International Airport. (TV New Zealand) (The Guardian)

• Japan's Cabinet approves a plan to establish a new energy watchdog under the Environment Ministry. (Japan Today)
• Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak appears in court for the second session of his trial with his two sons Alaa and Gamal who share corruption charges with him; the trial is subsequently adjourned and ordered to be merged with that of former Interior Minister Habib al-Adly. (PressTV) (BBC)

• In baseball, Jim Thome of the Minnesota Twins becomes the eighth player in the history of North American Major League Baseball to hit 600 career home runs. (MSNBC)
• In motorsport, Marcos Ambrose wins the Heluva Good! Sour Cream Dips at The Glen, becoming the first Australian ever to win a race in the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. (Australian Associated Press via The Sydney Morning Herald)

Google to acquire Motorola Mobility

• Nominated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)

• Comment. I was just about to oppose this on the grounds of a $12.5 million acquisition being pretty small in the grand scheme of things. But then I had a look at the article and the references. Apparently the takeover cost $12.5 billion, which is obviously much more significant. You will probably want to rectify this in your proposed blurb (also no space required between the "$" and "12.5"). Jenks24 (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  You're right. It costs billions. Thanks for the remark.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. $12 billion is a lot of money. The mobile marked is very important, and this a major shift inside that marked. Thue | talk 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's the patent war to end all wars. Marcus Qwertyus 14:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Probably Google's response to losing the auction for Nortel patents last month; both part of an ongoing war. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 15:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support for reasons listed above. This is a minority topic too. JimSukwutput 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support $12 billon is a lot of money. Article is updated. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: we've posted Microsoft's $8.5 billion acquisition of Skype, and this seems more important given the price tag. DHN (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Marking ready according to consensus and well-referenced update. We are almost 2 days overdue for a new item. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted RxS (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand winter storm

This seems like a potential ITN story, if we have a legit article. Heaviest snowfalls in over 30 years and major disruption seems highly notable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. If someone writes a decent article on this then I would probably support. Jenks24 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Once a decent article is created. We have a terrible bias against our English Speakers in the southern Hemisphere. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the news report I saw this yesterday evening about the storm, it is pretty insignificant. Heaviest snow in cities in only a decade according to the report seen this morning, presuming details haven't changed as the provided article is from yesterday. Disruptions always occur because of weather events even if its just monthly strong windy day, doesn't justify for wiki ITN. Will reconsider my position on the issue if it worsens but so far its just the occasional snow. YuMaNuMa (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • A report in today's Straits Times, based off an AFP report, says that snow was reported in Auckland for the first time in 80 years. That's vastly different from what you're claiming. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • In that case, I will add support when an article is written or updated and we nothing is posted up and the ITN candidate page gets that red notification. In my opinion, it's just a rare event and nothing more, no serious death or accident occur as a subsequent result of the snow storm, a few car crashes and flight delays are expected. (I might be a bit bias and jealous that it never snows in Sydney:( ) YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rare things happen all the time. They become important if there is some factor behind them, such as climate change. But right now this seems like a mere geographical anomaly. JimSukwutput 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? The very fact that it's rare means it doesn't "happen all the time" and is notable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    • No. The idea is that things that seem rare in a particular context actually happen pretty frequently. Think about the number of "rare coincidences" that you encounter all the time. It's a common cognitive bias. JimSukwutput 02:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
      • They have weather records that can point to something being objectively rare, and this is one of those times. This isn't a case of one of us thinking, wow I haven't see this much snow in a long time and as such isn't a case of any bias. RxS (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
        • No, the bias you're talking about is one in which people underestimate the probability of something rare happening. The bias I'm talking about is one in which people tend to focus on events that are rare (objectively) in a particular context. For example, people find it fascinating that long strings of heads or tails often form when a die is thrown 100 times. They know that the probability of such a string happening on its own is very low. But what they don't realize is that a lot of similar strings can happen in such a trial, so that the probability of one of many rare events happening is not so rare. JimSukwutput 07:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry, that's nonsensical. Even if I accept your twist on rare being not rare, a long enough string of heads would be notable in itself. A 50 year snow storm (string of tails) is rare, even if 50 year snow storms happen every 50 years (a long trial). The fact that they do happen every 50 years is rare even though it's expected. RxS (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
            • You're not comprehending my comment. Read it again.
            • Let me give you a numerical example. The probability of getting six heads in a row with six throws is around 1.5%. The probability of getting at least one run of six heads in a row with 100 throws is around 54%. I'll spare you the math, but you get the general idea. Events that seem rare in a particular context are often not so rare when seen in a more general context. JimSukwutput 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
              • No, I got it. It just doesn't make any sense and isn't relevant to this topic. The context here is New Zealand, the event is snow. It hasn't snowed this much in over half a century. No math involved. End of story. RxS (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support It snowed at sea level at Dargaville. That's closer to the equator than Bermagui, on Australia's east coast, where nobody would dream of it snowing. Also, closer to the equator than Santa Cruz, California, and all of Europe! HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support snow is very unusual in that place.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• So basically, it snowed at a place that's roughly analogous to the California-Mexico border but on the other side of the Equator? I'm not seeing how that's terribly notable. NW (Talk) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder if we would hesitate to post a one in 50 year Arctic blast that caused roads, schools and airports to close and cut power to thousands of homes if it took place in southern California. I'm inclined to think we wouldn't (hesitate). Swarm 16:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages is definitely a place of the loudest and most numerous voices at times. NZ is a small country, properly still recovering from these storms. (Hard to post when your power's off and you're outside cleaning up.) Most of the northern hemisphere masses simply haven't been affected. But it's still big news in an objective sense. We really need a better way of doing this. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Support seems a perfectly notable set of storms that have done large amounts of damage to New Zealand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Until there is an article on the storms, the !votes are moot because no assessment can be made on the sources. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support per my above comment and HiLo. Swarm 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Darkest known planet

• Nominated by Ks0stm (talk · give credit)
• Updated by OverQuantum (talk · give credit)

• No comment about the merit of this particular item, but astrologyastronomy is not defined as a minority topic. JimSukwutput 08:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You meant astronomy, I hope (just double checking)? I would actually be quite amused if I ever got the chance to nominate an astrology item. =P Ks0stm 08:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, stupid mistake of mine. JimSukwutput 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not an astronomer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but "sunlight" doesn't seem correct in this context. Surely "sunlight" implies light from the Sun, yet what I gather from the article is that it reflects less than 1% of the light that hits it from it's own star, no? So it should really be "starlight", but if that sounds off (or is incorrect) surely using simply "light" would be fine? Aside from that, an interesting topic and I would lean towards supporting. Jenks24 (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Is this "degree of reflectivity" something that is standardly calculated and recorded? Will there have been another planet that scientists agreed was the darkest before this discovery? How often has this record been transferred? If the answers are "yes", "yes" and "on average, at least two years between surpassings", I would support: if not, I would oppose as there seems to be a danger of scientists seeking to popularise their findings by tarting up "this is a particularly dark planet" as "its a record!!!" Kevin McE (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Sould be "least reflective" as being a far better indication of its actual attribute. A planet far from a star may be "darker" in the sense of lumens/sq.m. for sure. Meanwhile, with so few such planets having been so measured, isn't it a tad overreaching to assert it s "major news"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support The correct term is actually albedo and I don't see why we should skirt around using it - that is what hyperlinks are for, particularly since we can give some clue as to its meaning in context. 1%, (or 0.01 on the standard scale) is very dark - for context coal is frequently quoted as reflecting around 10%. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC).
• Oppose. It has a low albedo. So what? It's actually pretty rare for this to be measurable for an exoplanet, and yes that is a surprisingly low value. But really, I don't see why this is particularly exciting news, or any kind of research breakthrough (and I'm an astronomer myself). Modest Genius 16:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - It's an interesting discovery. Not a major scientific breakthrough but I don't think it needs to be, especially because ITN is so slow. Swarm 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Modest Genius. It's interesting but not quite on the level we need for ITN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Content has been sitting on the front page for 9 days - this isn't remotely acceptable by any reasonable standard. Marking as the update looks decent enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Nice consensus... post-post opposing for this insignificant discovery. The darkest of 573 exoplanets found to date? So what? There are trillions more where those came from, and you can be absolutely certain that we will find darker ones. I refrained from initially commenting because I knew this would not go up. Funny how badly I was wrong. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

More like the darkest out of the half a dozen or so that have actually had their albedos measured. The very first measurement of an exoplanet albedo was in 2009 <shrug> Modest Genius 01:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL point 4. ITN was very stale, so Tariq decided to be bold. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Point 4 of WP:CRYSTAL applies very vaguely here. I think it was targeted for more general scientific theories and hypotheses prone to being thumped. Not for these "records". By the way, the Hazare blurb was a better pick (and it was posted before this), and all of the other additions Tariq made to ITN (death of Kapoor and PGA championship winner) were perfectly viable options as well. So, "stale" isn't really an excuse for this nomination. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 01:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Eric. While you're more than entitled to your opinion, the best advice I can give is not to get emotional over ITN postings you don't agree with. In the grand scheme of the world, Misplaced Pages ITN postings are a trivial, utterly insignificant thing. Everything that gets posted will be gone in just a few days anyway. Just relax. Swarm 02:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but would you be so kind as to retract that statement? No one is getting emotional here (and I've re-read my comments... I really don't see where I am perceived to have gotten "emotional"), and I don't think I needed you to remind me of the insignificance of this section (ITN is a fun hobby of mine, but it's just that... a hobby). Am I not allowed to contest, with valid arguments, a posting that had no consensus? Why not? _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I pegged you wrong, your comments just read as emotionally charged to me. Swarm 17:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 21:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AP1000

The the first new generation nuclear reactor to receive the approval of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Considering all of the counter-nuclear movements that have been happening recently, this is an important step forward for nuclear energy. 76.119.237.18 (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Positive news about nuclear power are rare here. GreyHood 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be a significant technological breakthrough, from my limited understanding of what the media is saying. JimSukwutput 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. China is actually ahead. They've started building the first AP1000 station, although its approval was before the Fukushima events. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - agree with Grey and Jim. Swarm 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the suggested blurb?

The first new generation nuclear reactor receives the approval of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I'm not crazy about that, any suggestions? RxS (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe The first Generation III+ nuclear reactor design recieves approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission? C628 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm starting to lean toward an oppose for now pending further developments. According to The New York Times, the NRC completed an evaluation stating that the Westinghouse AP1000's safety and energy designs met federal requirements. A formal hearing and construction approval process will take place at the end of the year. According to BusinessWeek, the new plant rules would be published in Federal Register in January at the earliest. "The reactor design would be considered formally approved once those rules have been published for 30 days." With regards to notability, the AP1000 article states that this would be the first nuclear power plant project license since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident (confirmed in the attributed source). —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As am I. According to an industry source, this is the "Final Safety Evaluation Report," which isn't the same as final approval; "now the amended design moves into the final rulemaking stage for granting of Design Certification." Presumably the design certification is the last word on the matter. C628 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose NRC comment on a new design is not really notable. The article linked in the section header makes pretty clear this is not truly a new design either as couple of these are being built now in China. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:08, 16 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: