• edit
• history
• watch

• The South Korean military resumes building a naval base on the island of Jeju-do after police clear the site of protesters. (Yonhap)

• A court in Düsseldorf orders Samsung to stop selling its new tablet computer, Galaxy Tab, acting on a lawsuit brought by Apple. (Reuters)

• 2010 Gaza flotilla raid:
  • Turkey expels Israel's ambassador and cancels all military agreements with Israel, hours before a UN report investigating the raid is published. (BBC) (The New York Times)
  • The UN report finds that the IDF acted 'legitimately' in trying to enforce Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, except for the lack of a final warning to the activists and the use of "excessive" force. (Jerusalem Post)

• The Prime Minister of Japan Yoshihiko Noda announces his new Cabinet with Jun Azumi as Minister of Finance and Kōichirō Genba as Minister for Foreign Affairs. (AFP via Google News)

IEA new Executive Director

• Oppose The IEA is an unremarkable organisation that few people have heard of. The appointment of a new "executive director" (yet another career bureaucrat who jumped through political hoops for 30 years) is not sufficiently notable to warrant a ITN. Deterence 05:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I agree that the number of people have heard about the IEA may be limited. However, based on what you state that the organization is unremarkable? Beagel (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just another quango. Like most quangos, the only people who would even notice if it disappeared would be those with their hands in the till. Deterence 22:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you even checked before commenting what kind of organization is it? It is not quango. Beagel (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks releases all cables unredacted

• Looks like the cat's out of the bag. Wikileaks' admission to this and the updated news coverage makes this more significant than within the previous occasion that this story was nominated. Seeing as this will end up being the last Wikileaks story for a while as a result, I would say support but urge that the blurb be modified with regards to the section "drawing widespread criticism" - either omit it, make the origin of the criticism more specific, or elaborate in some other means as to make it appear less POV.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Update? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but let's concentrate on the cables. The criticism is not very warranted, seeing that the cables were already available to anyone who really wanted them. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but drop the criticism bit. And it is arguably false that Wikileaks actually was the first to actually release the uncensored cables, so drop the first part of the suggested blurb too. Thue | talk 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Clearly a notable event which will be has been picked-up by media around the world. But, focus on the content of the new material, the manner in which is it became available and any significant implications. Further more, I agree with EricLeb and Thue regarding less focus on the predictable criticism of Wikileaks by certain elements of society which is often sensationalised, exaggerated and tends to resemble a witch-hunt. Deterence 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Still no update so far as I can see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Edited the blurb in response to comments above. JimSukwutput 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any blurb that does not mention the criticism. Wikileaks' friends have suddenly got a lot fewer as a result of this and it is important to reflect that in the blurb. We have posted Wikileaks' activities in the past and they have always been supported by more mainstream media organisations. It is important to point out that no longer applies in the interests of balance. It is very easy for an "anti-establishment" agenda to implicitly be covered in a favourable light. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC).

Additional comment for the sake of clarity - I'm not interested in the cries of anguish from Washington or similar here - I think we can take that as read. The notable element here seems to be the condemnation from their former mainstream media partners. I that respect the orginin of the criticism may be legitimately made more specific in the manner suggested by WaltCip Crispmuncher (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an important caveat you make. Critical rhetoric from Washington cronies and uptight Tory MPs from the UK isn't worth a damn. But, the joint condemnation from the Guardian, the New York Times, German news magazine Der Spiegel, Spanish daily El Pais and France's Le Monde - the five media sources who proactively collaborated with Wikileaks for the initial publication of the redacted United States diplomatic cables - is very noteworthy and should be included. Deterence 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. While I do agree with the reasoning here, I can also see why many readers would find the blurb biased if they have not went through the same kind of reasoning. And I tend to support keeping the blurb short and concise in these cases, as its main purpose is to provide a link to the article where the topic can be discussed in more detail. JimSukwutput 03:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Update? Anybody? No? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, for all the talking, no one seems to want this posted badly enough. For what it's worth, I oppose any blurb that does not mention any criticism, per Crispmuncher. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is not our problem. See the section on top: "In order to suggest a candidate: ... Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated." I know we often leave this to other users, but you're really supposed to update the article or have an updated article before you nominated, rather than expecting any other user to do so. JimSukwutput 03:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't our current practice, and should be changed. It's not my problem anyway either, I really could care less over whether WikiLeaks gets more coverage than it deserves. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

_{::::Naturally, you mean you couldn't care less.--WaltCip (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)}

• Update done. We haven't posted anything in 4 days! Let's get something up. Nightw 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Could some admin take a look at the complaint about the blurb at Errors Main Page? The request for a change in wording seems well-founded. Sharktopus 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Turkey expels Israeli ambassador

