Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2013

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

April 30Edit

[Posted] EU bans pesticides thought to cause Colony Collapse DisorderEdit

Article: Colony collapse disorder (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Union issues a two-year ban on neonicotinoid insecticides, suspected to be the cause of the European honey bee colony collapse disorder. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The European Union passes a two-year ban on neonicotinoid insecticides which are suspected to be the primary cause of colony collapse disorder.
News source(s): The Independent

Article updated

 Thue (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Tentative support. The article is a GA, a pleasant surprise when I saw it. But the update is somehow scattered all over the article. Maybe some reorganization would be in place? --Tone 15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment this is a pretty big deal, but I think neonicotinoid is a better article to bold than CCD. It's in ok shape. --IP98 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - a major development in subject of a GA and environmentalist legislation and lots of other things and this is just generally good for ITN and did I mention Support? (Ugh, caffeine.)  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - major development in agriculture. I agree neonicotinoid is a more logical place for the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable and rare story, plus the article is in good shape. Alas, I was observing the Cherry Tree in my garden today, FULL of Honey Bees. (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support --Ushau97 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article on colony collapse is quite informative but has just one line on the EU ban. IMO the article should be updated to have a bit more info on the ban.LegalEagle (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, notable even if insecticides aren't actually the cause (although I don't support some other EU steps such as price deregulation). Brandmeistertalk 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Is the cause proven? This would seem to be like posting the arrest of Pistorius, which we didn't, while the jury is out. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • In 2012, several peer reviewed independent studies were published showing that neonicotinoids had previously undetected routes of exposure affecting bees including through dust, pollen, and nectar[23] and that sub-nanogram toxicity resulted in failure to return to the hive without immediate lethality --IP98 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Is that from an article? Can you give the source? I am not really a strong oppose here, it's just that I read last week there were doubts of an actual connection. Of course I didn't write the cite down expecting this nom. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's from the neonicotinoid which has inline refs backing it up. --IP98 (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
A one-second Google search: The Independent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. An enactment of this scale, supported by scientific research into the ecological impacts of a major substance used in the European agriculture industry, is highly significant. ~AH1 (discuss!) 20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready - Neonicotinoid is now updated. I have proposed an altblurb with a bit more precise wording. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt-blurb. Nice job. --IP98 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Stephen 23:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Post posting support. Quite significant, a ban based on ecological concerns across multiple countries. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • This sort of an off-topic question, but if the EC enacts a ban on something, does that mean all member states had to agree, or just that the EC imposed it and all member states must comply? --IP98 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • "15 of the 27 member states voted for a two-year restriction on neonicotinoids despite opposition by countries including Britain" [1] Abductive (reasoning) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reference Here's a NYT article on the American study finding no single discernible cause.

Saradha Group financial scandalEdit

Article: Saradha Group financial scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A ponzi scheme collapse in India leads to an estimated loss of 4-6 billion USD. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Investors lose an estimated 4-6 billion USD in a ponzi scam in West Bengal, India.
News source(s): BBC The Hindu Daily Mail

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 4-6 billion USD lost, biggest ponzi scam in India, 4 committed suicide, political nexus, daily street protests, blanket media coverage in Eastern India, wide coverage in India, described by one observer as 'The entire Dakshin Barasat [one of the worst affected region] today looks like it was hit by a cyclone. Every home has a bankrupt depositor or a fugitive agent. People who were friends have turned enemies. Happy households have become miserable' it perhaps echoes Alexander Popes quote on stock bubbles 'churches sink as generally as banks in Europe'. In my opinion merits a mention in ITN. LegalEagle (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong support: I was going to suggest it too! The article does not mention the number of affected people. If that can be included, the blurb will be more interesting! --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - the nature of a ponzi scheme is such that the amount "lost" was really transferred into other people's hands (i.e. those who got in earlier & the scam artists). As such, I really would prefer a blurb that doesn't make a claim about amount lost. Perhaps something like:
ALT: The largest ponzi scheme in the history of Indian collapses as Saradha Group founders are arrested.
Also the article suggests the scheme has collapsed entirely by 18 April and the Sudipto Sen was arrest on 23 April, so unless I am missing something this story is already stale news.
Finally, on a quick galnce the article appears to contain a lot of personal opinions and speculation, which is a form of POV pushing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Add the one that West Bengal government is adding taxes on tobacco product to collect the lost money! --Tito Dutta (contact) 02:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Although the scheme had started to unravel from 18th, but as with most financial scam, the extent of the loss was not fully understood for some time, in this case on or around 26th. Therefore in my opinion it is not yet stale news. As for the POV, I am sure we can chuck out material which is not supported by reputed sources.LegalEagle (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support significant event and strong article. One small point, if we are going to refer to suicide victims by name (which I don't think is absolutely necessary), we need a specific reference, by name, for each victim. Ascribing suicides to a particular singular cause is often problematic, so I would suggest replacing Saradha Group financial scandal#Suicides by victims of the scam with short, non-specific prose. LukeSurl t c 07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made an edit to change this. --LukeSurl t c 10:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment as to when one would actually date this story, it's somewhat arbirary unless we pick a blurb that focussess on a partuclar development. Probably April 23, the arrest of the main culprit, would be a suitable marker. LukeSurl t c 10:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, major financial news which is only slightly smaller than the Bernard Madoff scheme. However I agree that there's a concern over the date. It's not clear from the article what exactly has happened in the last week. Modest Genius talk 11:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The reaction section deals with what happened in last week. Happy to update any more info if you would raise any specific concern. I think that the crisis is an ongoing one and would be difficult to peg a date for it. LegalEagle (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The oldest item on the template is currently from 24 April, and they're listed in chronological order. So if there isn't an event with a date more recent than that, this is too old. Modest Genius talk 19:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
On 30 April, the legislative assembly passed a special law (with retrospective effect) to investigate and prosecute the ponzi fund promoters. Pls refer to ALT2 and ALT3. This can qualify as the most current development (I tried updating the article, but the sheer number of new developments just overwhelmed me), if you have time can you please try to copyedit the article. LegalEagle (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
If this was about the actions of the legislature the blurb should reflect that..... plus that law looks sorta mighty. A legislature investigating and prosecuting suspects? Isn't that a bill of attainder of some sorts? This has to be clarified. –HTD 14:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The law which was passed is not a bill of attainder; the ponzi funds were using a loophole in the regulatory system in India, the law primarily wants to block any loopholes. Previously the ponzi fund mangers could be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code, however the government wanted to increase the quantum of punishment (as a deterrent) and widen the criminal responsibility to agents of the promoters (who may not have been directly involved), the law also simplifies the process of attachment of property gained from criminal endeavours. The law was being debated/pending for the last 10 years but was passed within a week after the fund collapse.LegalEagle (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well that explains it. At first glance the law was aimed specifically to the suspects. –HTD 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Reading into it, it looks like a ex post facto law now as it increases the penalty to the violation of the new law before it was passed. –HTD 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think a suitable blurb, especially focusing on the arrest of Sudipto Sen should be used. Further, a proper copyedit need to be done before putting it on main page. Amartyabag TALK2ME 13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless we can justify a date in the past week, this story would pre-date the 2013 Dhaka building collapse. Thus, even if "posted", it would be too old to go on the template, thus this discussion would be moot. It's a shame as the article is quite good. LukeSurl t c 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) started its investigation in state of Assam yesterday, the WB assembly passed a law to investigate and prosecute ponzi fund promoters.
ALT2: Federal agencies start investigating the largest ponzi collapse of India.
ALT3: Special laws are enacted to investigate the largest ponzi collapse of India.
LegalEagle (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - significant financial event; need to keep pattern of Comment/Support  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as a significant financial story from India. Ponzi schemes and their reflection on the investors are a very big deal anywhere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: Can someone refresh me on how ITN handled the Madoff scandal? When was it first posted? –HTD 14:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As per the talk page templates the Madoff scandal was mentioned twice on ITN: 14 Dec 08 and 12 March 09; The 14 Dec blurb most probably was: Bernard L. Madoff is arrested by the FBI, charged with cheating investors of US$50 billion through a Ponzi scheme. discussion at [2] look under Dec 13; The 12 March blurb was: American businessman Bernard Madoff pleads guilty to 11 charges surrounding his US$65-billion Ponzi scheme. The discussion can be found at [3] look under March 12. The scam had unravelled in the first week of Dec 08.LegalEagle (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
So following the Madoff precedent, we'd post this if the suspects have been caught and if s/he/they plead/s guilty (or not guilty). Has any of these events happened already? –HTD 16:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: I dunno if it's possible to post this twice. Madoff swindled $65 billion. This one's $4-6 billion. –HTD 16:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This time the guy was caught on 23 April, but if we go by that cutoff date then the news will not feature on ITN as it would be 'stale'; my initial proposal was given the rolling nature of the scam the blurb should say something like big ponzi scheme caused loss of money and post it at the top of ITN, however the consensus opinion is there should be a cut off point, so I gave an alt blurb that special law was brought to investigate the scam. This law was passed on 30 April, which make the article eligible to be posted on ITN. I find that no one has per se opposed the article, so I hope as soon as we can agree to a blurb we can put the ready marker.LegalEagle (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The suggested blurbs at the template above should be revised to suggest that a law has been passed as a result of, or after, the arrest took place. The revised blurbs you suggested are clumsy at best; it suggests that the law was passed for the sole purpose of the prosecution of the suspects and would've not been applied to anyone else: This is how "Special laws are enacted to investigate the largest ponzi collapse of India." reads to me, especially with the use of the phrase "Special law". Your other alt blurbs, alts 1 and 2, don't emphasize any milestone to the event: "Government investigates largest ponzi scheme in India"... well, they should, right? –HTD 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggested alt blurb:
This is somewhat crude, but this emphasizes that the law was passed not for the sole purpose of prosecuting the suspects in this case, but for future and apparently past suspects too. –HTD 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, The law was passed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. I support the above the blurb proposed by User:Howard the Duck, with the necessary correction as suggested by me. Amartyabag TALK2ME 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
When was the last time ITN posted about subnational legislation? Heh. 17:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
What about (ALT4): "Central Bureau of Investigation starts investigating the largest ponzi collapse of India." To give a brief background, under Indian laws federal agencies can only start investigation when the state government requests it, in this case two different state governments requested it. And to reiterate my earlier point, the focus of the blurb is the scam and not the incidental news.LegalEagle (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Just how often the CBI investigates? How many cases a year? Is a CBI investigation an event in itself?
We already missed the opportunity on reporting the scam per se. If you want to report on the scam per se, come back when the suspects have pleaded (have they?) or just accept the fact that the incidental news would have to be the focus of the blurb. "Central Bureau of Investigation starts investigating the largest ponzi collapse of India." isn't news as much as ITN is concerned. CBI investigates the largest ponzi scheme, parliament passes the largest national budget, company suffers largest loss, football club buys most expensive player (lol this actually made it into ITN). These are normal occurrences; these bodies are expected to do that. –HTD 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
CBI investigation in itself cannot qualify as a significant event. Making the law by calling a special session of the assembly is somewhat significant but definitely pales in comparison to the scam itself. (ALT4A): "The West Bengal Legislative Assembly passes a new law proscribing heavier penalties on ponzi scheme fraudsters within a week after the largest ponzi collapse in India unravels." As for trying again for ITN when the accused plead, I doubt if the editors then would agree that the news is significant.LegalEagle (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the rub in this nomination. All those who supported this who were outside India supported the original blurb found above. This is actually an easy support. The thing is would these same people accept a blurb focusing on the events after the arrests, such as the CBI starting its investigation or even the passage of law by the West Bengal assembly?
If Madoff was posted when he pleaded, it is very much valid argument for this issue to be posted too once the suspects enter their pleas. How long will that take? If none of the intervening events are notable enough we would really have to settle on the pleadings, then maybe the judgment of the case so that it'll be posted twice too. –HTD 19:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First precedents have little value on ITN, Second I tend to agree with you that the ALT blurbs focussing on post scam news are not 'significant'. Hence I would recommend that unless the editors feel we can go with the original blurb (or some variation there of), let us pack up the discussion.LegalEagle (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but the facts of this case, or least the fact that it is a billion-dollar ponzi scheme, may warrant anyone to invoke the Madoff precedent, although it's just above 9% of the money swindled in the Madoff case. If it's stale now, we can always attempt a new nom once a significant development happens -- in this case "significant" meaning the development has to directly involve the suspects, such as entering pleas -- unlike the new developments where the suspects are merely spectators (passing of a new law) or at best, passive participants (new investigation). –HTD 19:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support : Good coverage of subject. A minor copy edit to be done. Bishnu Saikia 19:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit done. I won't touch the "Aftermath" section until it has calmed down a bit more. (Probably someone else will get to it before I can get back to it.) I do have a question about number units. When "billion" is referenced in the lede, is it long form or short form? I did the second conversion in the lede based on the first (original) conversion ratio and short form billion. If the long form billion was intended, adjust the second conversion by 1,000. - Tenebris 14:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Question - why has this not been posted? Not one person opposed the posting (which is nearly the definition of consensus), article is substantial, copy edit is done. - Tenebris 02:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The supports are unanimously for the events described the blurb, which are older than currently oldest item. The suggested blurbs elsewhere are incremental updates and have not been supported. –HTD 03:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The following proposed blurb is supported and specifically dates to 30 April, which makes it more recent than at least two of the current ITN postings. I support posting this now because this is the kind of story that later vanishes off the international radar for much the same reason that the after-effects of Haiti's earthquake vanished off the international radar. The notability of the original event is clear, but memory is short.
At the request of the Assam government, India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) begins an investigation into India's largest ever Ponzi scheme collapse, which has so far resulted in an estimated loss of 4-6 billion USD.
- Tenebris 03:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd recommend to copy the template above and paste it with a new blurb after this message so the people can judge if the blurb is acceptable. The people above supported the suggested blurb above and not the new ones that had since been proposed. –HTD 03:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, what you describe automatically creates a systemic (NOT personal) bias against large-scale stories in third-world countries which break over a slower period of time and do not have a clear beginning or end. When these stories initially break onto the headlines of international news, ITN discussion is based on which exact benchmark should be used, and the story is delayed as a result. By the time agreement is achieved, the original blurb is too stale for ITN. By the time the benchmark has been achieved, the story is no longer front-page news outside the third-world country, no matter how large or how many million poor people continue to be affected. At the same time, an equivalent first-world story would still be making headlines, even after that kind of delay, so -- strictly following the rules of ITN -- the first-world story would make ITN, but the third-world story would not. - Tenebris 15:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

[Posted] Willem-AlexanderEdit

Article: Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (talk, history)
Blurb: Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands, succeeding his abdicating mother, Beatrix of the Netherlands.
News source(s): CNN

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: New king in the Netherlands is a once in a generation event. -- Hektor(Champs!) (TalkContribs) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Right above this the instructions say: 'Please do not... add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.' So well done, when midnight arrives the bot will break and do something stupid. Delete this section and wait until the day when the event actually happens before nominating. Modest Genius talk 21:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've temporarily moved this to the 29th to avoid bot-breaking. We can move it up in a couple of hours. LukeSurl t c 22:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Now moved to April 30. --LukeSurl t c 07:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as it's a change in head-of-state, with the simpler main blurb. LukeSurl t c 22:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is ITNR (the succession of a head of state "where head of state is not an elected position") and a very noteworthy event for The Netherlands. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as ITN/R, with something like the alt blurb. Perhaps, if it desired to make it a bit shorter, "Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands on the abdication of his mother Beatrix." In other royal successions, we usually mention the death - and since most new monarchs succeed through death rather than abdication, if we don't mention the abdication people might think that Queen Beatrix has died. Neljack (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Updated Odd there is so little interest. I don't speak Dutch, though. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, subject to update and moving of article to Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands once he is officially King. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, Willem-Alexander is now King and his article has been moved. The articles are in the process of being updated.  thayts t  08:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but I prefer the phrasing "Willem-Alexander acccedes to the throne of the Netherlands". If your a monarch you accede you don't just become one. --Andrew 12:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Posting. I'll go with the first blurb for the time being, we can modify later. Also, someone upload the photo, please. --Tone 12:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think too that the circumstances in which he became king are relevant too. This isn't an ordinary, "the queen is dead, long live the king!" thing its the result of an abdication, which is noteable. I know we covered it when it was announced but it's relevant again now. Strange how two people have renounced their thrones this year; hope Lizzy don't follow suit --Andrew 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It isn't that extraordinary for the Netherlands, both Queen Wilhelmina and Queen Juliana abdicated too. But I agree that it could be noted.  thayts t  11:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I've expanded the blurb slightly per the above suggestions. --Jayron32 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

April 29Edit

[Posted] Jason CollinsEdit

Article: Jason Collins (talk, history)
Blurb: NBA player Jason Collins becomes the first active player of the four major North American sports leagues to openly come out as gay. (Post)
Alternative blurb: NBA player Jason Collins comes out that he is gay, becoming the first active player of the major men's professional team sports in North America ever to do so.
News source(s): ESPN, CNN BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: No idea if this is going to get posted, but I figured it was worth a shot. Landmark event in sports worldwide, not just in the U.S. Major milestone for gay rights, and could possibly pave the way for other athletes worldwide to follow suit, as the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL are highly influential in not only sports, but society and culture around the world. Similar to past achievements such as that of Jackie Robinson and Billie Jean King in sport. -- Anc516(Champs!) (TalkContribs) 17:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Question (and I think this sort of thing is good and should be posted, by the way), you say "active" player in the "four major NA sports leagues", that's not really clear to me as a non-North American. And who else came out from those leagues, and when? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) In other words, he is the only player who is actively participating in either the NBA, NFL, MLB, or NHL to openly come out as gay. Others have either kept it to themselves or close family/friends while playing, or have announced it long into retirement, for fear that it would have a negative effect on their professional careers (for example, teams avoiding signing them because they are gay, out of discrimination), or their livelihood (other players discriminating against them, public discrimination and ridicule). I don't believe that there is any kind of list to my knowledge of athletes who have come out as gay post-retirement because of these same reasons, but likely we will likely see some names in news articles of athletes who have either advocated for gay rights (such as Brendon Ayanbadejo) or who have came out following their retirement. -- Anc516(Champs!) (TalkContribs) 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • According to the article on this subject on TSN, John Amaechi (NBA), Esera Tuaolo (NFL) and Billy Bean (MLB) have all come out post-retirement. Also, there have been a few retired MLS players who came out recently, as well as several WNBA players. --PlasmaTwa2 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The main point of the "four major sports leagues" is that this is the first time an active player in a team sport has come out, at least in North America. There's been all sorts of consternation about how players would not like having to share a locker room with a gay teammate. A handful of players have come out after retirement (Billy Bean is the first that comes to mind, also John Amaechi) but not while active. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it was more the "four major NA sports leagues", that doesn't actually seem to include Canada in the link, I'm just a little uncertain the current blurb phrasing is spot on (nor accessible to everyone across the globe...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (Muboshgu, please watch out when replying. You erased my comment when you posted) Oppose because this really is an American-centric item. That gets thrown around a lot, but Collins is not the first athlete to come out as gay while competing. There have been several notable athletes worldwide who have come out while playing - Gareth Thomas specifically comes to mind - so I don't see why weight should be given specifically to a player because he is the first in North America. --PlasmaTwa2 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • While you're correct in that he is not the first to do so worldwide, the four major North American sports leagues arguably have a far more global reach and impact (in both sport and culture/society) than the Welsh Rugby Union for example. -- Anc516(Champs!) (TalkContribs) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Clarification sought: what is this "four major North American sports leagues" concept? Do you mean "four major "USA" leagues"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Canada has at least one team in the NBA, MLB and NHL. None in the NFL, but the Buffalo Bills do play some of their games in Toronto. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Ok, thanks. This article is a trainwreck, it would be better if we could find some other milestone than relate it to some arbitrary "top four leagues in North America" concept. In other words, if he was the first ever active NBA player to come out, then I'd definitely vote support.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
            • He is the first ever active NBA player to come out.
            • What's the British equivalent of the "Big Four"? Premier League, English Premiership (rugby union)... what else? Certainly not the British Basketball League (w00t) nor the Elite Ice Hockey League; if any of the active players from the latter two came out British media would've given the same amount of "hype" just as American media to a similar case in the National Lacrosse League, but probably American media would've went nuts if then college football player like Manti Te'o came out. –HTD 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Since he is the first active player in one of North America's big four leagues to come out, then he is by definition the first active NBA player to do so. As to that trainwreck of an article, it must be noted that the concept of "big four" is itself arbitrary as it limits to the top level league of NA's four most popular sports. But from a pure American perspective, NASCAR and perhaps even MLS might be ahead of the NHL. Resolute 18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • There is no concept of a big four in most other places. THat's why I'm hoping we can refine the blurb. I'd opt for keeping it specific to the NBA, at least that way some of the global audience here will understand it. The "big four" thing is entirely arbitrary and therefore has no place here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Most sources just say first from a "major team sport", which most in NA would have a natural sense of. The Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada was meant as a helpful link for those outside NA.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • Which isn't very helpful... That article does need a complete rewrite. –HTD 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • I guess the reason why the "big 4" concept was used is to illustrate the fact that Collins is playing in a high-profile professional league, not within the levels of Triple-A baseball (or Football League Championship) and below, or at "top flight" leagues with niche markets. –HTD 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • The "big four" concept is key from a North American perspective, but I see your point. FWIW, the BBC has him posted on their main page, noting he was the first from "one of North America's major leagues", which might be sufficient. Resolute 18:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • Unfortunately the page is a complete disaster for newcomers, I couldn't really determine why the "big four" were called as such, this isn't North American Wikipedia, it's English language Wikipedia so we have billions of readers from outside North America, many more than from inside North America, so let's be accurate and "to the point" here. Stick with NBA, avoid this arbitrary "big four" silliness. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Figuring out how to word the blurb notwithstanding, Support. While a NA-centric event, it is still on the front page of the BBC, CBC, American outlets, and is currently the the top trending story on Twitter worldwide. Resolute 18:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. But my BBC version says "the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so." so doesn't include Canada at all. We need to fix the blurb before we give it major support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose It's even ridiculous to me that someone was so bold to nominate such thing for the main page. Wikipedia is not a tabloid to document every scandalous and embarrassing story that originates anywhere in the world and gets importance because the readers feel it's entertaining. Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world? Specifically, what is the impact on the LGBT movement? What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it? I'm pretty sure that you cannot provide suitable answers on these questions. Even a simple LGBT parade would make more impact than this one. He's not the first one and not the last who does it in the world. More important people are LGBT and were first in their fields as such, but we didn't post each of them even if they were more important than Collins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
So, Kiril, why not tell us how you really feel? μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, the news is celebrating this as being a groundbreaking barrier that will allow other gay team sport athletes to come out. CNN called it "he biggest move of his career and it's off the court."[4]. Former US President Bill Clinton supported the announcement, sponsor Nike said "We are a company committed to diversity and inclusion."[5]Bagumba (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
"Can you tell me how this one makes impact in the world?"
  • Good question. I dunno the answer. I was busy researching on how Man Utd's title made an impact to people in Somalia. Is this in the ITN criteria?
"What is the impact on the LGBT movement?"
  • Probably more than an gay pride parade?
"What are the reactions from the highest authorities in the world about it?"
  • I think you are underestimating the amount of idol worship that sports generates, and the impact of having someone come out - even a journeyman at the end of his career - can have on others. Agency France Presse is calling this a "landmark moment", and here would be the response from the White House and a former US president. Resolute 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Kiril, this is neither "scandalous" nor an "embarrassing story", at least not in the modern world. Perhaps you need to reassess what is considered the norm these days before reacting in such an embarrassing manner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    He's a gay, so what? It's nothing else than his own choice. I really don't like it but it's not up to me to say what is good or bad for someone else. Why to discriminate people in this manner? Or you think that we should simply solidarise with those living in a society like the one in the United States?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    This is notable because so few (a disproportionate amount of) professional sportspeople actively come out. Particularly in butch sports in butch leagues. This is "in the news" remember, not "what Kiril or TRM or whoever else likes to see". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Yes it is and I agree with you on it. But, at least, I feel to have the right to express my opinion here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as groundbreaking with strong reactions "Jason Collins has forever changed the face of sports," by Human Rights Campaign, Clinton, Obama, and so forth all reacting to the news. Not your ordinary tabloid story, but like the media said, as groundbreaking as Jackie Robinson statement. Secret account 19:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with all the support here for the actual news, I'd just like to make sure we do this properly and post a decent blurb that English-speaking people can get the most of. The "big four" thing concerns me as I've followed a tiny bit of NFL and NBA and never heard it before, so it would be better, in my mind, to make this blurb tighter and thus more effective. Let's not try to overblow it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be foolish to restrict the blurb to the NBA. There has been plenty of discussion in the North American sports press about the absence of declared gay players in the major men's professional team sports. That's restated in numerous press accounts on Collins' announcement: Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, Reuters. IMO, the terminology should be "major men's professional team sports in North America". --Orlady (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Which is perfect as far as I'm concerned. I just wanted to avoid this pseudo "big four" element. Suggest you revise the blurb Orlady, if you'd be so kind? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Revised the altblurb. I didn't revisit this discussion in a timely fashion... --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support groundbreaking announcement. Claims that it has zero impact on the world as a whole are both wrong (as demonstrated by the reaction) and irrelevant (most stories we post have very little impact outside of their immediate area). If it is more clear to just say NBA, that is fine by me, as long is it is understood we won't be posting the first NFL player, first MLBer, etc. when they occur. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Milestone in breaking down homophobia and definition of "masculinity" in male team sports. In addition to BBC, in Australia calls it "landmark for US sports".[6]Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Comment I've replace the alt-blurb with a more global blurb, and one which doesn't link to the same article twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Agree that "North American" is inaccurate, and discussing its removal at Talk:Jason_Collins#Major_North_American_teams, but it would be a disservice to limit his impact to the NBA. There are enough sources that place this in the context of being the first for a "major American professional team".—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per all the reasoning given above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Please specify which blurb you'd prefer and why. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • They both seem about the same to me. No preference. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Very nice, but in the spirit of Wikipedia I'll accept every decision that will be made by the majority here. It will be really funny to see a blurb saying that a person is a gay on the main page of an encyclopedia. Some people clearly have an agenda to make Wikipedia a prominent place to promote discrimination of any sort. Lol.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • At least in this case, any "agenda" is a reflection of the media. This is hardly a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as a major milestone of societal change, including the "major sports" language I suggested in my comment above (which I finally posted after about 8 edit conflicts!). --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support; my support has everything to do with me being an LGBT ally and an NBA fan, along with the (more relevant to this nomination) fact that this is a landmark, and currently a hot topic on the BBC (Oh yes, THANK you for opening comments on this one BBC). -- (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 3) Support, but I think that do the issues raised with how to characterize what he's first in, it'd be best to say ... in the "Big Four" North American sports leagues ... The linked article addresses non-Big-Four leagues as well, including several that have openly gay athletes. As to arguments about the notability of a coming-out... it's on the front page of the New York Times website right now; it's clearly a major news story, whether we like it or not. (If anyone would like me to give them my little rant about the speciousness of the "who cares who you sleep with?" notion, they can stop by my talk page... but that's a matter of my personal beliefs, independent from assessment that this is an objectively newsworthy event.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, and, for what it's worth, I think the "Big Four" modification would work better on the second blurb than the first.... I also generally prefer the second, as it's more succinct, and I don't like how the first one links to his article twice. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Hey Pink&, just wanted to reiterate that this "big four" thing isn't something most people outside the US will get. I'd like to hope we could find a suitable blurb that people outside North America could appreciate, especially with such prominent news? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Well doesn't the wikilink solve that, TRM? I mean, saying "a major (North) American sports league" is vague and leaves people wondering how we're defining "major", and just mentioning the N.B.A. seems like an understatement... we should mention the broadest way in which it's first, not a more narrow one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I would suggest major American team sport i.e. [[Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada|major American team sport]]. "Major American team sport" is multiply sourced and not some WP:OR, and the linked article, though in need of work, is the best we have unless some sources about Collins go into more detail about "major".—Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm happy to use wikilinked articles on the mainpage but this one linking to the big four needs substantial work before it should be exposed to the general public. Why can't we just we tighten this up and state the actual facts rather than use these dubious and nebulous terms? (I reiterate, I like the way the BBC have placed it: "Collins has come out as gay, the first active male athlete in a major American professional team sport to do so"), it's prominent and accurate and not parochial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. So what? Whilst the lack of openly-gay professional sportsmen is regrettable, the whole reason why this is disappointing is that their sexual preferences make no difference whatsoever to their sporting notability. 'Sportsman announces utterly irrelevant fact about their personal life' is not a story. Modest Genius talk 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh and to everyone saying 'this will break down barriers for others', Justin Fashanu failed to do so and should be a cautionary tale. Modest Genius talk 21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If this "is not a story", then why do all the news outlets think it's a story? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
