• edit
• history
• watch

• The People's Republic of China claims that 29 Chinese citizens abducted while working on a construction project in the Sudan are still missing. (AP via ABC News America)
• Taliban insurgents attack a Pakistani military post in Jogi with the Pakistani Army suffering seven casualties and another 10 soldiers killed. (AFP via Google News)
• An Afghan woman was killed by her husband and mother-in-law 3 months after giving birth to her third daughter after not producing a son. (New York Times)
• Six aid workers are kidnapped in Yemen's Al Mahwit Governorate. (CNN)

• Former Royal Bank of Scotland CEO Fred Goodwin loses his knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II as a result of the near collapse of the bank in 2008. (BBC)

• A search continues off Turkey's Black Sea coast for eight missing crew members of the Cambodia-flagged freighter the Vera. (AP via The Washington Post)
• Italian divers end their search for victims in the Costa Concordia disaster in the underwater section of the wreck. (BBC)
• The Alaska Volcano Observatory raises its alert warning for the Cleveland Volcano after it starts forming a new lava dome indicating that the mountain could explode. (AP)

• 2011–2012 Syrian uprising: The Arab League calls on the United Nations Security Council to back its proposal for the President of Syria Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy and prepare for elections. (Reuters)
• The International Atomic Energy Agency gives its approval to nuclear reactor safety checks made by Japan. (Al Jazeera)

• China tightens control of monasteries and on main roads in Tibet following deadly protests in the region. (Indian Express)
• Voters in the US state of Florida go to the polls for a Republican primary with Mitt Romney projected to win. (Washington Post), (Reuters)
• The Cabinet of Japan approves a bill to put a 40-year cap on the life of nuclear reactors following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. (AP)
• The Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu comfortably wins a leadership election for the Likud Party defeating Moshe Feiglin. (Jerusalem Post)
• Democratic Party candidate Suzanne Bonamici wins a special election to represent the 1st congressional district of Oregon in the United States House of Representatives. (The Oregonian via OregonLive)

Fred Goodwin loses his knighthood

• Nominated by 109.145.117.119 (talk · give credit)

