• edit
• history
• watch

• Second Libyan Civil War
  • The Islamic State's Libyan branch continues attacks on Libya's oil ports of Sidra and Ra's Lanuf, resulting in at least 10 security personnel deaths and 40 injured. The National Oil Corporation (NOC) reports that fires continue to rage in both Sidra and Ra's Lanuf after oil storage tanks were hit by shells. (Al Jazeera) (BBC)
• Bahrain says it has dismantled a terrorist cell allegedly linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Lebanon's Hezbollah. (The National)

• Star Wars: The Force Awakens becomes the highest-grossing film ever in the United States and Canada, overtaking Avatar. (Hollywood Reporter)

• TransCanada, the firm that unsuccessfully applied for cross-border permission to build the Keystone XL pipeline, files a lawsuit against the United States alleging that the refusal of permission violated the North American Free Trade Agreement. (Reuters)

• 2016 North Korean nuclear test
  • A 5.1 magnitude earthquake near Sungjibaegam, North Korea, is suspected to be a nuclear explosion at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site. North Korea announces it has conducted a hydrogen bomb test. They claim to have tested a miniaturized bomb. If not true it would mean that the test partially failed. (AFP via ABC News Australia) (AP) (Bloomberg) (The Guardian)
  • The Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon demands that North Korea should cease any further nuclear activity. (ABC News Australia)

• German police temporarily seal off the main entrance to the chancellery building because of a suspicious package. (Reuters) (AP via USA Today) (Al Arabia)
• Texas state trooper Brian Encinia is charged with perjury in connection with the death of Sandra Bland. (AP via Fox 32)

• In Major League Baseball, Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza are elected to the Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. Griffey was named on all but three of the 440 ballots received, surpassing Tom Seaver for the highest voting percentage in Hall history. Griffey and Piazza will be formally inducted on July 24. (NBC News)

Mein Kampf is getting republished in Germany

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.

• Weak oppos for now based on article content. The current article content on the recent change to the status, and its impact in Germany, is weak (only 2-3 lines of text from one reference). If that could be fleshed out a bit into a more thorough paragraph on the situation, and reactions to it, etc. etc. I would support posting the item. --Jayron32 21:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose presumably this is because the copyright has expired and therefore its publication is nothing more than what happens to every popular item which becomes copyright-free? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not many books have this notoriety, and not many books get such a coverage when reprinted. And apparently there was a ban on the book, which was reversed as the copyright neared the expiration date. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well reading the article, it seems just as I had thought, the book is free to print now. Just because it's a notorious book, it makes little difference - the copyright has expired and it can be reprinted. This isn't Big Brother. It may be of interest to historians, and it may upset a few people, but we have freedom of speech and all that. I think this is a story looking for people to bandwagon. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The nominator is trying to mislead by using the postwar ban quote without the clarification in the source that this was only the copyright holder not allowing new prints. If the nominator wants to imply by writing Nazi symbols are strictly banned that owning or trading copies of "Mein Kampf" was ever illegal in German that's not true - owning, buying and selling the book has always been legal in Germany. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • LoveToLondon, you never cease to amaze me with your intricate knowledge of so many things throughout the world. You always deflate the bubble of hype around the non-stories. Keep it up '''tAD''' (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the immediate above. If true, then this is no big deal. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose it is 21st century there cannot be any Libri Prohibiti since late 90s. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this is already stale, since the copyright ran out 7 days ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per μηδείς, and cuz it was planned for a long time. Sca (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

support this is the country he ran for 12 years (as long as fdr served). If Audacity of Hope was banned for 80 years and republished it would be notable to.

let the discussion continue at least.Lihaas (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Except the book was not banned in Germany. It's unlikely this will succeed and should be re-closed. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 North Korean nuclear test

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.

• Nominated by SounderBruce (talk · give credit)

• Weak oppose NK performing missile or nuclear tests, alone, seems insignificant (given this is the 4th such test since 2006 per source). --MASEM (t) 04:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This one seems special, since it's claimed to have been a "miniaturized hydrogen bomb". SounderBruce 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, hydrogen bomb, seriously. Abductive (reasoning) 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support While NK may perform nuclear tests this is still significant, given there being increased tension in the area which was only resolved recently. This will escalate tension in the area once again and as such is significant. Calvinkarpenko (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support because:
  1. A hydrogen bomb, which is more destructive than an atomic bomb, is involved in this test;
  2. It is likely to generate more news items (e.g. sanctions against North Korea);
  3. It does not happen very often. Four tests since 2006 would be about one every 2.5 years, which is definitely rare.