• Any comments? --BorgQueen (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

* Oppose - I dont find it much notable. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support for now - Sorry, i blindly put that comment on. I am not knowledgeable of this topic. Just googled for it and found hundreds of articles coming up about it. Yes, it is sufficiently significant for an update. You see, there has been no news for three days and a sudden twist in the relationship between two nations is big news. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but is there an article or at least a specific section we can link to for details on the UN report? Otherwise maybe Israel–Turkey relations. Nightw 12:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, we could use the Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid article, I suppose. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - for Israel–Turkey relations.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per reasons above, but there's one point I'm confused about. Most of the articles I've read attribute the expulsion to the leaking of the UN Report, but at the same time Turkey has rejected the findings of the report (which apparently they have debated over with Israel for a few months). I don't think they're expelling the ambassador because of what's in the report. I think they're expelling him because of what's not inside the report (they're not satisfied with it and expelled the ambassador as an act of protest). Is that correct? JimSukwutput 13:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the articles suggested say anything about this development. I really want to post this given the dire state of the timer, but we need something resembling an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Given the sensitivity of this conflict, I suggest any posting must be thoroughly vetted and factually accurate. Time can wait. Sources attribute Turkey's decision to Israel's refusal to not apologizing for the flotilla raid. Turkey has been threatening this well before the UN report leaked. The Palmer Report was just icing on the cake, after it stated Israel's blockade was legal under international law. I suggest the blurb be amended to reflect the conditions of the report, rather than a focus on Turkey. Something like, "A UN report on the flotilla raid determined Israel's blockade of Gaza to be legal, but concluded Israel's raid was carried out with unreasonable force blah blah blah..." source. Wikifan 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support one there's an update, given that this seems at least relatively significant and given that if the timer becomes much more dire ITN might spontaneously combust. Ks0stm 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - according to Israel, the ambassador is has already finished his tenure, quote: "Regarding Turkey's decision to expel Israel's envoy to Ankara, the official said the ambassador – Gabi Levy – had already finished his tenure in Ankara, had taken leave of his Turkish counterparts in Ankara, and was returning to Israel in the coming days. No replacement for Levy, whose retirement from the Foreign Ministry has been known for months, was ever named." Another reports says "Israel's ambassador to Ankara, Gabi Levy is currently in Israel on vacation and is retiring from the Foreign Service effective in the middle of September. Israel has not named any replacement for him." It appears there is a downgrading of relationship - presumably the ambassador will not be replaced for some time - but this is not such big news, given the state of Israel-Turkey relations over the past year. The significant news seems to be the release of the UN's Palmer report stating that Israel's naval blockade of Gaza was a "legitimate security measure" to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza but that Israel used "excessive force" against the ships breaking the blockade. PopularMax (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Most expulsions of diplomatic staff are merely symbolic (its not like anyone cares who's working at an embassy). But, it is precisely that negative symbolism that makes this event notable. Deterence 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as per PopularMax links, looks like a real non-event. Mtking 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support Diplomatic expulsions generally are purely symbolic acts in any event, so musing on the actual impact of this seems moot, especially when this assessment comes out of Jerusalem. It seems to me that this UN report that triggered the event has been the biggest international story of the past day or so. I thought of nominating that myself but there are issues templates on the relevant articles which would probably take time to short out. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC).
• Support per above. Without meaning to play-in to the endless nausea of the Israel-Palestine political saga, this is a notable development in relation to a notable political/military event. The relatively sudden and substantial cooling in relations between Turkey and Israel is a notable development in itself. The fact that the report is authored on behalf of the UN also increases its notability, albeit at the cost of its credibility. Deterence 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Flawed and POV blurb. Mention of report is too ambiguous. Blurb should be about the Palmer Commission, the details (that embarrassed Turkey) led to the Israeli ambassador being expelled. Although Turkey threatened to expel Israel's ambassador for not apologizing over the flotilla incident well before the Palmer Report was leaked. IF anything, the blurb should state the UN's finding explicitly - that Israel's blockade was legal and does not constitute an act of collective punishment (straight from the report). Blurb is not only one-sided but factually inaccurate. Wikifan 00:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That itself would be POV. The report had two headline conclusions: 1) The Gaza blockade is legal and 2) Excessive force was used in the flotilla raid. Mentioning both is balanced, mentioning neither is similarly balanced. Mentioning one without the other is POV. As I noted above the report is the substantive story here but it is precisely that kind of distortion that stops us running with it. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

