Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sport
TSA Threatens passengers
TSA officers have threatened passengers who protest the new pat-downs. The agency can fine passengers up to $10,000 for behaving in a manner that is so uncooperative and disruptive that it physically interferes with the screening process, according to the agency.1 --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Uh... this is notable news how exactly? Not to mention that that's a horribly biased and leading heading. Seriously, what one government agency decides on laws within their own country is nowhere near of enough interest for ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose So you get in trouble if you misbehave while going through airport security? Not really news. And that heading needs changing. wackywace 11:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. More lunacy in airport "security", yet another government agency deliberately throwing its weight around to prove that it can, nothing new here. Physchim62 (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What's TSA? The article linked to is a dab page. Nightw 12:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's Transportation Security Administration. Oppose. Not notable. Nightw 12:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite like to imagine that it was the scouts, or a bunch of Polish rockers, and the Taiwanese airport would fit the blurb well. Might be a misunderstanding of what the Tourettes sufferers were saying, and not a threat at all, or maybe the expatriate Thai (or technological) students have an axe to grind. It would be intriguingly out of character for the theosophists to get involved in such a thing. Maybe the Sally Army are simply being more insistent on people taking copies of the War Cry. Kevin McE (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, The Transportation Security Administration's pat down is horrible. A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. As reported by MSN on this article. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's gross. He should count himself pretty lucky, though. In the country I'm in at the moment, if you protest random additional screening you get 40 strikes of the cane across the behind. How's that for additional screening? Nightw 12:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I don't doubt that it's specifically designed to be humiliating, to show the average citizen that the government has this much power over them. Unfortunately, it's not particularly unusual in that respect, especially in the field of airport "security". That's why I'm opposing – that it's not unusual enough. Physchim62 (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But is TSA not very violent. Even when that man was having troubles regarding his health. The TSA people didnot listen to him (as the news article said) and so did the man suffer. Now, if this is not suitable for ITN. Okay, i agree. But kindly see if any part of the article is or can be suitable to ITN. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You make mistakes and you never realize. But when other people make mistakes, you feel like a big lecturer and strictly oppose them like you did here and here. Just when in the world will you realize your mistakes and try be more cautious when pointing out other's mistakes. --117.198.154.102 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Meh. The Yanks are paranoid about security and ordinary folk are the ones who suffer for it. That's nothing new. Perhaps if it discourages or prevents a potential attack, it's worth it, but there's no way to measure that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Anirudh Emani is in the mood of criticizing th US Security. Lets not wait anymore and strictly warn him about it. --117.198.154.102 (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- lol!! Good attack on me!!! I Can defend myself, can you???. You are just an IP user. I am a reviewer. What can you do to me!!?? --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shut up!! Even we, the IP user have equal support from the other Wikipedia members. Why did you feel we cant make accounts and block you out. A free encyclopedia is so vulnerable to such criminals right. I can do anything to you. Just make sure you dont piss me off kid. --117.198.154.102 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madagascar held a referendum on a new constitution on the 17th, but result ("yes") has just come in yesterday. It "legitimises" the military junta (in power since 2009) as the government, and its leader Rajoelina as president, until elections take place next year.
Madagascar's three main opposition parties boycotted the referendum. And an attempted coup to overthrow the current coup took place over three days during the referendum. Guardian, People Daily, Global Voices, Economist, SMH.