Banedon (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tentative support pending on forthcoming international reactions. No telling whether it's actually a hydrogen bomb test or not (it produced the same magnitude artificial earthquake as the 2013 test, if that means anything). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support on notability, after the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in 1996 all nuclear tests are exceptional events important enough and making headlines worldwide. Wait until there is more sourced information available for both article and blurb regarding what exactly has happened (North Korean media claimed that it had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb is not enough to confirm it was a hydrogen bomb or a success). LoveToLondon (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support as per Cyclonebiskit.Marvel Hero (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb as written. Does anyone outside North Korea actually believe this is a hydrogen bomb? The detonation was accompanied by the same earthquake magnitude as their 2013 test of a conventional fission bomb, and not the much larger magnitude one would expect if they actually created a hydrogen bomb. All the expert commentary in the news reports I've read are very skeptical that this was actually a hydrogen bomb. Perhaps that is what they attempted but the hydrogen never ignited, or perhaps they are just saying it was a hydrogen bomb to sound scarier. Either way, I don't think their unqualified claim of a successful hydrogen bomb test belongs in the blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The sources are not reliable. Recall how WMD in Iraq turned out to be disinformation/misinformation/wishful thinking. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment there's nothing factually inaccurate about the blurb, that NK claim to detonated an H-bomb. This claim is being widely reported. That the claim may be false is another issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  North Korea also claims to have cured AIDS, Ebola, and Cancer . And that their leaders never need to poop . That doesn't mean we should parrot every claim they make with no skepticism. Having created a hydrogen bomb is an extraordinary claim, and absent any corroboration, I do not believe that claim deserves to be on the front page. I'm okay reporting that they conducted a nuclear test, but let's not say they successfully detonated an H-bomb if they almost certainly didn't. Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  But that's the point, we're not saying they successfully detonated an H-bomb, the blurb says they claim that. And frankly, if it's good enough for the BBC, The New York Times, El Pais, The Independent, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Hindu, Die Zeit and many others to "parrot" the claim at or near the top of their homepages, I don't see why Misplaced Pages would be different. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  Newspapers have different objectives and controversy draws eyeballs which is why their headlines are often more eye-catching than ours. Most stories, including the NYTimes, BBC, and The Independent nonetheless include skepticism of their claim when writing the actual story. Others (like the Telegraph) are even placing "successful" in quotes when writing their headlines. We are ultimately an encyclopedia, and I believe our standards for news reporting need not be as sensational as newspapers fighting over every eyeball. Dragons flight (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  We aren't reporting the news, but highlighting an article about a subject that is in the news that readers will likely be interested in, that is supported with reliable sources- and the reliable sources are stating the claim in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  The alt-blurb also highlights the story without repeating the dubious claim. Or we could write a blurb that repeats both the claim and the well-sourced skepticism about the claim. However, simply repeating the claim while offering no context that most reliable sources view it as dubious is creating an unnecessary POV issue. Dragons flight (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  Well the alt-blurb hasn't been confirmed either, has it? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  The seismometers prove a 10 kiloton detonation (give or take a factor of two). Sure, the North Koreans could have stuck a lot of TNT down a hole and faked that, but most reporting considers the explosion to have plausibly been an atomic event. So reporting that part seems reasonable. However, 10 kt is ridiculously small for a "successful" thermonuclear test and most observers are understandably expressing skepticism that there was a hydrogen detonation. Dragons flight (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I already understand about the scepticism, I accept that, so you don't need to keep repeating it. My point is the blurb is correct and accurate, and the alt blurb is currently unconfirmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  To clarify, I think it is much better to post a headline that is probably true but technically unconfirmed than it is to post a headline that is technically true but probably misleading. Dragons flight (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  They sound equally bad for an encyclopedia. We should wait until independent confirmation is made before claiming a nuclear bomb has been detonated. As the BBC puts it: "It would be the fourth..." The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  Indeed, as I said below, we can actually do a good thing here by ensuring our article updates provide critical analysis of this "claim". After all, this is news all across the globe right now. Our readers will justifiably want to read about it and learn about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Memory for Fact, Fiction, and Misinformation which found that "The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people." We are an encyclopedia, not a rumour mill. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew D. (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly some sort of test occurred as an earthquake consistent with prior tests was detected. This is different than them claiming they cured AIDS(which cannot be independently verified and seems unlikely) as we know they have nuclear technology. Whether it is a hydrogen bomb is another story(the size of the quake was the same as the ones from other tests) but as TRM states it is not inaccurate to state that they claim to have done so, and that it what is being reported. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support the claim is headline news across the globe. It doesn't get much more "in the news" than this. And this is the sort of thing our readers want to read about, even more so in this case where a critical analysis can be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Sad, yet historic development. --bender235 (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb. An earthquake as registered, therefore some kind of nuclear test did happen. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support alt blurb. I agree with Dragons flight and Andrew Davidson to not sensationalize the headlines of an encyclopedia. Lets post the alt for now and when the article is updated with more info about "claims", "success" and such then we can think of going with the main blurb. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Posted. As the supporters have noted, NK's claim is notable in itself as a claim, even if it turns out not to be true. Thue (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Donald Trump makes boastful claims too. These appear in the news but we don't repeat them on our front page because they are propaganda. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, we don't repeat them on our front page because they don't have consensus to post. You understand how consensus works here, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be consensus for the current blurb in the comments above. The fact that someone has rushed to post it regardless in less than 8 hours demonstrates that the process doesn't work. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• You missed the point again. But it clearly does work because it's a global news story so it's important we report it accurately on our main page. Some good arguments either way were made, some absurd non sequiturs were also offered. I only saw three people offering preference to the alt blurb while nine supported the original blurb (or offered no opinion on the alt blurb). That's how consensus works. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• The point is that this is being done in the hasty way described in 24-hour news cycle, "a "journalism of assertion" which de-emphasizes whether a claim is valid and encourages putting a claim into the arena of public discussion as quickly as possible." This is contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. Andrew D. (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, you've missed the point again. We post once an update is adequate and consensus is established, not after some arbitrary delay. In fact, an arbitrary delay to posting has been rejected by the community at least twice. This was not hasty, it was timely. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Didn't you complain that the UNSC rotation, which definitely did occur, was posted despite a limited coverage in mainstream news; now a story that is front-page news for major outlets is posted and we're, to paraphrase, letting mainstream news wag our dog? GRAPPLE 12:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• In that case, we had a well-verified fact which wasn't in the news. In this case, we have something that is in the news but it's not well-verified. There are commonly stories which are in the news but we don't cover them because they are too speculative and uncertain. Current examples would include the political manouevrings inside the UK political parties, the US presidential primaries, the CES hype, healthcare scares, &c. We're an encyclopedia and so should behave like one rather than echoing ephemeral news media. What's especially bad here is that we're mainly parrotting the North Korean media, which obviously isn't independent or reliable. They described this as a "complete success" and we are endorsing their propaganda by echoing their language — the blurb has successfully detonated as the hook. Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that your comment demonstrates that you completely misunderstand the Purpose of ITN. You can learn more about that at WP:ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that your comment demonstrates your complete pomposity and sickening arrogance. You can learn more about that by actually trying to edit articles, like the rest of us. 217.38.125.150 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Did you not read the blurb? It contains the language "claims to". How much less of an endorsement can you get without veering into POV territory?--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a headline from the BBC: North Korea nuclear H-bomb claims met by scepticism. Their keyword is "scepticism" while ours is "success". Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• False analogy. Next.--WaltCip (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, you're doing it again Andrew. To get the best from a sentence, you have to read all the words. Our keyword is "claim". It's evident that you're not quite getting the point, so I'd leave it now if I were you. Once we get definitive confirmation that it was a load of hype, I'm sure we'll get an errors report. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, you can't just choose two words from a blurb, you have to read the sentence, it provides additional context, sometimes it can be quite important, like in this case where the blurb clearly includes the word "claim". And as I clearly demonstrated, there are dozens of reliable western secondary sources to back up that they "claim" this has happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify the blurb and put it in context, while still including the hydrogen bomb claim.--Pharos (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Donald Trump is not actually a leader of anything right now. If he were president, and made a claim of the same magnitude as NK's, then I centainly think we would post it ITN. Thue (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support current blurb AS-IS. Let us not forget the classic North Korean modus operandi of sabre-rattling braggadocio that generally does not correlate with the truth of their capabilities. With that being said, this is a serious claim that does deserve serious scrutiny. I hope the Russians love their children too!--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please see my 2 cents' worth at WP:ERRORS, where I've been advised repeatedly such post-posting discussions are supposed to take place, rather than here. Sca (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was told the opposite recently: discussion on this particular item can be continued at WP:INTC. Anyway, the revised blurb of "North Korea conducts its fourth nuclear test, claiming to have used a hydrogen bomb" is better now. Sca's suggestion that this should be a "first" is imprudent as NK's claims have not been confirmed and are disputed. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Which could be handled by two words – if confirmed – and two commas. Sca (talk)