For the same reason they run the winners of reality TV programmes and celebrity gossip columns. ITN has higher standards of encyclopaedic content in its stories. Modest Genius talk 22:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree on higher standards, which is why sources that identify its historical context were identified and discussed. It is why the American story is listed on the front page of under "News", not "Sports news".—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The BBC tailors its pages based on IP geolocation. It's not on that page at all for me. Besides, even if it was it wouldn't change my opinion. Modest Genius talk 23:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't be surprised by tailoring to location. FWIW, here is an archive of the BBC front page.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is highly significant. Openly gay male professional athletes are extremely rare in the world's popular sports leagues. I support the first blurb--this is notable precisely because its significance extends beyond the NBA, and in the media everywhere its significance is being discussed in a broad context.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    I do support reducing the blurb to 'major North Americans sports league' or a similar wording.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on the condition that this be the last sports outing item we ever post--it gets very tired and very ideology-pushing very quick. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Billie Jean King, Greg Louganis, etc., etc. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Those are individual sports in which LGBT athletes are more common, again read the news sources and especially the reactions, never in a major American team sport that until recently has been very homophobic. Secret account 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The athletes I named were top of their game household names. No one's ever heard of Collins. This is recentism. μηδείς (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • "This is recentism" is perhaps the most ironic argument ever made at ITN. By definition, everything here is recentism. Resolute 14:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Recentism is the viewpoint that the right now is more important than the past because we are experiencing it ourselves. The weight some are giving this lacks historical perspective. There is no way one could compare the career and importance of Collins to someone like Billie Jean King whose impact was huge, controversial, and truly groundbreaking. (It was in regards to her that as a gay child I first learned what a gay person was, even though she was not officially "out" it was an open secret.) Gay people know there are gay professional athletes. The only impact here will be in a very small minority of American sports fans who maintain the illusion that gay men are sissies who can't play sports. That might be of interest to some of us who didn't already know that's false. But it's totally lacking in historical perspective and it is not of encyclopedic importance. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Of course this is entirely fallacious. This announcement should set a precedent to encourage the other thousands of gay professional sports players to come out. Given that Bill Clinton thought it worthy of his comments, along with contemporary sports stars like Kobe Bryant, it's clear there's an issue here that is being addressed by this. It may only impact "a very small minority of sports fans" in the US (although that's "citation needed" territory) but it's a landmark moment for actual sports athletes, both in the US and globally, who need the encouragement to be themselves in the face of a hostile, third-world-country attitude to most male sportsmen who don't conform to the predictable uber-masculine norm. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
              • "Should"? "Issue"? "Need encouragement"? Again, your condescending solicitation for us poor crippled and underappreciated homosexuals is not necessary, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Male in a major team sports league is what is distinguishing in this case, and why lesbian Brittney Griner from the WNBA a few weeks ago was not.—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking ready. Update is sufficient and there's consensus to post. Hot Stop (Talk) 23:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    Is there a consensus on the blurb? That's crucial here given the problematic wording.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - An important milestone.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There was some earlier concern about the use of "four major North American sports leagues" in the blurb, but it is mentioned by ESPN and Associated Press, whileThe Score in Canada also calls him "only openly gay professional male athlete actively participating in a major North American team sport." Orig blurb is verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I've updated altblurb from the previous version that was deemed too restrictive.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's great news, and I'd like to support, but on balance I have to oppose. Other top-level players in major team sports have come out - there's Gareth Thomas in rugby and Steven Davies in cricket, for example - so the only distinguishing feature in this case seems to be that he's the first in the US. But I don't think being the first in a particular country is enough - that could result in lots of postings as such firsts occur in different countries. Neljack (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not ready The update is insufficient. -- tariqabjotu 03:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you elaborate so that it can be addressed?—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:ITN#Updated_content gives a guideline of what should be included in an update. An example of what could get here is some information about how people in and outside of the sports world reacted to this, and why/how they believe his coming out marked/marks a milestone. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am a vocal supporter of human rights, but I'm not sure if this type of news should be lauded as an "achievement". I think this nomination (and the media) is going about it the wrong way. The focus should not be about "look at how many homosexuals are present in this or that sports league", but rather about how accepting that group is of all people. You could liken it to using the word "feminism" instead of "gender equality"; one is highlighting the divisive nature of the subject, while the other is much more productive in its delivery. It's a subtle difference which may or may not justify opposing this particular nomination, but it's a difference that should be taken seriously. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's no way that a bench-player free agent coming out is more important than NCAA championships for equivalent sports, which were not posted. Furthermore, if we're looking to post minorities in major sports, why didn't we post Jeremy Lin, as the first Asian-American basketball player, who was similarly a "first X player" and had a much greater impact for his team? Because that really wasn't notable either; rather, the media frenzy was immense. SpencerT♦C 06:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this didn't turn out to be an immense media event... and Wataru Misaka is the first Asian-American in the NBA. Probably the MLB had someone earlier. –HTD 06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. It seems everyone has forgotten about Martina Navratilova, who "came out of the closet", when Collins was only TWO years old. There's just nothing new here. Whatever "barrier" he seems to be breaking had only been recreated out of people's forgetfulness. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a personal matter of a single human being, that happens to be tabloid news. Yet it is totally irrelevant for the rest of the world. --bender235 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I guess that's why a former and current POTUS have commented on it, as well as people around the world in and out of sports. In the future such an issue might be "a personal matter", but this first person to do so isn't. As long as homosexuality is a death penalty offense in a few places, and second-class elsewhere, this is not "irrelevant for the rest of the world". Navratilova didn't play a team sport, which has different dynamics than an individual sport. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The day the opening piece on the CBS Evening News is legitimately "tabloid news", I'll throw away my television. "Tabloid news" would be "SCANDALOUS photos discovered of a certain NBA center long thought to be a confirmed bachelor". Collins described himself as "starting the conversation", so I think it's safe to say he knew this wouldn't be a "personal matter of a single human being".
    Also, as others have pointed out here, the issue of global relevance is neither meaningful (the fuck do I care about the Icelandic parliamentary elections?) nor accurate (there are thousands, if not millions, of Americans who aim to play major-league sports someday, and presumably a representative portion of them are LGBT). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready again I updated the Personal Life section to satisfy the update requirements. Should be good to go now. -- Anc516(Champs!) (TalkContribs) 14:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not ready as the number of opposes supported with pretty strong arguments has rapidly increased. We should halt the nomination and wait for additional users to comment on it. It also doesn't make sense the nominator to mark his proposed nomination as ready. Please let any other user to do it instead of you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • We're in a poition now where it would be good if an admin could close one way or the other. No need to unnecessarily extend the discussion. --LukeSurl t c 15:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • For the record, I closed the discussion as "no consensus" at this point but my edit has been reverted (not particularly happy that the direct reason has not been given!). Here, I point to the fact that the same-sex marriages in NZ and France (also LGBT-related stories) have not been posted due to a lack of consensus, despite receiving a significant media coverage (France probably more than this particular case, in worldwide scope). --Tone 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Regarding impact, Christian Science Monitor wrote of Collins' likely impact to gay rights "given the coverage it is likely to receive and the interest major league team sports generate in the US, indeed the world."—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Big story which attracted great interest of the media and our readers. Article is currently the most visited on the English Wikipedia with more than 300.000 page views yesterday.--В и к и T 16:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Four new opposes actually. One is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT and can be summarily dismissed. The other three all made arguments of emotion that were already rebutted. Resolute 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This wasn't a flash in the pan, and is still the lead story on CNN today. The article update is good. --IP98 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed to ready Article updated with text from Christian Science Monitor about Collins and interest in major league sports likely driving the trend of gay right in the US. Coupled with aforementioned support by presidents and major multinational Nike, the impact is clear, especially in light of the usual caveat to not "complain about an event only relating to a single country". Use altblurb.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I was just coming here to mention that CSM article. There's a reason why we're still talking about this in 2013: gay rights aren't as far along as some of us would like to think. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • And even for those crying "agenda pushing", this is the majority view in the media. Ignoring what is prevalent in the media is pushing a personal agenda to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If we were going to go there, can we please stop with the obsession of multiple people dying in one accident/massacre.Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm all for LGBT rights, but the kind of progress we should be considering "news" is the kind that happens on a national level (like the recent French, New Zealand and Irish legal changes), not the personal life of one semi-obscure sportsman. It's the kind of small gossip-column news that seems more like clutching at straws than genuine forward progress. GRAPPLE X 17:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not gossip. He wrote an article in a national magazine and came out. Since he is a "nobody", it must be a big deal if the rest of the non-sports world actually cares. Again, American Brittney Griner, college national women's player of the year and first overall pick by the WNBA didnt get this type of coverage when she came out only a few weeks ago. Sure, it is a statement on society's obsession with the big 4 leagues, and bias over gay team sport athletes vs lesbians or non-team sports, but it is a reflection for better or worse of the press' interest, not some other agenda or WP obsession with gossip.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It's gossip because we're attempting to pass off a person's personal life as news, not because it's considered speculative or unfounded. Like I already said, to consider one person's personal life as something front page-worthy, especially when we still haven't posted national news stories about gay rights legislation affecting thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people, is petty and small. GRAPPLE X 18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Your point about news stories about gay rights legislation is probably correct (though I'm not an ITN regular). However, for all that some look down on sports, something like sports and Magic Johnson announcing he had HIV or perhaps this about Collins can have just as much impact. I do agree that encyclopedias should be discerning relative to the usual celebrity gossip regarding dating, debauchery , adultery, etc, but I advise to not downplay sports' crossover impact on the "real world". It also wouldn't seem right to penalize this news item for mistakes in omitting others in the past.—Bagumba (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An American basketball player declares he is gay. Fail to see how either it is 'landmark' or 'significant'. ITN is not Sun.LegalEagle (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, no justification yet as to why this event is more important than all the gay sports people elsewhere in the world who have come out. The particular sport is irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You know what, I think the sport is relevant. A gay snooker player isn't going to encounter homophobic chants. A gay rugby player would certainly face homophobia in the midst of the game but probably not from the crowd in general. A gay footballer or basketball player (how many of these are there? Globally?) will face all manner of prejudice. This is an example of a person who has come out in a sport which is global, in a sport where no other gay man has come out, has been recognised for his open-ness by former US presidents, has nearly 10k news reports (that's reports, not hits, reports) on Google. This is most certainly "in the news". The particular sport is one which has a global, hence the bravery of one man is justifiably being acknowledged as a landmark event. The fact that dozens of fellow NBA players have also made supporting remarks just backs this whole thing up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The sport may be "global". The competition referred to is not. And global news balance is distorted. Puppy rescues, and celebrity romances and their babies in America make it on to the news in other countries, especially if nice film footage is available. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • This article details some of the impact outside of "gossip". Nothing is truly "global", and I'm sure you didn't mean to compare this to WP:DOGBITESMAN stories.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The sport is global, the competition is globally recognised as the premier competition. And if you don't like "global news balance", perhaps commenting at ITN at what is "in the news" isn't really your thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Are you telling me to shut up? I made an observation. A perfectly valid one. If you don't like it, please discuss it rationally and keep it nice here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Modest Genius had the most compelling argument. The news is essentially that a professional sportsperson revealed a minor personal detail that has no connection to his athletic performance. It's essentially tabloid fodder, and we're an encyclopedia. ITN doesn't have to post everything the mainstream press posts if we feel it's not very relevant for an encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If it was a "minor personal detail", it wouldn't have resulted in the response it's gotten. Compare this to Medeis' post below to see tabloid fodder. This is far from that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Removed ready - There is still no consensus for posting this on the main page given the totality of the !votes.--WaltCip (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support That this story is being opposed as not news while sitting just up the page from a posted story about a spacecraft that stopped working, is funny. This is a news story. If Wikipedia has a suitably updated article about it, post it on ITN. (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Something's "being in the news" does not alone make it suitable for ITN: FOX Sofia Vergara: I am not always a 'sex kitten' and HuffPo Sofia Vergara: The Problem With My Boobs. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Apples and oranges. Do I have to explain the difference between an openly gay athlete in a team sport versus the typical tabloid trash? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Is it AGF or not to assume the tabloid reference was a red herring?—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The point was that this news story, as of about two hours ago, had over 7,000 Google News hits (not just "hits", "news hits" for those who find it difficult to distinguish between them. If this needs further explanation, please let me know or start an AN/I or whatever), unlike the examples given above. I think most of us understand what "in the news" means, i.e. not just a single article on a single website. The examples given are, frankly, beyond absurd, disruptive, an unnecessary non-sequitur and a waste of this community's time. Embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the sake of consistency. I don't think this can be described as tabloid nonsense. But we just failed to post arguably the biggest LGBT rights story for France in a couple of centuries. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I assume you also opposed the previous story you referred to? Otherwise, two wrongs (rejecting this news item as well) don't make a right.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No, sometimes they do. Maintaining balance is a good thing. Formerip (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm pretty sure both the New Zealand and France nominations had consensus to post, though a vocal minority shut them down. What is this, ITN or the United States Senate? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • More on impact "For those of us invested in both the two quite different worlds of pro sports and the LGBT rights movement, Monday was a banner day, as professional sports had long been seen as the final frontier of LGBT acceptance."
  • More on impact 2 Tennis player Martina Navratilova, who came out as a lesbian in an individual sport 30 years ago, calls Collins a "game-changer" for team sports with the potential for homophobic coaches affecting playing time or uncomfortable teammates in the locker room.[8]Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal The nomination should be closed as soon as possible before it reaches another useless waste of time on something that doesn't have realistic chances for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That remains to be seen; most, though not all, of the oppose comments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT from what I can see. This was the lead story in news outlets around the world(not just on the sports page) and Mr. Collins' page has had hundreds of thousands of views. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually several of the oppose votes (at a glance, Modest Genius', mine and Hydrox's, I've probably missed a few) are in no way WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, but accurately point out that this is simply overblowing a personal detail of a celebrity's life—comparable in importance and coverage to, say, Kate Middleton's pregnancy, which we would never have considered posting. I'm still not even slightly convinced that this should be posted when the France story wasn't, because skipping a story with national impact for one that's just personal, we run the risk of seeming overly focussed on sports/North America/the anglosphere/whichever one is going to be griped about first. GRAPPLE X 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, the France story should've been posted and it's a minor travesty that it wasn't. While this may be receiving a similar level of coverage to Kate Middleton's pregnancy (I'm not sure, I haven't followed the Royals), I think it's clear there's much more significance here. I don't know that you really want to bring up the royal family though, since this has much more significance than that Jubilee we posted. This is a major news story based on its coverage and impact on society. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)He was hardly a "celebrity" before this; and while I look forward to the day when this issue is indeed a "personal detail" that doesn't get attention, we aren't there yet. If it was, it wouldn't be getting this attention from the worldwide press, other notable figures in sports, and even political leaders(current and former). I guess if Jackie Robinson's story was just occurring today, that wouldn't get posted either, since being a different race is just a "personal detail". 331dot (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Robinson important for being the absolute first to cross that colour line, not just the first of his gender in his sport in his country? GRAPPLE X 22:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
There had been Black athletes and Black leagues before Robinson, as well as female athletes and some female leagues. What's notable is that this occurred in one of the top professional sports leagues, which for better or worse does not include the WNBA or most individual sports which have had gay players come out. Top-level team sports are a different dynamic- prior to this some players and others have expressed resentment and an unwillingness to play with gay players(just as some white players expressed unwillingness to play with a Black man). This will greatly change team sports. One doesn't have to be the absolute first at something to be notable for doing it. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
<joke>And it was only in baseball, which is a US sport descended from cricket, which has more worldwide appeal than baseball.</joke>—Bagumba (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal I ask the opposers to reconsider after (re-)reading Jason_Collins#Personal_life for the impact expressed by people outside of sports and those in LGBT community. Yes, ITN is not tabloid, but "tabloid" seems to be a mischaracterization of this item when those outside tabloids, sports, and even the US are commenting on the story.—Bagumba (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    Now you're trying to illustrate your point that the opinions of the supporters outweigh those of the opposers regardless of the fact that the majority of users don't think this should be posted. That's why I think it's useless to continue this discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
    You are free to not participate in this discussion if you feel that it is useless. I also don't think that's what he was doing at all, he was simply asking people to read something and reconsider. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I question the use of the word "majority". Last I counted, there were more !support votes than !oppose votes. Though not by a huge and overwhelming margin. That's before getting into the merit, and some of the naysayers were WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though certainly not all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Simply asking to reconsider is a kind of sneaky agitation which is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Neither we'll lose something very important nor the world will end if we don't post this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you show me where on Wikipedia it is written that one cannot ask others to read something and reconsider their views? There was nothing sneaky or nefarious going on here. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't mention it's a rule and you should distinguish between a rule and something that is coined in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you regard agitation as something useful for the community, then you have drastically different views on the things here. But fair enough. Why to waste my time on something that won't be posted?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't consider this "agitation" unless there is some evidence of nefarious intent or other reason it was not posted in good faith. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As someone who came out in junior high during the Reagan administration, who worked for Christopher Street Magazine, and who wore a pink triangle in places where it was physically unwise for me to do so, and hence would be considered by some a "member of the LGBT community", I can assure you it really doesn't mean anything. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "In my opinion"? Who else's opinion should I have? It's no less offensive being condescended to as someone who needs special treatment and recognition than it is to be discriminated against: both are forms of prejudice. I have no problem with Collins's coming out; it simply isn't important outside a certain mindset. Rather outside two certain mindsets, the identity politics crowd and the bigots. Neither POV should have weight here. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is being covered by a) major news outlets b) as a lead story and c) in a very broad and in-depth manner. Given that, and that we have a decent article to point readers to, I think all evidence points to this being a significant story. --Jayron32 22:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted There's a decent update. There's substantial support. It's far from unanimous, but I don't find the reasons for opposing to be stronger than those supporting. I understand there are some people who believe this should not have been a big deal, but, for better or worse, it was/is a big story. The content of the update supports that notion. It is not our job to decide what should be in the news. Also, the argument that this shouldn't be posted because the same-sex marriage in France story wasn't doesn't hold water; that ship has sailed, and the fact that something was or was not posted is not a valid reason for supporting or opposing a story (although I should point out that the story itself received substantial support as well). -- tariqabjotu 00:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment in response to that... (And I'm not trying to argue further against the posting. It's done.) We DO decide "what should be in the news". All the time. Brangelina and everything surrounding them was/is a big story, as are many other similar ones. We don't post them here. I don't know whether our policies say we should be making such judgements, but we do. That means it's perfectly valid for people to argue that something is just a rubbish, tabloid story. Whether any particular one is, is yet another judgement we make. Frequently. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, that story was never the top story in any endeavour of serious journalism, things like CNN, any major network news TV show, major, well respected print news stories, etc. never published anything on the front page/lead story/top news item about celebrity gossip, so it's a bad analogy. Major news sources gave this story depth of coverage, prominent placement, and the story was covered in sources around the world. We don't have to make any judgements, because all we need to do is observe where the story appears. It isn't merely that one can find a news story, it is where and how it is being covered. So no, we don't have to decide what should be in the news, because Brangelina wasn't in the news, at least not the news that counts for In The News. --Jayron32 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In a way, you've just agreed with me, at least to some extent. We DO make judgements, don't we? And the fact that your preferred approach to deciding is different from mine, and others', highlights the problem we have here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
ITN is meant to steer people to articles on events that are "in the news". It isn't called "what we think is in the news". 331dot (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
We make judgement about notability all the time but the claim that this was 'tabloid fodder' was always nonsense and rightly ignored.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I have no objection to the posting of this story, it does strike me as odd that we have posted it. This is a story with no far-reaching implications for society and civil rights. When discrimination against LGBT people is banned by federal law in the same way that racial discrimination is, that will be a real step forward. However, we had two stories about the legalisation of same-sex marriage in major industrialised nations recently which were not posted despite reasonably strong support. While I usually resist 'other stuff exists' arguments, and do not believe there is any significant pro-US bias in this section of Wikipedia, this does look like a very unbalanced way to report on the LGBT issues that have been in the news lately. I'd like it if an uninvolved admin could find the time to review these decisions. Thank you. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    There are effects on society and civil rights(which isn't a requirement for posting anything on ITN, but...) as this will change how homosexuals are treated and received in team sports. It could also influence the gay rights movement. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    There is no evidence that this is true. Again I will raise the counterexamples of Justin Fashanu and Robbie Rogers, who both came out but resulted in no appreciable change to the culture. I still don't support posting this, but won't argue with the posting. Modest Genius talk 10:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    I don't know as much about Fashanu, but Robbie Rodgers retired when he announced. Obviously we can't predict what will happen here but it's a clear milestone (yes, with a number of caveats).--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull - From my count there are 12 supports and 13 opposes. That is not even close to consenses and it should be pulled and only added when there is a lot more people that support inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There is more to building consensus than a simple !vote count. Tariq has included an explanation for the rationale behind posting. Feel free to read it. --IP98 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Tariq's rationale basically amounted to simply dismissing the opposes. The examples of Wade Davis (American football) and countless other athletes show this was not a first. I agree with Alex it is odd this was posted with I think 14/12 (now 14/13)? support when the France and New Zealand laws were not posted with much better support. The whole subtext seems to be "this is morally desriable and something we need to get behind". Were four athletes to come out on one day as was being rumored a few days back I could see the notability. But at this point, except for very liberal outlets like HuffPo, this was bottom page news quickly forgotten. In fact, the front page news to day is that athletes know they play with gay team-mates and this is "no big deal". μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose - guys, this is not the American Wikipedia. Already in the US this isn't actually a real first, but in many European countries this is nothing special. No one cares less which hole some random American sportsman prefers to put his penis in. "Morally commendable" isn't a valid ITN reason. (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a "Please do not" above above about complain about an event only relating to a single country. Claims of US centrism have become tiresome. I rather doubt anyone in the USA gives a damn about a dutch prince or a ban on insecticides, but there is no one on those noms screaming about Eurocentrism. --IP98 (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The IP's point is a little more valid when you realise that this story about a US athlete received such a prompt posting while one affecting all of France was dropped. I did warn up there that posting the vastly lesser story would engender claims of bias. GRAPPLE X 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Some of us supported posting the France story......and if that IP user feels there is a bias they should work to counteract it by suggesting non-American stories for posting. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The constant comparison with the French gay marriage issue is getting ridiculously tiresome. It wasn't posted for whatever reason--perhaps it was a mistake and mistakes happen. But on the other hand it may just be that after already posting the legalization of Argentinian gay marriage 1, Mexico City Gay Marriage 1, Sweden 1, and a number of other places, the issue had become less notable. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Same sex marriage and the coming out of gay sportsmen are very different issues.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not an apples to oranges comparision; it's a one-apple to sixty-five-million apples comparison. Think of it like this—if we reject an item on the result of the FA Cup, would it be a good idea to stick up an item on the FA Vase quite promptly afterwards? Or if we reject, say, a death nomination for an active head of state but immediately follow it by posting one for a TD/MP/congressman? Of course not. The larger, wider-reaching item was rejected, which should clearly shade our treatment of a smaller, narrower item in the same week. Sometimes it is actually necessary to judge one item by the treatment of another. GRAPPLE X 02:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, you're assumption that the France item was left out due to some geographic or other bias is presumptuous. It could have been a mistake or something else. ITN has posted the legalization of same sex marriage in many jurisdictions (and doubtlessly the fact that we've posted similar events previously dampened the enthusiasm somewhat--the legalization of gay marriage in Denmark was opposed specifically because it it was only the 'eleventh' country). But you're portrayal of the Jason Collins coming out as 'one apple vs 65 million, while that may be how you see it, isn't how a large section of the press in the US and abroad sees it, and there are ample sources supporting this. You're obviously entitled to your view on the matter but it's been very well established that there's a perceived significance here beyond one person. I completely agree that 'oppose' votes based on the rational that this is 'one person's sex life' or similar wording should be disregarded. By your logic, we should post all laws passed in France, since the all affect 65 million people. Many things posted on ITN don't actually effect people beyond a symbolic importance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not assuming that the French item was rejected because of any bias. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I stated that the act of ignoring one and posting a lesser will, and I quote "engender claims of bias" from our readership; it's clear this is true because we've already seen such an accusation scant inches above. And no, those oppose votes should not be disregarded in the slightest—the opinion that one person's personal life is not of international importance is a common and valid one. Lastly, no, that is not my logic, so once again, thank you for using me as your strawman, I greatly appreciate not actually being paid attention to. My logic is that we should not post an item affecting one person if we have only very recently rejected one affecting 65 million people. How the press in a person's home country reacts to personal news is not indicative of its actual global importance—you only have to look at the continued English interest in Kate Middleton's pregnancy (which, by the way, was also commented on by government officials much like this story) to see how the press, and people wishing to appeal to the press, like to jump on feel-good stories quite readily. Unlike every other story in our current ITN box, I have yet to see a single column inch or televised minute on this story outside of US sources (and I read a very sport-heavy newspaper). GRAPPLE X 03:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Academic now, but I will cite my reason anyway, since this is not a closed issue (and the core stem of it is unlikely to be a closed issue in my lifetime). This argument for strong notability (as contrasted to a piece of data irrelevant to the person's forté) has several parts in addition to the (already stated) heavy news coverage.

1) Male homosexuality is seen differently from female homosexuality everywhere in the world. (The threesome usually assumes two women and one man, not the other way around.) In general, a lesbian in a physically competitive environment has a similar or better public acceptance rate to a (male) homosexual in a "soft" (traditionally female) working environment. (Home decor and hair style have become the classics here.)

2) Male homosexuality in intensely masculine, physical environments is seen differently from male homosexuality in more neutral, non-physical environments. In general, a (male) homosexual is much less accepted in intensely masculine, physical environments than in more neutral, non-physical environments.

2 holds especially true for masculine, physical environments which are commonly idolised as ideals of masculinity. There is no high-level female equivalent to a United States football team. There is a women's NBA -- but a comparison of salaries, seat sales, and advertising dollars tells the real story. The so-called Big Four are all sports where the best players are held up as masculine idols. A similar situation exists for rugby in the UK and cricket in much of the Commonwealth. However, it has not spread quite so strongly to association football (soccer) -- with exceptions, especially in Latin America. (Personal hypothesis -- is the amount and type of direct physical contact relevant (eg. the possibility of hands touching as opposed to hands strictly not touching)? I know, I know, NOR.)

3) Male homosexuality in intensely masculine, physical single-sex competitive team environments is seen differently from male homosexuality in similar non-team environments. In general, male homosexuality is much less accepted in single-sex competitive team environments than in similar solo or pairs environments. You can see the reason for this yourself if you consider the common reaction to women reporters in male sports locker rooms. With opposite genders, there is always potential for sexual assessments or reactions. With single-sex male teams, the common assumption is that there is no potential for one player to consider another player as a possible sexual partner. However, a (male) homosexual team player presumably assesses other men around him sexually in the same way that men appraise women sexually. This changes the social connections among team members, in much the same way as the classic question of whether it is possible for men and women to truly be friends without sex getting in the way.

All of these points together make it extremely difficult for any male team player in a highly masculinised team sport to declare his homosexuality while he is still active on the team. In fact, it has never happened. Point #2 explains why prior declaration of homosexuality by female athletes or males working in (presumably gender neutral) environments do not take away from the impact of this story. Point #3 explains why prior declaration of homosexuality by solo or pairs male athletes do not take away from the impact of this story. - Tenebris 02:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Your argument for Collins's sainthood in the progressive church, Tenebris, is noted. As for ITN it's not notable. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • laugh* You have not read much of the hagiographies of saints, have you? I do find it interesting that any action of "committing sociology" is met with this kind of reaction. -- And yet, even so, there does seem to have been sufficient consensus in the previous thread for ITN to disagree with you over notability. Unanimity of opinion has never been a requirement of ITN. (I find life is much simpler when one does not automatically assume one's own opinion is synonymous with self-evident fact to the point of confusing the two.) - Tenebris 06:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
You appear to have confused your own opinion for facts quite extensively in posting that unsupported wall of text about the alleged qualities of gay men. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
As a queer man, I feel I ought to say that Tenebris' argument is a huge pile of unsourced personal opinions to which I would not give even the slightest credence. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Goodness. I seem to have pricked the complete opposite sides of the spectrum simultaneously ... which is a fairly good indicator of neutrality. Medeis -- I am demonstrating the strength of an existing trend. Things which break strong, socially relevant trends are by definition notable. AlexTiefling -- if you reread my words with a neutral eye, you may notice that I have never once mentioned the alleged qualities of gay men. I mentioned only how the straight world sees and reacts to overt homosexuality, and why. As a queer man, can you personally speak to the point of view of the straight world?
And btw, may I remind you that this is ITN:C, not a Wikipedia article? Support/oppose/comment asks for reasoning for the choice, not sourcing. Although, if you really want to track it down for yourselves, nearly all of what I said does happen to be peer-reviewed sourceable. - Tenebris 17:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pull There are too many caveats to this "first". If he was the first professional player worldwide to do this, it would hold more weight. It just screams NA-centric. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 11:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This was a top news story around the world (not just on the sports page), and this is "in the news". If you feel this is "NA-centric", then I would suggest proposing non-NA-centric stories for posting. A good portion of users here are from NA. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
We did. But for some reason, the France and NZ stories were not posted, despite moderately strong support. I think there'd be less contention around this story if those had been put up. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This story shouldn't be held hostage because others' desired stories didn't get posted despite having support(Other stuff exists). They should be protesting why those stories weren't posted- I am certainly curious about the France story(which I supported). 331dot (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote. I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF; I referred to it in my comment. Like you, I am curious about the non-posting of the France and NZ stories. I am calling on any admins who are available to look into why those stories were not posted. I am also concerned that this may well be an instance of pro-US bias on ITN; but suggesting that as a one-off problem is drowned out by a predictable chorus of whiners claiming that there is always such bias. I reject this. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OMG Is this the current state of ITN now? A kangaroo court where basically any U.S. item of miniscule notability will get posted no matter what level of opposition? Guess there's nothing left to do but just go with the flow. 'MURICA!!! (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was so "miniscule" that the President of the United States (and a former one) saw fit to comment on it and it was the lead story all over the US (and a story seen in non-US news). As stated at the top, objections about a story relating to a single country are not vaild. If you don't like the stories that get posted, suggest non-US stories for posting. Currently, the story on Collins is the only US story listed in ITN- so much for a US bias. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
But I thought there wasn't consensus yet? Who decided this should be posted? How does this get passed, but not the France post (which was much more relevant worldwide)? (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot explain why something did not get posted(I supported the France story) but other stuff exists and that's not a valid argument here. tariqabjotu explained his reasoning for posting above. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
He didn't explain why that story should be rejected, despited having more support than this one. It doesn't help when fighting charges of US-centric bias in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe it was formally rejected so much as no action was taken. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I just read that nomination and I see your argument. I also agree with Muboshgu below. (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The France news (and the New Zealand news too) should've been posted just like this was, IMHO. I can't explain why those didn't make it, beyond the flaws in the ITN/C process. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Well at least there is an admission that the process is hopelessly flawed and biased in favor of Americans. (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not what Muboshgu said. As far as I'm concerned, this set of outcomes is very biased towards US news, but i don't think that reflects the general pattern. That's why I'd like these three nominations reviewed; their treatment is egregious compared to other ITN nomination. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why there's only one US story in ITN right now. Stop talking about any bias and do something about it. Suggest non-US stories for posting, write articles about non-US subjects. Just making comments about it does nothing to advance your cause without action to back it up. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed several non-US stories for posting over the years. They haven't got up because not enough Americans have heard of the people involved. Opposes of the form "not well enough known" tend to dominate non-American proposals. Yes, we do have a lot of Americans on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
So since stories you propose are not posted, ITN as a 'US centric' problem, with no definitive evidence of such a problem. With all due respect Hilo given you're past opinions you might not be extremely objective here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, don't misrepresent me, and discuss the words I have written rather than me. It is inevitable that some cultures will impact Wikipedia more than others. This is discussed very well at Wikipedia:Systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Herschel stops workingEdit

Article: Herschel Space Observatory (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Herschel Space Observatory, a far-infrared space telescope, ends its mission after running out of liquid helium coolant. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Herschel Space Observatory, a far-infrared space telescope, its image of the Andromeda Galaxy pictured, ends its mission after running out of liquid helium coolant.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Landmark, billion euro space observatory concludes its mission. Interesting topic, not a frequent visitor to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak support. Whilst this was an entirely expected (and planned for) event, it does give a useful landmark which could be used to highlight the satellite. However, there's no need to adopt the promotional language of the press release ('most powerful ever'). I suggest
Modest Genius talk 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Blurb replaced, but it was (even though it was the most powerful observatory...) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is there a 'most famous image' someone can link to that it took? μηδείς (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone could make that sort of judgement call, especially since most of its data hasn't been published yet. But File:Andromeda_spiral_galaxy.jpg is pretty striking, as is File:Embryonic Stars in the Rosette Nebula.jpg. A quick google search will show dozens of others. Modest Genius talk 01:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. End of the the largest infrared space telescope ever launched. Thue (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The article has been updated and there has been no opposition in 24 hours. Marking [ready]. Modest Genius talk 11:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Posting. Scientific news of quality. --Tone 12:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Modest. I think we should use one of those images. Much better looking than the king. μηδείς (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Andromeda spiral galaxy.jpg
Herschel image of the Andromeda Galaxy
  • Blurb & Image I suggest we consider using this image of the Andromeda Galaxy Herschel took as the current image on the front page, I have added an altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned on the ITN talk page (quite why there are two conversations going on I know not), this is a suboptimal alt blurb and a suboptimal choice of image since it's a composite of both IR and x-rays from another observatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual image from Herschel, not a composite...

You could try the second image, with an alt blurb of: " The Herschel Space Observatory, a far-infrared space telescope (its image of the Andromeda Galaxy pictured) ends its mission after running out of liquid helium coolant."? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of that blurb, and think further comments should go on the talk page to avoid a split discussion. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Only problem with further comments going on the talk page is that this will not be updated in time. If you really want the image to be updated then this is the only genuine venue to promote that perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually WP:ERRORS generally gets the faster response, as we don't require images to get support on ITN/C. Modest Genius talk 20:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Odd, though, as there's no "error" here, just a personal preference being expressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Iraq protestsEdit

Articles: 2012–13 Iraqi protests (talk, history) and Media of Iraq (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 200 people are killed in five days of clashes between Sunni anti-government protesters and security forces near Kirkuk, Iraq. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Iraq closes its border with Jordan and orders ten TV stations off the air in response to anti-government protests that have killed over 200 people.

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: ONgoing protests in Iraq that we haven't covered. Took a turn for the worse today. And its more in light of the sectarian strife in next door Syria )(and Bahrain and Yemen) --Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Note I see a middling-length article from Al Jazeera cited in the article itself. Do you have any other links to other news sources so we can judge how significant this is? I'm not voting one way or the other until I can see how much this story is in the news... --Jayron32 12:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The WSJ says the death toll is now 38.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
[9][10]Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Theres more violence today.
"The fighting was the bloodiest Iraq has seen since thousands of Sunnis started staging protests in December to demand an end to perceived marginalisation of their sect by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Shia-led government."Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The death tooll is now 200+ and the article is updated.Lihaas (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
More than 200 deaths and its updated to today not just 5 days ago. There is more going on in this sectarian quagmire (and its more linked to Syria as well with the claimed air strike)Lihaas (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very important development following the 2013 Hawija clashes. Article seems updated. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments in the above section titled "Iraq suspends Al Jazeera". Kurtis (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Update — Now the aforementioned section is below. Heh. Kurtis (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't Iraq a war zone? Clashes like this seem to happen all the time there. How is this big news? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is big news, because the clashes are bigger and sectarian in nature. They originate from the Sunni opposition movement dissatisfaction with the government. There have been several events that makes this more significant include: closing the Iraqi-Jordanian boarders, warning against sectarian civil war from Iraqi PM, suspending 10 T.V. channels by the government and of course the 2013 Hawija clashes. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What's up with nomination? If this is update, is there any chance of posting this? –HTD 13:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Iraq suspends Al JazeeraEdit

Article: media of Iraq
Blurb: The government of Iraq orders ten TV stations, including Al Jazeera, to cease operations.
Source: LA Times

  • The fact that the leadership feels the need to use censorship in an effort to quell the growing tensions speaks volumes about how bad things have become there.--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The significance of the event must be mentioned in the blurb. Authoritarian governments regularly censor media outlets; this event is only newsworthy because of rising tensions between Sunni-majority countries (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) and Shiite-majority countries (Iran and Iraq) and the recent sectarian protests and unrests in Iraq (BBC).--xanchester (t) 05:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This has been partially nominated below: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BATTENTION_NEEDED.5D_Iraq_protests. Furthermore, instead of just Media in Iraq, other possible highlight articles are 2012–13 Iraqi protests or 2013 Hawija clashes; I don't know which would be best. SpencerT♦C 08:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    The below nomination (here) deals with the bigger event, the tensions (over 200 dead in five days) that led to this decision. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Does this mean that the government orders the TV stations to cease only broadcasting operations in the country or to use other means to ban these channels, such as blocking the websites where they can be watched on-line or to block all the websites of the media that publish their news? I cannot measure a very big impact of this story if the people are able to circumvent the use of the media by visiting alternative channels to watch them or read their news. Frankly, the rate of Internet users in Iraq is on a very low level, but if someone is able to use it to watch the news, as many people actually do it nowadays, then it's not so significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
comment this is all listed in the Iraq protests nom belowLihaas (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In principle, I support some sort of blurb pertaining to the 2012–13 Iraqi protests, as they've gained quite a bit of traction in recent times. However, I'm not 100% sure if Iraq's decision to close certain media outlets is the ideal blurb in this case. Maybe a more general item, like this for example: "At least x people are killed as anti-government protests in Iraq continue to escalate." Probably not the best of blurbs, but you get the picture. Kurtis (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a double bold, or at least more informative, blurb? Just saying a bunch of people have died doesn't really capture the nature of the situation:
ALT - Iraq closes their border with Jordan and orders ten TV stations off the air in response to anti-government protests that have killed over 200 people.
Or the same thing without the bolding on "orders..." if we only want to bold one article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment we could just re-nominate the protests. It's not like they stopped when the last nom expired off. --IP98 (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Ive been saying below that it is not stale and called attention to it too\Lihaas (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have BOLDly merged the discussions to simplify further debate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)'
ThanksLihaas (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think the blurb for this should state a reason, since that appears to be contentious. The Iraqi government has presented it as a public safety measure, that much is true, but... Formerip (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

April 28Edit

[Closed] Libya eventsEdit

No consensus to post; in addition, the actual event being nominated was never made fully clear. SpencerT♦C 12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: 2011–present Libyan factional fighting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Infighting and warnings of instability continue in Libya after the Libyan civil war. (Post)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: At least three important events happened/happening in Libya and we din't post them. Seem to have all happened in the space of a week, so I thought we could post this together. Though I admit the blurb needs work.
Its on the bold link for April. I thought people would check before respondingLihaas (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
So the two things I pointed out above? (the middle item in the April section just looks like more political speak which hardly fits ITN)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It got far worse recently. With France intervening making it internationaloLihaas (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. That blurb pretty much just says "nothing changed." "Nothing changes" isn't news.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 27Edit

[Closed] 2013 ricin lettersEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: 2013 ricin letters (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After releasing a framed suspect, police arrest a Mississippi man for mailing ricin to a state judge, a US senator, and President Barack Obama. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters
Article updated
Nominator's comments: rare attack on US President, interesting twist in apparent framing, looks like they have physical evidence this time μηδείς (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a deliberate attempted on the life of a head of a state is "newsworthy", IMO. --IP98 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated The "second arrest" section has five referenced sentences. The Rambling Man has cleaned up some formatting. The article well exceeds the three paragraph requirement. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: does Obama ever open his own mail? Ever? Is this really likely to have been a viable attempt on his life? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I doubt Obama opens his own mail, this was certainly an idiotic attempt. It's still significant I think. --IP98 (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • In the 2001 Anthrax mailings letters did get into the congressmen's personal offices. Millions of dollars was spent upgrading postal facilities and apparently the can detect certain substances during sorting now. The attempt may be amateur, but it's the first in over a decade, and making world news. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, so this had no chance of any success at all, unlike the bombing attempt on the British PM that IP98 noted below. So as such, this is "non-news". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • If there was absolutely zero chance of this affecting Obama, it's not really a big deal. We've seen this kind of amateur rubbish before, it's really inconsequential. Anyone can mail something dubious to anyone else. Nothing happened, it's not ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I guess. I'll adpot the position next time someone makes a doomed attempt on a British PM. --IP98 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I think explosives raining down on the house of the Prime Minister (with an unexploded shell actually landing in his back garden!) is a little different from a letter which goes through several levels of security checks before reaching the President, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Or even this, just today, where a gunman shot two policeman outside the Italian PM's office? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - person tries (in a way any normal person would know is completely futile) to spread terror through the sending of letters, and even though there was no chance in hell for them to actually reach the people involved (Captiol and WH mail addresses actually never enter DC proper before at least 2 scans if it's the same as a few years ago), and just because they've arrested someone and foiled the attempt it's important? I don't buy that for now at least. gwickwiretalkediting 16:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose no chance that this could have actually done anything to anyone "newsworthy", and nothing actually happened to anyone "newsworthy". Not ITN-worthy at all. (However, I tip my hat to User:Medeis whom I have long berated for not getting involved in updating such nominations for nominating and working on this.) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing discussion unrelated to nomination at hand; keep this to user talk pages please. SpencerT♦C 18:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • I have never failed to update my own nominations and do work on other's nominations which interest me and which I have some ability in, such as the Catalonian protests. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • And thus far, you've never taken a compliment as it was intended in good faith. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I was not offended by, and appreciated your statement. I just wanted to clarify that I do contribute more than my share. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obama was never even close to being in danger, nor Sen. Wicker. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think such threats, maybe much more serious ones, are also sent to other heads of the states, but never mentioned. Egeymi (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with the above.-- (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arrest is not a relevant stage to highlight. Surely the history of this case tells us that. Kevin McE (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the most important thing to note here. Innocent until proven guilty. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply I see this is doomed, but remember, this wasn't a "threat". Deadly poison was sent to a major head of state. --IP98 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, the statement that this sort of thing happens all the time is baseless. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It was "sent to him" in that it was addressed to him(and Sen. Wicker, but the focus here is on Obama), but standard procedures designed to prevent it from reaching The White House, let alone President Obama, worked and kept him from being in any danger whatsoever. It would be like posting on ITN attempts to scale the fence around the White House or even just trespassing on the property. Now, if someone crashes a plane onto the WH grounds or shoots at someone resembling the President, that's a different ball game. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If the President had been in more direct danger then I would of supported inclusion for ITN. Thankfully he was not, as were the Italians today...-- (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013Edit

Article: Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The centre-right wing opposition parties Independence Party and Progressive Party win similar pluralities the Icelandic parliamentary election, 2013. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Independence Party wins a plurality in the Icelandic parliamentary election.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Election result may also influence the Icelandic EU membership negotiations.

  • The article is in a very good state, has been considerably expanded and updated. I think it is ready to be posted. Now, that we know that the Independence Party is slightly ahead of the Progressive Party, we should name it as the winner. --RJFF (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Ready - the result section consists only of a table. Prose is capable of capturing the information in a way a mere tabel cannot and thus is a requirement for an update to be sufficient. (Mentioning the results in the lead only is insufficient.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Now nicely updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready to be posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R and marking ready per prose update. --IP98 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT blurb. SpencerT♦C 23:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb is at best ambiguous and at worst misleading. The Independence Party did win a plurality of votes, but not a plurality of seats - since the Progressive Party won the same number of seats. It seems to me that seats is the more relevant metric here - that is what determines who forms the governments and who can pass laws. We wouldn't have put up a blurb saying that the Democrats won a plurality in the US House of Representatives election last year, even though they did win a plurality of votes. Similarly it would have been silly to say that the Labour Party won a plurality in the 1978 and 1981 New Zealand elections, when they did get the most votes but the National Party won a majority of seats and formed the government on both occasions. I would suggest changing the blurb to something like: "The Independence Party and the Progressive Party win the most seats in the Icelandic parliamentary election." Neljack (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • LOL. Doesn't anyone actually read the results or even the infobox? Two parties emerged with the highest number of seats. The blurb is wrong. –HTD 03:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Doh - I adjusted the blurb. The one party version is indeed quite misleading. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

April 26Edit

[Posted] South Sudan Liberation Army surrenders armsEdit

Article: South Sudan Liberation Movement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The South Sudanese government announces that the rebel South Sudan Liberation Army has laid down its arms. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, Voice of America

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This rebel group had its roots in Sudan's long and bitter civil war. Since South Sudan's independence the government of Sudan had been accused of supporting it and letting it operate across the border. In return for an amnesty all 3,000 SSLA members have apparently agreed to surrender their arms and be integrated into the South Sudanese army. - Dumelow (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. The BBC story says that they actually have started to turn them in, so this is a notable development in the conflict. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
oppose per PKK precedent. and also no t heard anything from the groupLihaas (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The PKK had merely made an announcement, without actually doing anything yet; this group has actually taken action on their pledge, according to the BBC: "Some 3,000 fighters from one of South Sudan's biggest rebels groups, the SSLA, have handed in their weapons". 331dot (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - notable development.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, certainly notable since the group agreed to surrender its arms and announced it, unlike the PKK. Egeymi (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, a notable step. Brandmeistertalk 09:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked ready in accordance with support expressed above - Dumelow (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Tomislav Nikolić apologises for Srebrenica massacreEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 12:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: Tomislav Nikolić (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Serbian President Tomislav Nikolić apologises for Srebrenica massacre. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; CNN

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is one of the main news in the region which receives decent media coverage worldwide. Nikolić is the first President of Serbia to send apology for Srebrenica massacre and this could lead to improvement of the relations between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and make an impact on stabilising the relations among the other countries in the Balkans as well. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, whether or not covered by media outlets, since it is significant historically, therefore, just for encyclopedic news.Egeymi (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - What exactly is the weight behind an apology? If no reparations or tangible attempts at reconciliation are made, it can't be that much.--WaltCip (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The apology is the news for now. It's impossible at this stage to measure or predict what will be the relations among the countries in the future and we have never been working on it in the past. The massacre by itself is considered the largest one since the World War II and any news of apology relating to it is significant in principle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I too would like to see something more tangible than an apology; also the President declined to call it a genocide which might reduce the impact of the apology. It is still a significant admission, which is why I won't outright oppose this, however. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant historically. It doesn't really matter if there is any tangible outcome. Our focus is as an encyclopaedia, ITN items are merely hook items into our content. This is a good story for that. --RA (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - historic recognition.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose although the act has been accepted as a genocide by his predecessor Boris Tadić.. Political ass-covering, not historic. Last guy acknowledged genocide and handed over perpetrators to the Hague. --IP98 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Was gonna nominate this myself until I realised there had already been an apology before. (per the article)Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] George Jones - recent deathEdit

Article: George Jones (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11][12]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Appears to be a legend in Country music. Not my cup of tea, but seems to meet recent death criteria. --– Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support when updated. 14 number one hits, and so many recordings and awards the each have their own pages. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Mythical rule applied, update should hopefully be numerically sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support legend. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge star and "legendary" is not exaggerating. Jusdafax 17:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Update sufficient, absolutely a major figure in American music. --Jayron32 18:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - this is the man that generations of country singers have measured themselves against, "legend" is an understatement. --Khajidha (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

April 25Edit


Article: Kurdistan Workers' Party (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The PKK announces that it will withdraw from Turkey on 8 May ending its 30 year fight with the country. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Major organization osf non-state activity in the world of politics to withdraw its positions. Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Significant development in an important conflict. Thue (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment we usually (?) wait until after the event has taken place. Will it be in the news again then or is this the main item? --IP98 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree this is ITN worthy if it actually happens, but I don't think it's done yet. Turkey wants them to walk away without weapons and threatens to take action if they do, on the other hand they want to take their weapons with them. This might just break all the talks. Source: BBC Radio. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until they actually do, as they could still change their mind, but this is notable enough for ITN once they do. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait this will be perfect on May 8, and it gives us plenty of time to get a five-sentence three-source update. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Or any other update that is deemed sufficient by the admin who eventually decides whether to post. Kevin McE (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a re-read of WP:ITN would be helpful for some editors: "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective..." i.e. there is no "five-sentence three-source" requirement. So stop pretending there is. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait, since such statements, maybe much stronger ones, were expressed before, but the result wasn't success. Egeymi (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