• Support (as nominator) - This is a big story in the UK and brings an end to years of calls for him to lose it. The Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have all been involved and it's been the lead story on news bulletins all over the country. Noteworthy because of how rare it is and because it's due to the part he played in the downturn we're all living through. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Significant as this one was not withdrawn for criminal activity, which Lester Piggott's OBE was. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - local story, not interesting or significant for anyone outside the UK.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I find this a fascinating story that is likely to be of interest to a wide readership. Highly ITN-worthy, in my view. By the way, I am an American citizen, since that seems to be an issue here. Personally, I don't think it should be. Cheers! Jusdafax 18:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - There's no doubt that this is significant. It's comparable to one having a Congressional Medal of Honor revoked.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - There have been only six revocations ever (if this article is in shape) since the dawn of the universe. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Time for British editors to make their case! This is very rare (see Chocolate Horlicks). It is highly, highly uncommon for people to have their titles revoked. It is highly rare for people to be AWARDED them (and some Americans have, of course, been awarded honouary titles). That Sir Fred has had his knighthood revoked is significant in many fields - business, politics especially - and is doubtlessly highly notable. doktorb _words 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We could easily lose the blockquote at the foot of the article, though. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support not just because some fat cat banker lost the one of the highest civil honours available, but it was absolutely part of the mismanagement of banks in the UK, lending a helping hand to the economic "crisis" Europe finds itself in. Of course, expect to see many arguments of limited interest outside the Eurozone but this is English language Misplaced Pages... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, albeit a mild one. This is essentially a domestic political gesture of no wider significance. Sure, it's a rare event but rare events happen all the time. There's no real allegation of personal misconduct, this is merely another manifestation of the currently popular "give bankers a bloody nose" sentiment. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC).
• Support very rare and important event. --Ohconfucius 22:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support Agree with the point that Crispmuncher makes about this being a domestic political gesture, but the significance of that gesture, the fact the Monarch has got directly involved, is what makes me support. Mtking 23:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning Oppose this is the third time since 1991 that somebody is stripped of knighthood. Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK, this is not that ITN worthy. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that knighthood is not that notable outside UK - you might want to check that comment out, plenty of Australian's have them, and of interest here see The Australian. Mtking 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have to disagree with crispmuncher. This isn't simply a political gesture designed to appease the public. His knighthood was awarded for services to banking, yet he was personally responsible for bringing RBS, a bank that was once the biggest in the world, to a point of near collapse. He took huge risks and bought another bank with cash (ABN AMRO) that turned out to be a complete dud which lead to RBS needing taxpayer money to keep it going. The Honours Forfeiture Committee said that his holding a knighthood brought the honours system into disrepute. As to the argument that knighthoods aren't widely known outside the UK, everyone's heard of Sir Elton John and Dame Elizabeth Taylor, right? --109.145.117.119 (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I also have to disagree with crispmuncher. The banking story is huge, as noted above. Knighthoods are well known, from Sir Francis Drake, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sir Paul McCartney. This story should be posted without further delay; in my view, consensus has been reached and minority arguments against posting are not convincing. Jusdafax 18:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Marking as ready (I would post, but I !voted) Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Posted. Ks0stm 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Blurb - I'm not happy with the blurb. It's different to the blurb I proposed even though nobody raised any objection during the above discussion. First of all, it should be 'Queen Elizabeth II'. Queen Elizabeth is just not the correct way to write her name and creates confusion. Second, it should be 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', not 'the Royal Bank of Scotland'. Pedantic maybe, but hey, I'm a pedant. Lets just get it right. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You proposing a blurb doesn't necessarily mean it's the blurb that will end up being used. The fact that no one objected to the blurb is rather irrelevant as the discussion wasn't about the blurb but rather about the news item. In any case, your blurb did go up as you proposed, but was adjusted by a different admin, David Levy, who you should ask about it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, to be fair "Queen Elizabeth" is utterly wrong and needs fixing. We're about 400 years beyond Queen Elizabeth, the current monarch is never referred to as such but ITN is such a flame-fest I'm reluctant to fix it. Hopefully David Levy (or someone disinterested) can adjust this... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Can't somebody just fix it? It's a matter of fact, not opinion. Queen Elizabeth is wrong, Queen Elizabeth II is right. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm a bit taken aback by the assertion that the current monarch is "never" referred to as "Queen Elizabeth", and I certainly don't see how this could "create confusion" in a context obviously referring to a living person, but I've added the "II".
          Our article is titled "Royal Bank of Scotland" and refers to "the Royal Bank of Scotland" throughout the prose (unless beginning a sentence). —David Levy 20:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Well Queen Elizabeth, as I'm sure you're aware, was a 16th/17th century monarch and in no way similar to our current monarch who is never legitimately referred to as "Queen Elizabeth" (that's purely erroneous). So thanks for fixing that. As for RBOS, the company themselves call it "The Royal Bank of Scotland", regardless of our erroneous article title. But since we go with reliable sources, not first-party sources, I guess this'll have to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
          • It would be confusing in the same way that 'President Barack' would be confusing. It's just not right and everybody who knows it's not right would be confused as to why an encyclopedia is making such a basic error. I agree with The Rambling Man that any legitimate source knows that Queen Elizabeth is not right and the assertation that she is NEVER referred to as such is accurate if we are only basing it on credible sources. As for 'The Royal Bank of Scotland', the company's own website uses this format and therefore our article is wrong. Perhaps it has been stylised that way to conform to Wiki-standards which is fine, but it doesn't make it correct. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I'll take your word for it that referring to the current monarch as "Queen Elizabeth" is improper, but it's quite common among news media inside and outside the UK.
              To be clear, I'm not defending the practice or arguing that we should follow suit; I'm explaining why I believed it to be acceptable. I apologize for my confusion and thank the two of you for setting me straight.
              If "The" is an official part of the bank's name, our article should be renamed/edited accordingly. (This doesn't contradict Misplaced Pages's conventions.) —David Levy 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
              • I wouldn't say it's "improper", just inaccurate. News media "inside" the UK don't say "Queen Elizabeth" ever, as far as I know, they just say "the Queen", so not sure where you get that idea from. As for naming the bank, it's probably pretty common that articles slated for main page inclusion aren't named correctly, this is just another example of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
              • There's really no need to apologise, David. I would be genuinely amazed if any reputable news media referred to her as Queen Elizabeth. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
                • BBC News, London Evening Standard, The Australian, The Gazette/National Post, Winnipeg Free Press, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CBS News, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters
                  Of course, references to Diana, Princess of Wales as "Princess Diana" (which I know to be incorrect) probably are more widespread. —David Levy 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • Actually, that is perfectly correct, as is a plain "Queen Elizabeth". Lack of precision does not make it wrong, especially when who is being referred to is clear from the context. Personally, I don't see why we are focussing so much on her anyway, she acted in name only, there was never any question of her not following the official request. We're generally not so pernickety about e.g. the Queen calling a general election, although constitutionally only she has that power. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC).
                    • I thought that "Queen Elizabeth" was correct (and merely lacked precision unneeded in this context), but I've been told that it isn't.
                      My understanding is that the styling "Princess Diana" is improper because Diana was neither born a princess nor created one by the Queen. ("Princess Charles" would have been correct, but it never entered popular use.) —David Levy 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just reiterating I posted the blurb suggested here...I would agree that "Queen Elizabeth" needs the "II" on the end, so good move fixing that. I'm also wondering whether linking "knighthood" might be advisable, but beyond that the blurb looks alright to me the way it is now. Ks0stm 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly not sentimental about the blurb I wrote, I just object to it being substituted to one with errors in it. My only interest here is to present accurate information to the reader. --109.145.117.119 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

January 30