• Agreed with Crispmuncher here. There's some not-so-subtle POV-pushing going on here under the guise of neutrality. I don't think we have the perfect blurb, but I'm not going to let Wikifan use my comment to push his agenda (once again). So let me state for the record that I support posting this item. JimSukwutput 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, quite clearly, the blurb should include both statements. The current blurb is blatantly false - Turkey did not expel Israel's ambassador because of this report, they expelled the ambassador because Israel refused to apologize over the flotilla raid. It would be better to simply post the Palmer Report rather than have a one-sided Turkey blurb. Yeah Jim, again with your dubious accusations of "POV-pushing." Please take your insinuation to the appropriate noticeboards with proof. Stop poisoning the discussion with personal attacks. Wikifan 01:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

*Support The sentence is "Turkey expels Israeli ambassador after this report", not ""Turkey expels Israeli ambassador because of this report".Dizikaygisiz (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC) It is not the same.

the sentence is Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador "after details emerged of a UN report." Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador because Israel refused to apologize over the flotilla raid. We know this because the government has said it again and again.. They threatened to expel the ambassador before the release of the report. The current blurb suggests the Israeli ambassador was expelled because of the report - that obviously played a role - but the Turkish government official stance is different. If editors want the report to be mentioned, a neutral blurb would be "Turkey downgrades its relations with Israel after a report on the flotilla raid determined x, y and z." Or "A report released by the UN determined Israel's actions during the flotilla raid to be legal but found the army used unreasonable force. Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador blah blah blah." Prose needs work but I'm just throwing ideas out. Wikifan 02:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Wikifan: No, I'm not going to take my discussion of this nomination anywhere else. If you repeatedly make inappropriate remarks and accusations in this section, you ought to expect to be called out for it here. Quite recently one of our most frequent contributors Lihaas (a very solid editor whom I respect) was blocked, justifiably, by an admin for turning this place into a political forum. While you have not reached that level of soapboxing, your continued politicizing of what should be a neutral discussion of significance and your provocative comments aimed at other editors (those presumably with opposite political views) are very close to being just as disruptive. This is not a political arena where you can start a crusade against allegedly "one-sided" blurbs. That kind of behavior might be acceptable at an article's talk page, provided that you back up your claims with reliable sources. But this is an internal discussion. This is where a bunch of very professional editors and admins work around the clock to get things posted on time. Your politicizing of every nomination that pertains to your area of interest, and your endless accusations of "POV" bias against other users who you know nothing about, are wasting a lot of their time that could be better spent on nominating more items or updating the articles. Plus it's immensely frustrating to deal with and, I presume, quite a bit insulting for the users who you accused of various heinous acts. JimSukwutput 02:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Jim, I think you might be projecting here. It is you who constantly accused editors of "POV-pushing. I did not accuse any editors of POV pushing. I said the blurb was flawed (it is), factually inaccurate (it is), and not neutral (a.k.a POV). I then provided proof to support my reasoning. Instead of responding to my reasoning, you attack me as an editor once again. This just embarrassing Jim. Wikifan 02:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no need for me to respond to your reasoning because I pretty much agree with it (see my first comment). My issue here is not with your reasoning, it is with your inappropriate remarks coupled with your long history of uncivil remarks and/or hypocritical accusations of POV against other users who might or might not have a different political view from yours, for example here here here here and here (and I'm not even looking at your behavior outside the ITN - for example your grossly inappropriate accusations directed at an admin here).
  • As for "personal attacks", I have every right to respond to your comment here. It is a response to your behavior, not your person. JimSukwutput 02:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made no inappropriate remarks here. I have filed an etiquette notice regarding your accusations of "POV-pushing." Feel free to include your grievances there. Wikifan 02:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support depending on posting admin finding a suitably sourced update. Event of obvious diplomatic significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The blurb is POV if it would be changed according to user:Crispmuncher I would Support see below--Shrike (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• The article has been updated. I changed the blurb and marked . --BorgQueen (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait up. The blurb is confusing. What's the story being posted, the UN report or the diplomatic incident with Turkey? The expulsion of the ambassador was over Israel's refusal to apologise for the deaths of nine Turks killed in the incident. It didn't have anything to do with the UN's conclusion that the incident was legal. Nightw 12:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