In any case, it would be good if the reigning ITN admins could make up their minds about where post-posting discussions should take place. Sca (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A post-posting discussion is taking place, so I'd say that it's valid to have one here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we don't need to inundate the place with bureaucracy lest Andrew points us to another policy. There's no issue with the blurb now (although the original blurb was more accurate because there is still no independent verification of a nuclear blast) and there was no issue with the posted blurb. The only individual out of the tens of millions of visitors to our site to complain was Andrew D. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Then please stop telling us to post such concerns at WP:ERRORS (where suggestions often have been dismissed as "not an error"). Thanks. Sca (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I can't speak for every admin, but when I closed the thread Andrew D started at WP:ERRORS a few days ago, it was because he wasn't asking to change an item because it was wrong, or rephrase something for clarity (both of which are legit issues for ERRORS), he was asking for the item to be removed because he didn't think it should have been posted. That is a discussion best had here; we almost never "pull" an ITN item based on requests at ERRORS, but sometimes items are pulled after discussion here. ERRORS acts more like a noticeboard, so such meta-discussions shouldn't be had there. Now, the discussion here about wording of the items would be appropriate for ERRORS (possibly even more appropriate), but if it's already being held here, since this is not a noticeboard, it's not as important to move it there. (Also, expecting hard and fast rigid rules that apply in all circumstances is not a reasonable expectation on Misplaced Pages).

So in general, errors in fact or problems with clarity generally go to WP:ERRORS; disagreements about whether an item should be posted or pulled go here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, 10-4 re "problems with clarity," which would seem to include the absence of the 'first' element I cited. Sca (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

January 5