It's on WP:ITN/R, but the article needs work. Nightw 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support when ready. Important referendum. --candle•wicke 06:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, without prejudice to support or oppose: Technically, it's not on WP:ITNR. Referenda are not the same as elections. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the article is not very well written. According to the article, the referendum must have been held on November 17. When it is already on the past, the article still says it will be held on November 17. If im not very wrong. Some readers might get confused and assume it to be on November 17, 2011. Based on all this, i will Oppose for now. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article looking much better now. Nightw 11:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second part is valid, as referendum also dictated whether the incumbent president was to remain in power. Nightw 12:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Decent article with all the background (dispite it's "controversy" section – can't people find another heading to put these election disputes under?) Physchim62 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I still dont understand why Anirudh Emani feels the article is not well written. All he can do is just run around Wikipedia sermonizing. He is a big trouble for ITN. --117.198.154.102 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this one, but it seems to be being taken seriously by European media at least. Catholic Church and AIDS seems to be the article that needs updating. Physchim62 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. It's not as notable as when the Church accepted evolution, but seeing that some are blaming Catholicism for the AIDS epidemic in Africa (i.e., due to the Church saying that contraception is a sin), I think this is worth a blurb. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The New York Times: "Pope Says Condoms to Stop AIDS May Be Acceptable". "The pope’s statement on condoms was extremely limited: he did not approve their use or suggest that the Roman Catholic Church was beginning to back away from its prohibition of birth control". TIME - "Benedict's so-called condom concession was not a huge one". --candle•wicke 06:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. it is not a big matter. Just comments wouldn't be considered as top stories. Such news is not suitable for ITN. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a pretty big matter. To a large portion of the Catholic church's 1.1 billion poeple, what the Pope says is not merely a 'comment'. I agree that the concession was very limited, but any concession on this issue is fairly significant IMO.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and i totally agree with you. Anirudh Emani has no knowledge about ITN and he feels he is best of all. Dont you think we should block him from editing this page. --117.198.154.102 (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
- Vladimir Arzumanyan from Armenia wins the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2010 held in Minsk, Belarus with the song "Mama". BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest oppose How are we even suppose to take this seriously? Grsz 11 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not up to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you've suggested (and had rejected) enough items to know what isn't accepted. Grsz 11 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JESC has millions of viewers and many of the winners has gone on to have successful careers in their countries. So its definitly up to personal taste how important this contest is. But to dismiss it completly like you do I find a bit bizzare.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For example its one of the most viewed shows in Belarus each year. And more than one country apply to host it each year.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't post American Idol, which I'm sure has millions more viewers. This isn't the place to feature a children's talent show. Grsz 11 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently more people vote in The X-Factor than the senior ESC. AI wins because the U.S. has a higher population but a higher percentage of the British vote in their show than the Americans on theirs, although you can argue that AI is shown in more countries. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Minor music contest, little significance, tiny media coverage. However, Grsz please assume good faith in the nomination. Modest Genius talk 21:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. A children's talent show doesn't really cut it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
United States compensation payments
BBC. "A 15 year-old suit by Native Americans" and "Many of the claims date back to the 19th century". Involving "at least 300,000 Native Americans", it has been going on "for 15 years and encompassed 3,600 court filings and 80 judicial rulings". It all sounds very important but I don't know which article could be used. --candle•wicke 04:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cobell v. Salazar, which is in pretty rough shape. Grsz 11 05:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose mostly because Its a farce of legislation and does very little to allocating money to where its needed. This is good publicity but very little substance.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment -- The bill is not law yet; it still needs to pass the House and be signed by the President.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose because the title is both speculative and sensational, and NOT that the legislation is a farce. Far from it, An inordinate amount of both legal, legslative and political work has been going on, and the work is continuing. ( and the article here needs work ).--69.232.223.35 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The title comes from what the BBC article says. --candle•wicke 06:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters
International relations
Politics
Meh. I thought it had actually gone on sale when I first saw this, but the public launching for test drives in several markets is getting a good deal of press anyway, as you would expect, so why wait I say. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'd rather wait for the first day it goes on sale, but if we reach consensus to post it I wouldn't protest. I think given the fact it is the first all-electric car to go on sale is fairly important. --PlasmaTwa2 19:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for Now Revisit when they go on sale like Plasma said The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now This is just test driving, wait until sale date. SpencerT♦C 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, it goes on sale in December, wait until then.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait. If it's expected to go on sale next month, post it then, but there doesn't seem much point in posting it twice in a maximum of 6 weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but wait until launch. The first mass-produced vehicle from a large automotive company to switch from gasoline to electric is definitely a notable move. I'm anxious to see how they sell. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support when launched Crnorizec (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary Oppose. Okay, lets not go so fast. Even if a hundred people say support, our administrators will not post it. One more thing, if it is posted now, then it cannot be posted after the car is launched. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, there is no rule against articles appearing more than once on ITN, although yes generally they don't appear for the same reason. Also, if "a hundred people say support", barring opposes in similar quantity and in good opinion, consensus would indeed be to post it. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to claim that if it is posted now. Then posting it again for the same reason would be blatant violation of the rules(if im correct). --Anirudh Emani (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is, there are no hard and fast "rules", only guidelines. Our guidelines even say only elections are posted, and generally not inaugurations, but Barack Obama's inauguration was posted. "Blatant" violation of non-existent rules? Hmm... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Member states and observers of NATO will meet over the next two days. The council is expected to adopt a new strategic concept. Grsz 11 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this is one of the most important meetings in NATO history (BBC)--Wikireader41 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait until something happens. Although it is announced as "new strategic concept" there are no conclusions at this time. The concept is "almost there". Plus, I kinda like the Prince engagement there on top, let's keep him for another week or so... Crnorizec (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to Obama via the BBC, members have agreed to a missile defense shield to cover all member-state. Grsz 11 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a fairly big announcement, particularly given the fact that Dmitry Medvedev is in attendance. The fact that over 30 heads of state are all in one place seems pretty notable to me in and of itself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps upon closing, we could use a blurb like
The heads of government of the NATO member states agree to develop a mutual missile defense system (and withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014). The Afghanistan part is tentative, and may not be worth including - mostly political talk. Grsz 11 04:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I would like to see both new strategy concept and missile defence in the blurb. --Kslotte (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case,
At a summit in Lisbon, the heads of government of the NATO member states adopt a new Strategic Concept and agree to develop a mutual missile defense system. Grsz 11 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least 27 miners are still trapped inside. --Kslotte (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait to see what happens. To be frank, mine accidents happen all the time, but unless this grows into a Chile San José-type deal, then probably oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unless it is determined that there is a significant number of fatalities or if it turns into a Chilean miners-type rescue spectacular. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per SP and Fetchcomms. Can always be renominated if there are significant developments, but it's not ITN material at the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. We posted the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster back in April and that had similar casualty figures to the number of missing in this incident. Also, mining accidents in major economically developed countries are quite rare. Still, it's worth waiting to see what the fate of those 27 is of course, hoping that they're found alive and well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congo jail mass break-out
Nearly 200 prisoners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo escape from a jail in the northwest of the country. (BBC) This is huge compared to earlier escapes. We need an article. --Kslotte (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we really don't, and I'd AFD it if it was created. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWiW, we've posted jail breaks before. I believe we posted one in the Philippines a few months ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This really depends on the security level of the prison and in what sort of condition said prison type is in Congo (in comparison to other countries). I think a maximum-security prison break would be much more notable (and perhaps worthy of a blurb) than a minimum- or medium-security prison break. In this case, "Mutinies are frequent in Congolese prisons where conditions are harsh." Hence my !vote. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's an election, a change of prime minister and the article has lots of references. --candle•wicke 06:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, election in a non-sovereign entity which is not a UN member. As this is a fairly inconsequential election in the grand scheme of things (for example, if a pro-sovereignty party was elected, I might consider), there is no way I can support. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
International relations
Law and crime
Politics
Science
Sport
Irish Banking Bailout
Ok, this may be premature but it's been the top headline on the BBC for a day, and as I understand a decision is fairly imminent. The BBC seems to think that Ireland are about to accept a bank bailout from either the EU or the IMF. I assume that this would be notable enough for ITN. The most relevant existing article would probably be 2008–2010 Irish banking crisis. I'm not that well informed on this subject, but as I understand officials are meeting right now and a decision on this could happen any day now. Comments?--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a look earlier on: there's also 2008–2010 Irish financial crisis, which is slightly more up to date. Sunday seems like a likely announcement date from the comments I've read, or even later. Physchim62 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ug two forks? We need to get this sorted out The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both articles were DYKs, and appeared within a week. I smell WP:WIKICUP point-padding. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure this will be ITN-fodder once something is actually agreed, but that could be days or weeks. Let's wait to see what happens. Modest Genius talk 01:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait once something definite is announced though I agree Its heading that way. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an interesting question as to exactly when we should post it. Judgning by past bailouts, there could be several weeks between the political agreement and the formal signing of papers. Physchim62 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly needs to happen for the bailout to go ahead? Will it require approval by the Irish legislature, or can it be signed by the PM?--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait There has to be at least informal agreement between the banks, the government (PM), EU and IMF, about the format of the bailout, which is still not in place, as you can see here. Crnorizec (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
China Telecom reroutes Internet traffic
A congressional panel concluded that massive volumes of Internet traffic had been redirected unnecessarily through servers in China. During an 18-minute stretch on April 8, China Telecom rerouted traffic sent to about 15% of the Internet's destinations, including branches of the U.S. armed services, the U.S. Senate and companies like Microsoft Corp. The sophistication, size and targets of the attacks suggest some level of state support. [1] Crnorizec (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- very speculative. apparently this happens occasionally but usually networks can not handle that kind of traffic. China Telecom somehow pulled it off and thats pretty much all they have. it could just mean they simply have kickass routers. -- Ashish-g55 04:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you are right, and, due to the nature of Internet routing it is very hard prove intention, however, the congressmen are talking about targeting. Crnorizec (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly only the "Flashy" National security stories get posted here. Its interesting though The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted one that may be more to majority's taste, but someone erased it. Crnorizec (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose unless there is some real evidence of foul play. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: this was an 18 minute glitch seven months ago and there is no evidence it was anything more than a technical error, indeed the Congressional committee explicitly refused to attribute it to malice. These kind of technical snafus occur regularly and usually pass without widespread attention.
- The source cited also does not make any direct allegation of state involvement, it merely raises it as a possibility. Even if that was the case it does not necessarily indicate e.g. intelligence services involvement, which is what that style of phrasing seems intended to imply. It could equally well be simply the glitch occurred on a network under government control, or indeed (if it was malicious) it was the work of a lone network engineer with a desire to cause disruption or "load test" their network.
- When you strip away the surrounding hyperbole this boils down to nothing more than a technical glitch. I wonder if the same attitude be adopted if the problem occurred in the UK, Germany, or some other "friendly" (to the US) government. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, not enough globel impact. meshach (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HIP 13044 b
- A planet, HIP 13044 b, which was formed in another galaxy has been discovered in the Helmi Stream. (BBC). No article on it has been created yet but i feel this is very significant as it is apparently the first planet that has been discovered outside of the Milky Way. Simply south (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This planet is very definitely inside the Milky Way. The star system probably formed in a satellite galaxy that later fell into the MW, but it's still there now. The planet was in fact found a couple of years ago, the new bit is that the host star has been identified as part of the stream. This is an unexceptional planet discovery (they're running at dozens per year), that just happens to be around a stream star. Modest Genius talk 00:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry my mistake, i did not read the article properly. It is significant as it is is the first planet within our galaxy originating from outside ours. Simply south (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- THey actually get almost 100 a year nowadays. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. Seems that users have been eager in creating the article HIP 13044 b. May be of intrest. --Kslotte (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe/maybe not: I DYK-ed it anyway, so both DYK and News may make it too hot a topic. And in this day and age of dancing with the stars most of the public will think this is a "hip star" on that show anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DYK sounds reasonable. --Kslotte (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colombia floods
Major disaster, much damage, high toll. Simply south (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. From the article 2010 Colombia floods: "Weeks of heavy rains in Colombia have left at least 136 people dead and disrupted the lives of more than 1.2 million as the country faces its worst rainy season in three decades. Severe flooding and landslides triggered by torrential rains have damaged or destroyed more than 200,000 homes in all but five of Colombia's 32 provinces". If this is the case it sounds like a big enough disaster. --candle•wicke 22:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Apparently a state of emergency in 28 of the 32 departments of Colombia, up to 138 dead, about 200 injured at 1. million affected. Physchim62 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. 100+ dead. --Kslotte (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest: A series of flash floods kills 136 people and disrupts more than 1.2 million others in 27 Colombian provinces. --candle•wicke 03:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
- Floods and gale-force winds cause widespread disruption and damage across the United Kingdom county of Cornwall. (BBC)
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
- Facebook inadvertently disabled some users' accounts when a system designed to detect fake accounts malfunctioned. The problem has since been resolved. (CNN Money)
- A study published by The Lancet medical journal describes how short blasts of radio waves to the kidney may help regulate blood pressure. (BBC News)
- CERN has managed to trap antihydrogen atoms for the first time. (BBC ) (Al Jazeera)
Antimatter atom trapped
BBC. CERN has managed to trap Antihydrogen atoms for the first time. I may not be expert at theoretical physics but im pretty sure this is a very big achievement. Till now they were always destroyed almost instantly. -- Ashish-g55 19:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support something of a scientific breakthrough. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Certainly seems notable and interesting. It would be ideal to gain consensus as soon as possible; the lead item on the template was added several days ago. wackywace 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's not the first time they've been trapped, but it is the first time they've been trapped for a human-relevant timescale. Antihydrogen is a bit of a mess though. Modest Genius talk 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the paper Modest Genius talk 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well to my understanding till now they couldn't really slow the particles down enough to do anything with them. so im assuming by trapping they mean they've successfully slowed them enough to get readings within fraction of a second. cant open the paper :( -- Ashish-g55 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this means CERN will try to blow up the Vatican soon?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
- Not unless they plan to do it 38 atoms at a time Modest Genius talk 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this seems like a big deal, it'd be nice to get something new up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. This doesn't seem like a major breakthrough to me. When I read in the article that antihydrogen atoms were first created in 1995, the news leaves me feeling a bit underwhealmed. And they haven't managed to get a spectrum yet, which is really the point of the efforts. Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's... kinda true, I guess. Still, the media seem to think this is a big deal too. Modest Genius talk 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY POST NOW Obvious huge break through. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet, article Antihydrogen needs to be updated accordingly. --Kslotte (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per above. Crnorizec (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- any science major willing to update Antihydrogen properly? -- Ashish-g55 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Physics is not my strong suit or i would. I learn astronomy, Physics and Quantum Mechanics from good science fiction. lol 23:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I just got to thinking... this is a Trinity Test type moment... This will change war forever. get the same annihilation of the enemy you would get from a Atom bomb without the Nuclear Fallout... disturbing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I remember reading about this having been achieved once (reading the Wikipedia article, I'll correct that to twice) already, but I don't think they had the chance to see them for as long as they did today. So I support this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. Nergaal (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: we usually insist on publication in peer evaluated journal fo rscience stories: has this happened? Kevin McE (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's been published in Nature, one of the top journals. What we need is a bit more than one sentence update to Antihydrogen and we could get rid of those tags... Then it will be ready to post. --Tone 08:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a soapbox, ladies/gents.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- Support. we need some sensible stuff up instead of tabloid trash about some wedding announcement.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Off-topic: I don't know if you realise this, but this "tabloid trash" confirms who will become head of state in EVERY commonwealth country following Prince Charles' death (and he's in his 60's). I know Americans of your type don't seem to care about this "unsensible" matter, but it's a big deal for the two billion people affected. I don't personally care about it extremely, but I do hate people talking BS like that. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you take editors to task, be confident in your facts. The UK monarch is not head of state in every Commonwealth member state, as many are republics: the realm is nowhere even close to 2 billion people (134 million according to the relevant article). William's status as second in line is in no way linked to his marital status, yet alone engagement, so this confirms absolutely nothing. Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- lets not get off track from the topic please. take this on talk pages for prince william discussion -- Ashish-g55 02:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
|
- I would very much like to post this but as long as we have the tag on the top of the article and one sentence update it is not enough for ITN. Please expand first (don't have time myself...) --Tone 07:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag was put there because there was no mention of the capture. (See [2] and [3]). The article has now been updated and I've removed the tag.--146.121.21.2 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't this up yet? There have been over 10 supports and only 1 weak oppose. Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Antihydrogen article has only one sentence about the discovery. I espect that a little bit more to be written. --Kslotte (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now it has two para. It's been two days since the last update! Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Splendid. Posted. Feel free to modify the blurb. --Tone 22:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cook Islands
Election and a referendum are taking place today. Links in the CE box. --Tone 13:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I'm usually an advocate of posting the small nations... except this one isn't a nation, rather a non-Sovereign associated state. Courcelles 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support if its a referendum on independence, Oppose otherwise as its not a Sovereign state. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a referendum on decreasing the size of the local legislature. Courcelles 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is run-of-the mill politics in a subnational entity. As with Eraserhead, I think the only referenda in such entities that we should post are ones governing independence, and elections should be left off. Modest Genius talk 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose; not a sovereign entity and not of anywhere close to even regional, Oceanian, interest. StrPby (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those opposing on the assumption that the Cook Islands is not a sovereign state should be aware that there is an ongoing discussion about whether this is indeed the case. As it is not on the list at the moment, however, it's hard for one to invoke WP:ITN/R in this case. Nightw 08:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow that's a long, complicated discussion. If the contributors there can't work out how to handle the situation, we've got no chance. Modest Genius talk 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
|
|
|
|
|