But we should give a context.The diplomatic incident with Turkey happened after the report was leaked and Israel didn't want to apologise becouse the report found that the boarding was legal though excessive force was used so I Support updated blurb --Shrike (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the Israeli government refused to apologise because it believes its troops acted in self defence, not because the UN determined the action to be legal. If the story being posted is about the findings of the report, the article being updated should be Palmer Report. The proposed blurb strays from the focus of the story into a completely separate story. Nightw 13:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've struck my support until the blurb is tightened. Stay on topic. Nightw 13:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose As with Night w, I have struck my support. The original blurb was not perfect but acceptable; this one is much worse. JimSukwutput 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh? I said the same thing Night said. Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israeli refused to apologize for the Gaza flotilla raid. In fact, Turkey threatened to expel the Israeli ambassador before the release of the report. This is why I suggest the blurb be about the actual report, rather than the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador. Gaza flotilla raid received several main page postings, the conclusion of a UN investigation is very notable. The original blurb was just wrong - factually speaking. Wikifan 18:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well then feel free to nominate that story. You'll also need to update the flotilla article. Nightw 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is updated. I don't care too much, I'm saying a viable alternative to this blurb exists. The original blurb (Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador because of the report) was false, I explained why. Jim went on a tangent because I'm the one who said that, you say the same thing - in less words - and suddenly its an oppose. ITN is a bit of a joke in this situation no? I'm not against Turkey expels the Israeli ambassador, but the news is rather stale. The blurb could be revised to summarize a general downgrade in relations. Something like, "Report determines Israeli blockade legal, Turkey is pissed and and seeks an IJC investigation. UN/US call for a return to normalized relations, blah blah." Turkey's status as a NATO member, host of US nuclear weapons system, and historic ally of Israel is very notable. This 180 change in foreign relations is an important story but the expulsion of the ambassador is more of a symbolic gesture. The blurb could be something like, "A diplomatic row between Israel and Turkey is triggered following Israel's refusal to apologize for the Gaza Flotilla Raid and a UN investigation that determined Israel's blockade to be legal..." Sources suggest Turkey's new approach towards Israel is definitely about Gaza, and not just an apology. Wikifan 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, well in the absence of any formal nomination of the other story and since you don't oppose posting anything about this story, I've amended the blurb again and marked the item as ready. Nightw 19:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still on oppose because Turkey didn't simply expel the ambassador over the flotilla raid. Blurb is too open-ended and no context suggests a conflict with NPOV (not to mention verifiability). I didn't know regular editors could amend a blurb they didn't start, is that allowed? Wikifan 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am the nominator and I certainly don't mind the amended blurb. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, obviously I support the nomination now. Can't speak for Jim. Nightw 19:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To re-iterate, I do not support the blurb because that is not the reason Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador. Wikifan 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Posted. Suggestions for improvement of the blurb are welcome here or at WP:ERRORS, I just took the nominated version. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Mistake IMO Mitchell. I suggest proof-reading a blurb before posting. See grammar issue? Going to ERRORS now. Wikifan 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Also Mitchell, is it fair of admins to post a blurb they support? Is that a COI or something? Pardon my ignorance, I remember another editor bringing this issue up before in a different proposal. Wikifan 21:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Its ok as long as consensus is clear even without their own support. There is already shortage of admins, cant be too picky now. -- Ashish-g55 23:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, but it have been more credible for an uninvolved admin not part of the topic area to enforce the posting. Editors who oppose the current blurb have not been approached as of late. I made a report in ERRORS, hopefully the blurb will be taken down or amended to reflect actual sources. Wikifan 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Having read the above discussion and the one at WP:ERRORS, I've revised the blurb to read "Turkey expels Israel's ambassador following Israel's refusal to apologize for its 2010 raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla." This much is undisputed and reported by reliable sources. —David Levy 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 India–Pakistan border shooting

• Nominated by Chocolate Horlicks (talk · give credit)

How can a "Cross-border incident between two large countries with a not-so-pleasant history" even warrant a separate article? –HTD 04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I didnt create the article, but I presume the same logic used for the creation of separate articles for Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and Battle of Daecheong were used (although admittedly the scale of both of these two were larger, but not by too much). I am guessing you are questioning the notability of the event - I concede that this is not earth shattering, but things have been (relatively) cool for some time now and both countries have just started talking to each other until this happened. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I created the article and there have been articles published before on such skirmishes. As far as the article is concerned, it is notable. Mar4d (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I initially added this (if you go through the page history) on ITN although later retrieved it. I think that while the event is notable and has made headines in some news, the occurence itself is not quite notable because there has been periodical unrest a number of times along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan. This particular incident is nothing different. Mar4d (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Agreeing with Mar4d, India and Pakistan have been on a dispute for like... forever i must say. (I live in india), Something happening within the borders with just three or four people dying is very common these days. And also, the shooting doesnt require a separate article. It could possible be merged into one of the previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, there are no "previous articles about the cross-border shootings between the nations in recent history." If there was/were, then this could have been merged. I think we can always create an article on India–Pakistan skirmishes, similiar to how we have Pakistan – United States skirmishes and Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes. Interested editors can then update the article with some of the sporadic conflicts along the border that may have taken place in the past although that would require a lot of research and work (no guarantee that I will be an extensive contributor). Mar4d (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with above. it is business as usual at the LOC.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose They've been using each other for target practice on that border for years. SNAFU. Deterence 23:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: