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).
A second mortar shell from Syria has been fired at an Israeli military outpost in the Golan Heights, after a similar incident the day before. The Israel Defence Forces have responded with tank fire at the source of the bombardment, scoring several direct hits on artillery units belonging to the Syrian Army. (NY Times)
At least 38 police officers are killed in northern Kenya amid clashes with cattle rustlers. (CNN)
Muslim cleric Abu Qatada will be released on bail after winning an appeal against deportation from the United Kingdom to Jordan. The UK government says it will appeal against the ruling. (BBC)
Clashes take place between Syrian troops and rebels near the borders of Iraq and Turkey. (Khaleej Times)
The Israel Defense Forces has fired an anti-tank missile in the direction of a mortar position in Syria after a 120mm mortar shell exploded near an Israeli post in the Golan Heights. Although the missile was reportedly intended as a "warning shot" and directed to miss the mortar position on purpose, the IDF's response marks the first time since the 1973 Yom Kippur War that Israel has fired at Syrian territory. (Ynetnews)(Arutz Sheva)
I don't know. This is a warning shot in response to what looks like a mis-fire. This is a lot different than the war that was happening in the 1970s.--Chaser (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think it should be posted after leaders are appointed. So the blurb should be changed accordingly. Btw, who is the nom?>Egeymi (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in some form or another - it's probably best to wait a few days until it concludes, or when the new leaders are announced as Egeymi suggests (not sure if that happens on the last day, or sooner). --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two suicide bombings in Daraa killed at least 20 Syrian troops. (Fox News)
At least 27 people are killed and dozens are wounded in conflicts between inmates and guards at Welikada prison in Colombo, the capital city of Sri Lanka. (BBC)
Palestinian militants fire a barrage of rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, in a cross-border escalation following an earlier attack in which four Israeli soldiers are injured, two seriously, when an anti-tank missile fired from the Gaza Strip hits an Israeli army jeep patrolling some 200 meters inside the Israeli border with Gaza; Israel carries out counter-strikes, killing five Palestinians and wounding 30. (The Times of Israel)
Disasters and accidents
Seventeen Turkish soldiers are killed in a helicopter crash on Herekol mountain in the Pervari area of Siirt province. The crash occurred due to bad weather conditions. (Reuters)
A married couple is presumed dead, seven are hospitalized, and five houses are completely destroyed (at least 27 were damaged and up to 81 were affected) in a massive explosion in the Richmond Hill neighborhood of the far southside of Indianapolis. A faulty furnace or gas leak is suspected. The blast, with an affected area of several blocks, was so large it registered on IUPUI earthquake detectors and was felt for several miles. (Indianapolis Star)
Law and crime
Two members of the Kuwaiti royal family are released after being held for tweeting messages supporting the opposition. (Al Jazeera)
Comment. Kind of equivocal about this. On its own the resignation isn't enough (see Petraeus and the CIA below), but I don't think we've really covered this whole story much if at all. Is there a way to maybe bundle some of it together to include this and any formal charges made against those arrested or questioned (been a bit since I checked but I believe Starr and Glitter were both arrested or questioned over this). GRAPPLEX23:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support American news outlets have been carrying this as a major story (I've been following it on NPR) and one can find prominent stories about this scandal all over mainstream media around the world. --Jayron3202:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight, WC. The resignation of the head of PBS is of far greater importance than that of the head of MI5 or the KGB? Is that what you just said? (Oppose) μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the fact that the BBC is to PBS what Barack Obama is to George McGovern, the comparison is irrelevant, as neither departure would be posted in ordinary circumstances.
Jerry Sandusky was based at Penn State until 2011 via The Second Mile; while well respected for what he achieved as a coach, he was not by any stretch of the imagination pivotal to Penn State's existence or prosperity, in the way that Sir Alex Ferguson might be considered at Manchester United. Yet we posted Sandusky because of how big the story was, and probably wouldn't post Ferguson because his departure will ultimately be that of an elderly man deciding to retire. This is a pretty similar situation. —WFC— FL wishlist09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight, Medeis. You're comparing the world's largest broadcaster, a corporation with 23,000 employees, which is also the largest newsgathering organisation in the world, to PBS? Some perspective is needed here. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This isn't about "my organisation beats your organisation", nor about "my country beats your country" (and if there is a racial element to voting, that should be removed not only from here, but from Wikipedia completely). Which organisations they come from is irrelevant – if we were to choose 50 universities which are allowed one story per year (that itself would be overkill), I'm not convinced that Penn State would make the list. Petraeus stepped down due to an extramarital affair: sadly that's quite common nowadays. Entwistle stepped down because the actions of his flagship news show led to the British equivalent of a Senator being wrongly accused of being a paedophile – thankfully that is not common. The trail that BBC Newsnight started led to the British equivalent of the US President being given (on another station) a list of people he knew, whilst doing an interview live on air, and asked whether he was going to personally check whether they had abused children. —WFC— FL wishlist07:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. From what I remember (though I may be wrong) ITN hasn't featured anything about the abuse scandals that are currently the top story in the UK, and in fact have been for many weeks - which I think is a problem. This would be an easy way to include it, just add something like Amid the ongoing child abuse scandal in the United Kingdom, .... And I would also think that some of the comparisons drawn here don't work; Petraeus' resignation wasn't notable (from what I know) because it had nothing to do with his job; if he had resigned after being accused of leaking information or something similar then that would be more important. I would think exactly the same if it were the head of MI5 or any security service. Where as in this case the resignation is directly because of actions taken as head of the organisation. Secondly I think comparing (the head of) PBS to (the head of) the BBC is a little off, though admittedly as a non-American, I still believe no one can think that the two organisations are that comparable both within their own country and certainly internationally.--23230talk07:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we need to be careful about conflating the resignation (essentially due to a lack of confidence in his managerial competence in handling the reporting of the abuse claims) and the wider issues of the child abuse claims themselves. They are not the same and there are at least 3 or 4 related articles in mainspace. Leaky Caldron16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, User:Leaky caldron makes a very valid point that the required brevity of the ITN sentences means that the implication to a non-UK reader is that Entwistle is somehow implicated in the abuse itself, rather than being manager of the organisation whose coverage of the matter has been brought into question. Bobtalk
Oppose the story is big news (rightly) in the UK, but doesn't have a significance or value to the encyclopaedia as an ITN item. --RA (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clashes break out at a jail in Colombo, Sri Lanka, killing at least 13 inmates and injuring 32 others. At least nine police officers, a prison guard and a bystander were also injured during the disturbances. (Al Jazeera)(AP)
The UK broadcaster ITV faces an investigation by the media regulator Ofcom after television presenter Phillip Schofield handed Prime Minister David Cameron an internet-generated list of potential suspects in a child abuse case involving a care home during a live interview on Thursday, and asked him to comment. (The Independent)(BBC)
An individual included on the list issues a lengthy statement denying all involvement in the abuse case, dating from the 1980s. (The Daily Telegraph)(Statement)
The BBC issues an apology after a key witness in a Newsnight report aired on 2 November wrongly identified a senior politician as a pedophile. (The Daily Telegraph)
Oppose It's fully expected that at the end of a president's first term, some members of his administration will leave for whatever the reason. While I'm surprised that Petraeus is resigning because of an extramarital affair, and is publicly admitting so, I don't see it as that shocking or groundbreaking in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it had generally been expected for Petraeus to stay with Obama for this term to provide continuity in defence and intelligence policy, especially in the post-Iraq and Arab Spring world. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support when, Obviously a high-profile step-down. He's not the head of the CIA, he's a very naughty boy! - but only when a new one is appointed, personally. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We might as well start a USA Politics sticky, because this sort of thing, firings, hirings, shufflings, agenda, won't be out of the news well into the next year. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per no big deal and not even when his replacement is appointed, because that wouldn't be a resignation and won't happen for several months. Leaky Caldron20:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume international repercussions would be that the CIA operates internationally. A new CIA director will likely have a different policy than Petraeus. RyanVesey20:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, Obama's CIA director will have the policy of Obama. That's why Colin Powell made that regrettable display in front of the United Nations. He wasn't speaking on behalf of himself, but on behalf of the Bush Administration. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite a somewhat tabloid nature of this story Petreaus is certainly a very famous figure from his involvement to two armed conflicts. The CIA is probably one of the most famous organizations in the world for better or worse (mostly worse but thats POV).--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For a second I thought this might have been one of those long-tenured positions which would carry a bit of gravitas (think Robert Mueller's eleven-plus-year reign as FBI director) but Petraeus has held the job for a year, which really doesn't strike me as showing that the position changing hands is that notable, as it seems to have occurred half a dozen times in the past few years. GRAPPLEX23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Petraeus is better known for his role in the surge(s) than anything else. I'm not aware of anything he did at the CIA that would make him sufficiently noteworthy for ITN. Resigning because of an affair is not enough; infidelity is regrettably common.--Chaser (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. He hasn't had the job that long, and didn't leave due to political motives. His notability came from his military career and not his CIA work. 331dot (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. The CIA is perhaps the most powerful "civilian" agency in the world. Needless to say this has an international impact. The seamy circumstances pale compared to the facts of Petraeus' high profile as a high-profile U.S. general who was put in charge of the world's biggest spook outfit. The post-election timing and FBI involvement also are points of major interest. Opposes are utterly unconvincing. Jusdafax02:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What difference does this even make to someone across the state line in New York, much less in the wider world? This is not news in any useful sense. 'Epic'? Don't make me laugh. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Obama won the state by around 17% and didn't need it so this is of low relevance, both in election coverage and Hurricane Sandy coverage (it was due to an electronic voting system for voters displaced by the hurricane). This isn't Florida 2000. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary, my dear Watson. I think it was my attempt to convey the fact I didn't really take this nomination seriously. Which all boils down to it being not important enough. Notability wise. Thus, not for the ITN! Got there in the end.--Τασουλα (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment really is rather offensive, Tasoula. Should we make rather stupid anti-semitic comments based on the portrayal of Jews by Italians in plays written and produced by Englishmen? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While of some interest, it's not important enough to land on the main page. Obama was going to win NJ with or without Sandy, with or without electronic voting. Maybe if electronic voting becomes the standard, it'll be worhty. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: He has not been officially appointed yet, as his appointment will most likely be announced tomorrow by Lambeth Palace, but this has been widely reported in the UK press and, as the next head of the Anglican Communion, this will be an announcement of global interest which probably ought to be posted as soon as it is officially announced. --Bobtalk23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Premature - should of nominated tomorrow. I mean this has been happening a lot recently...see the fiasco on the US elections. Support when it's announced, though. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support when announced Clearly a very significant announcement and highly notable. This nomination deserves to be on the front page. I agree that we may need to have a monetarium on nominating future events doktorbwordsdeeds23:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This has been in the British news today and there's no actual doubt about who will be appointed. We shouldn't actually post until its announced though, so we've got a little time to get the article prepared. I for one am perfectly happy with the nomination of near-future events such as this whereby the significance of the event can be assessed ahead of time, as it gives time for discussion and article improvement such that when the event does occur it can be posted speedily. LukeSurltc01:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very significant event, and likely to cause more news in future due to his view on female bishops, gay marriage, etc. (My previous support seems to have been lost in the move from the 8th) Optimist on the run (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the article has been expanded further, posting. Curiously, the Archbishop of Canterbury is also mentioned in TFA, rather unusual ;-) --Tone16:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until formal announcement or inauguration (is that the right term). The Archbishop of Canterbury is the spirtual leader of Anglicanism worldwide (which is the third-largest Christian community). --RA (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two days ahead of the Irish children's referendum, the Supreme Court—ruling against the government's distribution of information on the referendum—finds the government has breached the 1995 McKenna judgement requiring that referendums be explained to the public in an unbiased manner. The referendum's website is immediately taken down. (Irish Independent)
U.S. PresidentBarack Obama announces his intention to visit Burma later this month, which would make him the first U.S. President to visit the country. (BBC)
[Posted] New dinosaur species
Xenoceratops, a new dinosaur species identified from some old fossils. New dino stories are always great.
As dinosaur-related topics are one of Wikipedias strong points, you may have some success with this one. (Oh, and as above, post it there not here :p)--Τασουλα (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is an excellent article. Great work. Ready to post if I see some more support, otherwise, it should go to DYK. --Tone18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks good. I'm a little leery about the dependence on one source, albeit a very solid one, and I will see if I can get more references in the meantime. The article is in postable shape though. Marking as "ready". SpencerT♦C21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming my earlier support. I agree that the article looks ready. This is a welcome divergence from the usual ITN fare - when's the last time we posted a Canadian dinosaur story? --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is DYK fare at best, a press release without even a free image. Definitely an ITN fail except for special pleading. And, yes, my desired career when I was 7 years old was a paleontologist. μηδείς (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until article contains something accessible to the casual reader, and reason why this is more noteworthy than 114 other articles in Fossil taxa described in 2012. The type of person interested in dinosaurs (how many 7 year olds frequently visit out Main Page?) will look at the description hoping to find its size, basic body shape, likely diet and maybe some (sourced) speculation as to its lifestyle. But what is found if " that had two epiparietals (P2–P3) on the posterior parietal ramus. The wide-based, short, pachystotic (thick), and procurved processes (P2) adjacent medially to a U-shaped posterior margin. In overall, the P2 processes morphology resembles the P4 processes of Albertaceratops...". Pure jargon. Edit conflict with posting, but having my say anyway Kevin McE (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We posted the shooting, and I think the crime was significant enough that we really should post the conclusion. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but hook needs changing. It currently isn't completely accurate. Life in prison leaves the possibility of parole open. One source states he received 7 life sentences + 140 years. The other reads he received life without parole. It is simpler to say the second, so I propose the blurb be changed to "Jared Lee Loughner, the perpetrator of the 2011 Tucson shooting, is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole." RyanVesey00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Purely routine next step after incident/arrest/prosecution. If the perpetrator were notable other than for his crime, then it would be a different matter, but that is not the case here. Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shooting was notable because of its political motives and the injury of a representative. The sentencing isn't. --RA (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As this planet is several times the mass of the earth, and is likely to have a highly eccentric orbit around a star that is not a lot like the Sun, I'm not sure this is as notable as it at first appears. As mentioned just before Alpha Centauri Bb made the headlines, exoplanet discoveries are coming very rapidly at present, so we have to set the bar pretty high. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hundreds of planets have now been detected and this rate of discovery will continue for some time and probably even increase, so we need the circumstances to be particularly notable before featuring them on ITN. If it was the first Earth-sized planet in the HZ of a sun-like star then that would be notable, but anything aiming for that record but falling short just doesn't cut it. 78.144.201.213 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The planet has a minimum mass of 7 times the Earth, so is likely more like Neptune than the Earth. If it has been listed in the habitable-exoplanets-catalog then that just shows how silly and premature that catalog is. With a planet that massive, the pressure of the thick atmosphere will be such that by the time you reach liquids the temperature will be hundreds of degrees and the distance from its star will be irrelevant for habitability - you might as well say Neptune is habitable. 78.144.204.177 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- As per AlexTiefling, our bar has to be pretty high else we'll be posting an exoplanet every other week. This one, at minimum 7 earth-masses is almost certainly not habitable. The bar also needs to be slowly raised over time, I reckon within a few years we'll ve seeing actually life-viable be seeing Earth-sized planets in Goldilocks zones and eventually even those won't be hugely notable. LukeSurltc18:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see why the size of the planet matters. In a new planet, I'm looking for (a) signs of life, or (b) a planet that's hospitable to humans so we can relocate after global warming renders Earth inhabitable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above. At one time, exoplanets were really big news. Their discovery has now become commonplace, and as such, isn't really worth reporting everyone that comes along. --Jayron3220:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Okay, clearly the last nomination did not go well because there was a lot of people who opposed who did not either know key facts or did not realize the magnitude of LGBT rights wins in the US on election day. Additionally, some other pieces related to LGBT rights weren't nominated - which I am doing so now.
Firstly, these are HISTORIC wins - this is the FIRST time in both US and WORLD history that SSM has been enacted by VOTERS. Secondly, these wins were sweeping - 4 of 4 up for a vote. Also the first openly gay female US Senator was elected (historic!), and additionally an Iowa Justice (David Wiggins) who was part of the unanimous opinion in the Iowa Supreme Court which made gay marriage legal in Iowa was retained by voters (a COMPLETE and HUGE reversal of Iowans' previous vote to oust justices in 2012 - there was a TEN PERCENTAGE POINT or so shift!). All these put together are huge, are being widely reported in the MEDIA (remember this is IN THE NEWS - so as long as it is widely reported and notable, it should be posted).
Also, some replies to opposing points explaining the facts:
"3/50 US states just legalised SSM" - other states have SSM legal, so it is NOT 3/50, and these were the ONLY ones in which there were votes, so what do you expect?
"Meh ... them and Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden. Along with 30 or 40 odd states that allow same-sex unions" & "Not the first states to do this and likely not the last." - FIRST TIME BY *VOTERS*, and no 30 or 40 odd states DON'T have same-sex unions!
"I cannot realize a notability in the legalization of same-sex marriages in federal units of a country. Maybe it's worth supporting if the legalization was done in the United States, but in three of 50 states it's far from being something important." - the United States DOES NOT work that way, STATES are in control of marriage laws, the US Congress CANNOT legalize SSM across the United States. And again, only these were up for a vote, and ALL of them were swept up by LGBT rights advocates.
Well, since you did such an eloquent job of preempting some of the potential opposes, I'll simply oppose because it's not notable. That's always a safe one to fall back on.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to have shown evidence for your assertion - if these are being hugely reported in the media worldwide, then how are they in any way not notable? --Grotekennis (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in Minnesota it was a little different from the other 3 states (In MN, an *anti*-SSM amendment was rejected), but the blurb still encompasses that with the generic 'result in victories for LGBT rights advocates'. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since the gay marrage votes are being discussed separately I'll concentrate on the other two additions you suggest - both of which I very strongly oppose. Mainly for far too much hyperbole and CAPITAL LETTERS in the description you wrote. Believe me, if you write a description about how IMPORTANT and HISTORIC something is, that is NOT going to win over people to your side.
Anyway; on the topic of notability - this means nothing outside the United States and whilst the gay marriage votes do have at least a little external interest your additions go straight from just US interest to US-centralism. Why is the first gay US senator more important than the first gay British MP or first black Member of the German Bundestag or the first atheist member of the US Congress any other similar random 'milestone'? From what I know there are 100 senators and in this day and age I would expect none of them being gay would be more unusual, and I'm sure there were plenty that specific things could be picked out about. I recall hearing that the first Buddhist senator and Hindu congresswoman were elected too, do they deserve a place in the news? It's also worth pointing out that your claim of 'being hugely reported in the media worldwide' is far, far overstating it. The facts were most likely mentioned as trivial results to come out of the US election but really are not what the world deems as the important result. I mean I can go to BBC News's US&Canada page, there is a sub-sub-heading about "States approve same-sex marriage" and nothing on the specific people you talk about. In one article the election of the first openly gay senator is mentioned just as a side point, alongside similar trivia like the highest number of women ever.
The thing that annoys me most is your claims on an Iowa Justice a COMPLETE and HUGE reversal of Iowans' previous vote to oust justices in 2012 - there was a TEN PERCENTAGE POINT or so shift! - that is the height of local politics and totally irrelevant to anyone else. If I said that one of the constituencies in the United Kingdom has a HUGE, HISTORIC change from the Conservative Party to Labour by 15% in the next election, perhaps one that had never had a Labour MP before etc... you might see just how irrelevant it is to anyone outside the affected area. I mean come on, David Wiggins doesn't even have an article, he hasn't even been elected but re-elected, there is no way that specific elections results like his fulfils the criteria to be in ITN.--23230talk14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you've reasoned out your argument well. So, in reply: 1.) Emphasis was needed, because some people seem to oppose proposed items here almost for the sake of it (or because they don't like it!) 2.) The additions are because they were often reported together as a watershed day for LGBT rights in the US in regards to the ballot box 3.) Let's be honest, I'm not an American myself, but surely we can all agree that US Senators tend to be more notable than members of other legislatures 4.) The wins all placed together is what makes them notable - it was a sweep (i.e. like the fact that it was widely reported that President Obama sweeped the battleground states - sweeps like this make items like these more notable) 5.) Point taken, maybe actually the last one is too local and can be cut by the admin. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (after ec) - The 3/50 objection certainly still applies. If these were the first three states to legalise equal marriage, that would be more notable; but they aren't. As an LGBT person myself, I feel that this nomination is far too pointy, consisting far too much of a rant against people who opposed the previous (still-open) nomination. And frankly, the piecemeal way that the US handles this sort of legislation is not in itself a good argument to give more prominence to legislation from sub-national bodies. Did we cover the Scotland-only ban on smoking in public enclosed places? Did we cover the Baden-Württemberg headscarf ban? Do we ever cover local politics from Yakutia, the largest sub-national entity in the world? No amount of angry, shouty capital letters will ever make local legislation into international news. When genuine firsts are achieved by states, that's potentially notable. That's why I suggested including the recreational marijuana initiatives in a round-up of state votes. Simply talking about the election of specific politicians who happen to be LGBT in order to bolster a fairly small, local story seems a bit arbitrary to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm running out of time here, but to reply quickly: see point regarding this being first(s) in re: to voting. Oh and by the way, I do believe we posted items on Indian state elections in a very populous state or two there. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If it was a case where after an election, a super-majority of the states had some type of law allowing gay marriages (like, 45 of 50 or more), that might be something, but just a few state victories towards this in addition to various edicts from past elections doesn't make this a significant turning point in the issue. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That never happens - with *any* issue in one go - and it's reporting in the media which is key here isn't it? (I mean this Wikipedia isn't a news network, we just post what is in the news, and this is). I mean, I remember seeing WP having posted news of NY state having legalized gay marriage with a legislative vote - and that was just one state, and by a legislature! This is 4 states, by voters! --Grotekennis (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not talking about "in one go", probably talking about post these things when a vast majority of states allow it. In my opinion at least it would make sense to post such things when just a simple majority of states approve of it. As of now, a vast majority of states still do not approve of it so I see no reason to post it.75.73.114.111 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I already saw it, and it seems very arbitrary - why a majority of states? Why not when it's a majority of the US population? Or when it's a super-majority of states? Or when it's 30 of 50 or 40 of 50 or 50 of 50? The line can be drawn anywhere depending on the personal preference of someone. Also, WP:AGF. --Grotekennis (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, clearly this is getting nowhere (although some of these appear too !vote-ish to me), admins can consider this withdrawnunless others wish to keep it open. BUT: one question open to all editors to comment on: What do you consider to be something which should be posted in regard to this subject? At which point will the US be mentioned? Should we mention it when France, UK, etc does so (as their governments have announced?), should we mention it when [insert amount of US states here] have passed it? Should we mention it when any country does so? Or when a country has [insert level of population]? Up to how many countries should be posted? etc.. The reason why I'm asking this question is because postings related to this subject have seemed arbitrary at times - I mean, the NY state one was posted, and that was a legislature's action, but not four states in one go by voters? I think a clear guideline should be formulated for this subject at ITN. --Grotekennis (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the issue like a high-profile court case, which in ITN we only report on the most significant point - the acquittal or the sentencing. For gay marriage rights in the US, either a national law would be passed, or some significant majority (certainly not all of them because there are states that are so against it that it will unlikely ever come to pass in our lifetimes). We'll know that point when it is noticed by the media, as it certainly isn't this current election cycle. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A national/federal law directly enacting SSM across the US is unlikely (although the US federal government may pass a law to recognize SSM for *themselves). Although, I imagine the US Supreme Court may do something within the next ten years (related: Perry v. Brown). --Grotekennis (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose- Just end this mess. The refutation of my previous reasoning was ridiculous. Saying that only 3 states voted on it makes it even less notable, because it emphasizes how little of an impact this really has. Percentages don't mean anything to SSM legalisation; its still only 3 states that voted to allow it. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is ridiculous. I'm positive we would have put women receiving the right to vote in Wyoming had Wikipedia existed at that time even though it was only one state out of (37?). RyanVesey18:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong as I know little on the subject, but SSM isn't such a rare or unheard of thing to legalize. 11 countries have legal same sex-marriage, which I don't think was the case for women voting. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposementioning the first openly gay female Senator. This election had the first Asian-American woman in the Senate [19], the first Hindu in the House of Representatives, and the first Buddhist in the Senate [20], so it's hard to mention one and not another, notwithstanding notability issues. SpencerT♦C01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a pretty big deal and would make the front page on a slow news day, but it is sort of a trivia issue. It is clear that over the last decade there has been a huge change in the rights and perception of the LYGB community, and it is very significant that voters approved the issue - it is more an acknowledgment that you have fully arrived, than anything else. Normally minorities never get their rights through a popular vote, as the majority trivially outvotes them, but as majority acceptance increases, votes follow. It is sort of like climbing a mountain, and realizing you are going to be able to reach the top even though you are just at the first base camp. So this is the point where LG etc. are at base camp. Voters tend to be too dumb to make smart decisions. And that is not a reflection on them - by definition the average IQ is 100, and the average IQ of successful politicians is barely higher, mostly because they are more relatable, but who in their right mind would select someone with an IQ of 100 to run a university or a corporation - yet we do that for a country? Fortunately the President contrary to popular expression, does not run the country. They do run the executive branch of the Federal government, but a country is much more than its government, and corporations have long been far more important in the U.S. than the Federal government. And nobody tells anyone what to do. Nobody. They can try, but it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Ask yourself, how many people actually stop at a stop sign or follow every speed limit? And how is that drug war working out? Billions spent and not one percentage change in drug use. And has the death penalty in Nigeria or Iran stopped even one person from being gay? Not likely. Apteva (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voters in the states of Colorado and Washington approve the legalization of recreational use of marijuana in voter ballot initiatives, while the state of Massachusetts approves a referendum legalizing the use of medical marijuana. (CNN)
Voters in the state of California approve a tax increase to fund public schools, community colleges and state universities. (The New York Times)
Nominator's comments: Magnitude and casualties seem to be in line with what we would normally post. Article is progressing, but it's still a bit short. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This appears to be of a wide importance and already reaches media coverage worldwide. I find the article good as well, although it's always better if additionally expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable in its own right (to legalize it and not just not prosecute it) and also because it puts them in conflict with federal law. --RA (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Can we combine the marijuana, equal marriage, and statehood votes into one item? I'd support that, and I'm not sure I can whole-heartedly support any of them separately. (And if we do carry the marriage amendments, in whatever form, please can we call it equal marriage? Many thanks.) AlexTiefling (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call it homosexual marriage and you'll be accurately describing the only thing about it that's different from marriage.
Would probably best to merge them into one bullet (if both are to be posted) rather than give them each their own, on top of the Obama reelection blurb. We already get enough cries of "AMERICAN BIAS!!!!" on this page, so condensing can be a good thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per the same reason as for the same-sex marriages. The adoption of such laws in federal units of a country bears no notability at all. It would have been ITN worthy if a country like the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, or France has legalized marijuana. Furthermore, two of 50 states is completely a niche percentage. What about the other 48 or at least 24 more to surpass a half?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Support For the exact reason Simeonovski mistakenly oppfoses. The US is a federation of sovereign states, and this is a first in what will be a growing trend. Immediately raises the constitutionality of federal laws on the issue. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "this is a first in what will be a going trend" seems to be wrongly placed here. I wonder if it's possible to have your power to predict what will happen in the future. Please come again when the trend will end with the adoption on a country's level or the laws will attain legalization in more than a half of the states and then you have my support guaranteed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't agree with the above argument that states do not count while countries do, that's nation-state biased. In federal systems states have high levels of legislative autonomy and here we talk about two states with a combined population of 12 million. That's more than the population of most countries, so don't see why state-level democracy would need to be ignored. Is particularly inconsistent with the other ITN phenomena of often considering accidents resulting in 10+ deaths newsworthy. --ELEKHHT22:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Calculating 2 out of 50 gives 4%, but 12 million out of 314 million doesn't change it either. Even if the level of autonomy of the states in the US is on a higher level (agree on it), it doesn't show that the news really does implications and many groups are aware of it. The comparison with some other countries with less population is completely off, because they usually earn much more international attention when legalizing such things. We cannot base our conclusions on population figures that don't coincide with the factual acceptance of the news worldwide. Should we, then, post each law approved by a single state in India, only because its population is much greater than the population of some sovereign countries? Claiming that the federal subjects in the United States are of large importance than those in other countries is not indented as an argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the number of people affected by a news event is relevant though. Scanning the news, I see it is being reported world-wide. --ELEKHHT22:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been reported by some of the largest media, but not specifically as a news that stands in front with the others breaking news of the day. But still no echo in the media in my country and the countries similar to mine, as it would have been the case if it happened in Belgium (10 million), Denmark (5.5 million) or anywhere else.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only breaking news which qualifies than definitely art and culture would never make it. I would have hoped our inclusion criteria is more sophisticated than that. --ELEKHHT23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're somehow right. But the art and culture news that are usually posted are breaking on the their specific portals ("Learning", "Science", "Art", "Travel" or whatsoever they're called). The news about the legalization of marijuana and the same-sex marriages are breaking news nowhere. If you really think that we need a more sophisticated model in the ITN, then you're encouraged to discuss it anywhere on the talk pages. It's pretty strange that ITN/R includes general elections in sovereign countries, rather than in states with much more population than some territories that claimed sovereignty.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that some of the opposers don't have a grasp of the significance of laws like these taking place in only a few states. It would still have been support-worthy if only one state did this. This involves a clash between federal and state laws. Police in those states won't arrest you for it, but the DEA will. These laws are going to have significant legal implications that set huge precedents. RyanVesey22:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huge precedents like federal laws trumping states' rights? As the below IP points out, it happens constantly in the United States. The Framers expected it, for Heaven's sakes. It's not like there's going to be a civil war or anything.--WaltCip (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Zaalbar, Kiril ect. And claiming it is notable because it creates clashing laws between the Fed and State is nothing new, there are many many many laws that are created every year that clash with federal/state law.75.73.114.111 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should go up, there's good consensus in favor of what is a novel event that affects the freedoms of far more people than does state recognition of gay marriage. Opposes seem to be based on the odd notion that federal laws somehow re-write state laws or that there is a federal police for that will go around arresting individual pot users. Arguments about how small states are is bizarrely beyond the point. And this is already having international repercussions. "Mexico to reconsider joint policies with U.S. amid new state marijuana laws." μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I have to humbly say that anyone opposing this inclusion has no clue just how big a deal this is. There is absolutely no state in the U.S. that has previously legalized marijuana, although it was rumored that the Republicans were going to legalize it nationally before the election to improve Romney's chances. No doubt it would have worked. It is a foregone conclusion that marijuana will be legalized in the U.S., and this is our one and only chance to report on it happening. Apteva (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think this is our "one and only chance to report it happening". There are presumably dozens of states in the future perhaps establishing the same law: which do we post? And for which drugs legalized? The clearest solution is to wait for changes in national-level law, and we can post then. SpencerT♦C23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first major jurisdictions to pass such laws are the most newsworthy. There's also no indication that a subsequent story will ever be suitable for ITN — it is possible that federal prosecutors simply decide to cease intervening in a non-event. — C M B J08:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dope becoming lawful in any US state would be an obvious post. We should post this only if and when in turns out to be anything other than purely symbolic. Formerip (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...except that's essentially what happened. I'm actually the one who created our template that emphasizes to readers the discrepancy between federal and state laws, but I'm still shocked that this nomination wasn't unanimously supported and the story expeditiously posted. The reforms in Colorado and Washington are not by any means purely symbolic: they have real, demonstrable implications at local, state, national, and international levels, and Gonzales v. Raich is not a sufficient refutation of that fact. — C M B J08:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is HUGE news - it is the first time in both US and World history that same-sex marriage has been enacted at the ballot box instead of through legislatures and judicial rulings. --Grotekennis (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I haven't read the stories on this, but if it is accurate that this is the first time in world history that the public has voted in favour of SSM directly, rather than having it legalized through acts of parliament or the courts, then I would agree that is big news. And the big news is the vote, therefore I would modify the blurb to note that. Resolute14:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We had been 0-for-32 in the US on gay marriage votes, until we broke the shutout last night. Also, we could expand the gay rights focus of this post by noting that Tammy Baldwin, when sworn in, will become the first openly gay member of the US Senate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN will simply become the US election ticker--which might be a better solution. But three state referenda are just not importnat enough compared to the other news. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; if there were 5 US states instead of 50, then it would be support. Think about it, 3/50 US states just legalised SSM. That's not notable enough to be front page material. Zaalbar (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not the first states to do this and likely not the last. This pales in comparison to yesterday's vote to legalize recreational marijuana in Washington and Colorado. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is the first time it's happened by voter initiative. At least in the US, if it has happened by voter initiative in other countries, someone please tell me. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Meh ... them and Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden. Along with 30 or 40 odd states that allow same-sex unions. --RA (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I cannot realize a notability in the legalization of same-sex marriages in federal units of a country. Maybe it's worth supporting if the legalization was done in the United States, but in three of 50 states it's far from being something important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support In federal systems states have high levels of legislative autonomy and this item concerns three states with a combined population of 14 million. That's more than the population of most countries (including Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden of those mentioned above) so don't see why the rights of 14 million would have to be ignored, while a country with a smaller population would qualify only because is called a "country". --ELEKHHT22:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody imposes the statement that a "country" qualifies better than a "state", since it's been proven many times and stands as something which is self-evident. Please check the archives of the largest media portals to compare how many news similar to this one about "countries" with less population have circulated in contrast to those about a "state". Basically, the ITN should document news stories from the articles, and not to deal with demographics or any other statistical conclusions. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that 3/5 states would form a majority in that country and it would be more notable, as opposed to a very small proportion (3/50 states) of the US. Zaalbar (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while the popular vote success is new, the states are only the last in a series of states that legalized SSM. If the whole country legalized it, that would be another matter, but this is too local. Hekerui (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking this is being overshadowed in the U.S. by the presidential election and in Puerto Rico by the gubernatorial election today and tomorrow, but it's going to be a big developing story. Obviously a success for pro-statehood on a status question after, what, three referendums previously that they failed to win? Is a big deal. Especially considering the implications of the vote. This would be the first major territorial change in the United States since the 1950s. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't know this vote was happening and the result is a big change in position. On reading about it now, Obama (and Romney) said they would support ascension. However, it requires the approval of Congress. Very interesting, and very significant, but I'm not sure if this is the time to post or if/when Congress approves. On the other hand, that could be years away. --RA (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the United States is arguably one the most powerful nations in the world at the moment, major sudden changes to its demographic as such should be posted as it may have implications on the many countries that have extensive relations with it hence the impact is not limited to the region. YuMaNuMaContrib12:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the preference has been expressed. If this results in actual changes, it qualifies for another ITN post. But curiously, this was completely overshadowed by the Other election. --Tone12:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until its official dissolution in its current status and the adoption of the statehood. We posted similar changes in the administrative division of the Netherlands in late 2010, when the Netherlands Antilles were dissolved and given different constitutional status. Indeed, the final approval should be voted in the U.S. Congress.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify/Weak Oppose? It's a nonbinding resolution. What's the next step here regarding Puerto Rican statehood? Does it go to the PR legislature? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it shouldn't make it to the front page twice; one for the referendum and another as making it/not making it as the US state. Maybe if it becomes a US state, but not at the moment. Zaalbar (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of things go on the main page twice, a topical and logical comparison would be the election and inauguration of the US president; up once for the fact the people decided on an outcome, up again for when it actually comes into effect. And the gap between now and there actually being a 51st state may be a year or more. Another comparison could be Scotland - if there was a successful vote for independence both the result of the vote and the actual taking place of the independence would be newsworthy (and would almost certainly be years apart - Scotland might vote yes in 2014 but it would probably be at least 2016 before it came into effect). --23230talk19:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's notable enough to go up twice. Scotland's referendum is notable enough because it is already a country and it would become a completely independent country (new member of the UN, etc). Whereas Puerto Rico is already a territory in the US, would just become another one of many many states and it is very small. Zaalbar (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A key difference is that Scotland's referendum will be binding. We decided not to post the recent agreement-in-principle between the British and Scottish government precisely because it wasn't the final, binding plebiscite. As and when that's held, it'll be ITN for sure; South Sudan got it, for similar reasons. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and support. I added a couple sentences to the results section, although my grammar could use a double check. Good to go? Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)20:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we did the hook now, we'd have to say that "Major news organizations declare the election in favor of Barack Obama". Is elected is still a bit presumptuous. In addition, if it does turn out that there is a disparity between electoral and popular votes, that should be mentioned in the hook. RyanVesey04:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for presidential election at least. House/Senate elections could possibly wait until we know more. Canuck89 (what's up?) 04:32, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
Wait until Romney concedes. It's not official until Romney concedes. If for some reason the concession takes time, we can post a blurb similar to what I mentioned. RyanVesey04:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support putting up a hook now that mentions that news organizations declared that Obama won. I don't think we should wait too long to have anything up. We should be more slow in putting a hook up that says Obama won. There's a difference between Wikipedia declaring the election and Wikipedia saying others declared it. RyanVesey05:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether we really need to post that news organizations called the election. Just wait for the election to end, we're not in a race like the media. This is an encyclopedia. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All speculation at this stage. Wait until all the votes are counted, until the actual results are known, until it is certain beyond all doubt, just like with every single other election.
There is no need to wait because any of the decided battleground states are worth less than the amount Obama is over the 270 threshold. 05:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Good to go Per CBS, Romney has called Obama to concede, is taking the stage to make the concession speech in ten minutes per Fox News. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional elections have also been decided (Democrats won the Senate and the Republicans won the House). The Senate election article had updated stats, while the House election doesn't, and both don't have prose updates. –HTD13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about posting this. We didn't post with the last presidential elections, and neither the House nor the Senate had a switch in the majority party. SpencerT♦C08:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - that it is not significant - even though the House/Senate have the lowest approval ever, about 11%, voters re-elected most of the house. Talk about voters being dumb. What Charlie Cook said, though, was instead of voters selecting electors, electors select their voters - by gerrymandering districts so that they know they will get re-elected. Apteva (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant, as it's a legislative election, at par with a great majority of the elections that's posted here, but as what was said, there's no change and it seems that no one is updating the articles -- even the stats. At least there are midterm elections where the legislative election gets some love. –HTD14:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prime Minister of SpainMariano Rajoy criticises Catalonia's drive for independence on radio, claiming its such an attempt "goes against history, goes against the sign of the times, and goes against simple common sense". (Al Jazeera)
At least five people are reported shot at a workplace (Apple Valley Farms, a poultry and meat processing plant with about 50 employees) in central Fresno, California, according to the Fresno Bee newspaper. Initial reports have said that the gunman then shot himself nearby. (MSN)[permanent dead link]
Barack Obama is projected to defeat his Republican opponent Mitt Romney in the electoral college vote and win re-election as President of the United States, after having won the crucial swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Florida remains too close to call. (CNN)
The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico votes to become a U.S. state. If previous procedure is followed, Congress will now request that Puerto Rico establish a state constitution. Then, Congress would vote to approve it as a state, which it usually does. However, Congress is not obligated to follow this procedure, and by its vote, it ultimately must decide, which is not yet certain. Obama and Romney had both pledged to support the result of the referendum and to work with Congress on the issue. (BBC)
British Conservative Party MP Nadine Dorries is suspended from the party after her decision to become the first serving politician to appear on a reality television series. The move could take her away from Parliamentary business for up to a month. (BBC)
Comment on blurb This looks like a good nom to me, but technically the "seen" part happened in Dec 2010, when the specimens were found. Perhaps "Researchers identify two specimens of a never-before described whale species"? Or some such? I'm always shaky on how to word these bio blurbs. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this formulation makes sense. And it's a good natural history story. Ready to post when I see some more support. --Tone15:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references are weak and the article is really short, comparing with other ITN obituaries. Otherwise, support, in principle. --Tone10:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for recent deaths when adequately updated (and preferably expanded in general) and necessary references are added. --RJFF (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for recent deaths when adequately updated. One sentence is not sufficient. We usually require one paragraph. --RJFF (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ten hits a day on average, under 120 after death announced, collected works below 20,000 rank at Amazon, not notable enough even for recent deaths. μηδείς (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In his field (modern classical music) he is very important and influential and a real household name. Amazon rankings aren't everything (please note that amazon is a commercial platform, while Wikipedia isn't) --RJFF (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No idea where Medeis is getting his ten hits a day from: August-October total is 15778, at a daily average of 171.5. Made BBC radio news this morning: more notable than those who have previously been in deaths ticker supportKevin McE (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Bad Yes, I must have searched check views with another spelling of Elliott. But the Amazon numbers still stand, certainly not the top of his field, the book about him ranks at 1,390,000--interest in his rather unpopular music is limited to fanboys. Sorry. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2012 (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.
Nominator's comments: Listed on ITN/R. I'll try to also add a bit more to the articles on the horse and the jockey, which are currently stubs. – IgnorantArmies – 05:33, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
I've raised the prose size of the article to 3965 B, which compares favorably with the prose size of "2012 Kentucky Derby" (3686 B). I think the content in both articles covers the same sort of things, although the Derby article is probably filled out a bit more by the infobox and contents box. IgnorantArmies – 07:20, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
I was worried about "Australia's most prestigious Thoroughbred horse race," as I know for instance that in the US there is dispute over whether its Kentucky Derby or Breeder's Cup Classic, so I don't know if its so accepted as such in Australia. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Election night in USA
OK enough silliness, all of you. This is unproductive. Re-nominate once the results are known (and make sure there's a referenced prose update in the election article). Modest Geniustalk13:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving again, even if for no other reason than to discourage these types of nominations, twenty-four hours before the story actually comes to completion. It's not a race and there are no rewards for nominating an item. As a standard ITN/R item and a globally covered event, there does not need to be a consensus-building exercise ahead of time. This will be posted when the requisite update -- which can't come for several more hours still -- is provided. There is nothing to discuss now. -- tariqabjotu20:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment You know, it's not a race and you don't get a trophy for being the first to nominate this. Was there any doubt it would be posted? Furthermore, it's spelled "president" with two "e"s. --Jayron3204:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well lately there have been absences in ITNR election postings being nominated. (i used to nominate it and now, it seems, they dont get on here)Lihaas (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
more sarcasm People on both sides of the political spectrum are saying they will move to Canada if their guy loses. As a Canadian, I oppose revealing any results of this election so that those people may live in peace without tearing their families from their homes. Please think of the children! Resolute04:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conservatives moving to Canada because the US might become too liberal?! You can't beat logic like that. Also, loving the IP's barnstar :P IgnorantArmies – 06:13, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
Going on past events, that would enable the nominator to open a successful fish and chip shop. IgnorantArmies – 06:32, Tuesday November 6, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, funny little trouts. TROUTS are for disruption, so lets so who's unproductive? Do you then care to keep anyeye an nominate the elections recently that have not made it here? Even after the election, sine you seem to think itll automatically happen when the results are out. case in point, thank you!!!Lihaas (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This will, of course, be posted when the time is ripe. I'm rather concerned that Lihaas, having rushed to press and been quite reasonably criticised for doing so, is now hatting those threads. One shouldn't be able to suppress criticism of one's own decisions and actions. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Support obviously as this is *ahem* notable, and is very likely to be updated within seconds. Question is, when do we post it? When CNN calls the election? When the FEC officially announces? When the other guy concedes? The three parts (President, House and Senate) are likely to not be known at the same time. Also, should we use the phrases "is re-elected" "retains control of the house/senate"? There's advantages to having a discussion a little bit ahead of time about this, thanks Lihass for filing the necessary "paperwork". LukeSurltc11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the post should go with presidential results up when Obama/Romney officially concedes the race, with the senate and house bits added to the blurb when known. If relevant the phrses "is re-elected" and "retains control.." should be used as they add information for minimal extra words. LukeSurltc11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What concerns me most is that after assuming power in Burma, Switzerland and Panama, X is set to take over the United States as well. When will X be elected Pope? Will he/she succeed Queen Elizabeth II one day? And will there be a stalemate when X in the White House and the Y-majority in Congress fail to cooperate? --RJFF (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unclosed it, because HTD comments built on the productiveness,, it wasnt ALL silly. Heck his comments BUILT on wnat more to addLihaas (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A suicide car bomber detonates a bomb in the Hama province of Syria killing 50 Syrian military personnel. This attack is the largest attack on Bashar al-Assad's forces in the civil war so far. (Reuters)
Five bombs go off in the neighborhoods of Gudaibiya and Adliya in Manama, Bahrain, killing two foreign workers and injuring another. (BBC)
British Prime MinisterDavid Cameron orders a fresh investigation into allegations of sexual abuse involving a senior Conservative politician from the Thatcher era. The allegations concern sexual abuse at children's homes in Wales during the 1970s and 1980s. (BBC)
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_02_(cropped).jpg)