April 24Edit

[Posted] Great Mosque of Aleppo minaretEdit

Articles: Great Mosque of Aleppo (talk, history) and Battle of Aleppo (2012–2013) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 11th-century minaret of the Great Mosque of Aleppo in Aleppo, Syria is destroyed during civil war fighting. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Second article updated, first needs updating

Nominator's comments: There was a request on WT:ITN to nomitate this. We haven't had a Syria story for a while. --LukeSurl t c 16:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support when updated. Major damage to an important building on a world heritage site. Editors beaware: there is a mosque of the same name in Damascus, regarded as one of the most holiest places in Islam and one of the most important buildings in all of Middle East. This mosque in Damascus has not been damaged. --hydrox (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    There are people who actually call that the Great Mosque of Damascus? Interesting. Either way, I'd be surprised if someone got the two mixed up. -- tariqabjotu 02:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. Some people, like the author of the BBC article, refer to the mosque in Aleppo as the Umayyad Mosque (of Aleppo). Yeah, that's confusing, and also a bit strange. -- tariqabjotu 14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I found this terribly depressing and think it's significant enough to be an appropriate candidate for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Particularly appropriate topical item for an encyclopedia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, major event highlighting major ongoing war. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As The Rambling Man writes, very depressing that a world heritage site should be so badly damaged. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. Very notable, showing irreversible effects of war like killings of people. Egeymi (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Destruction of a monument old almost 1,000 is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, which article are we nominating? The news is clearly significant and supported (per above) but the Great Mosque article has no update, what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The update is in the history section. Two long sentences, but it's there. --IP98 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Perfect, thanks. Well let's get this posted as soon as possible, marking as ready to go (despite the myths of "sentence/citation" requirements, this is all we have, not reason not to post it)...The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment too bad there isn't a picture, even fair use for the article... --IP98 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and comment: thank you so much, LukeSurl, for your help here. The minaret is e.g. pictured here: [13], [14]. There was only one large minaret at the Great Mosque of Aleppo, so all pictures of the minaret seen here [15] is it. (Yes, I saw it before it was destroyed; in 2001). We have, of course, no image post-destruction. This is the worst destruction of a cultural heritage so far in the Syrian war, IMO, and, IMO, on level with the Bamian statues destruction (Afghanistan) and the Mostar bridge (Bosnia.). Sad greetings, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support But neither of the two articles targeted by the nominator has both a five-sentence and a three-source update. (Although, frankly, only one article should need to meet a full-update requirement.) μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement for a "five-sentence and a three-source update", so please stop pretending otherwise. This is becoming disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — What a depressing piece of news. A portion of Syria's architectural legacy has been destroyed. Kurtis (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to support this, but there is a POV statement that needs a cleanup and I'm not sure how to do it. Contrary to claims by the state media of Jabhat al-Nusra's involvement, activists asserted that it was rebels from the Tawhid Brigades who were fighting government forces around the mosque. "Contrary to claims" has to go, but I don't know, does Jabhat al-Nusra == activist? What? It's also unsourced... --IP98 (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above supports. Agree that article is ready. Jusdafax 17:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • [Ready], Egeymi (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - another sign of the syrian regimes lunatic behaviour. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought it was destroyed by terrorist insurgents... --IP98 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 08:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Italian PMEdit

Article: Enrico Letta (talk, history)
Blurb: Enrico Letta is appointed prime minister of Italy following the Italian general election, 2013. (Post)

Article needs updating

 Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Heads of government changing are not ITNR, only heads of state(which we just did for Italy). 331dot (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Ag! but we posted Canada , Australia and the UK more than once for the election and appointment.Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I know we dual posted the installation of Chinese dictator after the sham parliamentary "election", but when did we dual post Canada, Australia and the UK? --IP98 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we posted the UK twice. First the election, then either Brown resigning and/or Cameron being appointed. All in a span of a week; this one's different though as this took much longer (not as long as the Dutch though). –HTD 16:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I only made my comment to point out that the head of state changing is an ITNR item and not the head of government, not to express concerns about double posting. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't remember how previous discussions on this matter have gone, but I highly doubt when the relavent section of ITNR was spelled out the intention was to exclude the commonly recognized leader of Italy. If the Italian PM isn't ITNR it certainly should be. I think the problem is we can't come up with a straightforward wording regarding PMs but really I think common sense should apply.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: It is special in this case, because the appointment of the PM did not follow the parliamentary election directly. Actually, the PM was not chosen by the parliament, but nominated by the president. Therefore, it is independent from the election, and should be posted separately. I think the global media attention is obvious. --RJFF (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait. The deal hasn't happened yet. He's been invited to form a coalition, and the other parties have been making the right noises. But nothing has been finalised, and it could still fall through (this being Italian politics, it's quite a real possibility). All the news reports I've seen are careful to say he isn't PM yet e.g. The Guardian says 'nominated' and 'appeared to be on the verge'. Modest Genius talk 17:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. Letta has now been appointed and the article is updated. Ready to post. Modest Genius talk 11:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait The negotiations might still collapse, as MG already pointed out above, and as they have collapsed already multiple times. BBC too is just hopeful he might become the next PM, but I would hold my breath up until official inauguration. --hydrox (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Support The cabinet has now been appointed. Because there was such unusually long delay between the election and appointing the cabinet, and because Italy is one of the EU's "core" countries, this should be posted. --hydrox (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Updated and the article says "expected". μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Why not try updating something for a change rather than just complaining it's not updated? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Letta Cabinet and the election page is updated.Lihaas (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Now, he has been sworn in. The Letta article has been adequetely updated. It is ready to be posted. --RJFF (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Tagged as needs attention. It's been 2 days already. –HTD 10:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • posted --Jayron32 14:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

China violenceEdit

Article: 2013 Xinjiang clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 20 people are killed in ethnic violence in Xinjiang, China. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: More ethnic violence in the world and in this powder keg. Seems to have a high-enough toll for a day's violence in a region that doesn't have it with this frequency (same as 3 in Boston). Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment needs update. ethnic clashes occurred between social workers and police between social workers and police? wtf? --IP98 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It sounds like a frequent and common occurrence, like bombings in Iraq, Syria, etc. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Dhaka building collapseEdit

Article: 2013 Dhaka building collapse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 87 people are killed and 600 injured when a building collapses in Dhaka, Bangladesh (Post)
News source(s): bbc; CNN
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Per the recent 2013 Thane building collapse, and per large loss of life. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Obvious support - I don't think a reason is even required for this one. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agreed, no nonsense tragic incident with a large loss of life. CaptRik (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • wait still a stub at the moment weak support EdwardLane (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once no longer a stub. Casualties up to 700 according to CNN. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now just on the length of the article. It needs expansion to be worthwhile to put on the main page. Once it reaches a reasonable length, this is clearly a significant story that many news outlets are following and as such, demonstrates the significance required for ITN. --Jayron32 13:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The article looks like to meet the five-sentence minimum as a decisive criterion that you and your fellow colleagues have introduced. Moreover, all the information available are already in the article and it seems impossible at this stage to improve the article when nothing else has been released.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • "a decisive criterion that you and your fellow colleagues have introduced" Excuse me, I thought this criterion has been at the ITN for the longest time since 2008? –HTD 14:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Normally, the article should be updated, but why a five-sentence metric? I didn't know about it until recently. Isn't it arbitrary? What if there is much more said in less than a five-sentence long prose?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Apparently, you, and probably the hardliners who are insisting on the full 5 sentences, still don't know about this "guideline". Read it again. –HTD 14:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
              • It doesn't set it as a minimum criterion. There may be a five-sentence update that duplicates the information, while some two-sentence updates may be longer and contain much more information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Exactly. I guess it means that if the update and the blurb tell exactly the same thing (or, the update doesn't expand what the hook says), it's not enough; if the update tells us something more than the blurb tells us, it should be OK. Whatever happens, we'd still some sort of update to the article that expands upon the blurb. –HTD 14:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • @Jayron32, what's actually relevant here is the current ITN guidelines: "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs." Does this article not meet that? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I always learned that a complete, well-formed paragraph should be ~5 sentences. That would make the article about 2 paragraphs, one of which is the lead, so there's really only 7 sentences of non-lead material. Ryan Vesey 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
            • I have no idea where all these numbers come from (our own article says a paragraph is one or more sentence!). And why isn't the lead counted? The instructions don't rule out lead prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
              • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. It makes no sense to count it twice. That being said, the lead isn't currently doing that. Ryan Vesey 16:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Well the "instructions" should be updated to reflect that lead paras don't count. In most cases, if an article has only three paras, it doesn't even have a lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • Also, it is worth mentioning that information in the lead is not repeated in the body of article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • I think if we're going to throw numbers into the ring each and every time someone makes an effort here, we should define the numbers, so if you're saying a "well-formed paragraph" must have approximately five sentences, I suggest that is reflected in the instructions, otherwise it's unfair to other editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support Similar disasters with high number of deaths and injures are pretty rare and this one really shadows the news in the world as one of the most tragic disasters of its sort in recent times.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    "Recent times" presumably referring to the past twenty days, since 74 people died in the 2013 Thane building collapse? I do agree with you, though, it should be posted once the article's up to snuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    You're right, but apart of these two I don't remember any other similar disaster that happened. That's why I refer to it as "one of the most tragic disasters" and not absolutely "the most tragic" even if the latter can be assumed as true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    [16] attempts to list them. Not sure how complete it is, but suggests there were no "major" collapes in 2011 and only one in 2012, yet we've had four already this year with at least 25 deaths. Hard to know what the minimum severity benchmark would be for ITN given such a varied statistic...  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I patched up some minor errors, article is an okay length. Abductive (reasoning) 14:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support After full update. Information on relief efforts exists and that should easily get the article up to snuff. On another note, where do we have our death figures from? Everything I'm seeing, like this says at least 87 and 600, not 700, injured. Ryan Vesey 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Well I give up. I've updated the article as best I can, if it's not up to "snuff" for you given the limited information (it's now night-time there) then I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow. I'm using the BBC's figures. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The article looks good enough to post. I suggest the blurb is changed to reflect that it was an eight-story building. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - kudos to The Rambling Man for getting together a reasonable short article with limited information. I think it's a major enough incident.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Update Unfortunately the death toll has climbed to 160 at least according to the BBC[17]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

April 23Edit

[Posted] Shamshad Begum for recent deathsEdit

Article: Shamshad Begum (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Never done this before, so will probably be shot down, but the subject appears sufficiently important even though the article isn't perfect. The BBC is calling her an "Indian singing legend" and she was a recipient of the Padma Bhushan. --Espresso Addict (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I have attempted to copy edit the article, but the subject is far from my comfort zone. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pretty impressive if the article is to be believed. μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment this seems like a minority topic that's not going to draw much comment. But it certainly meets the update and importance criteria. I am going to mark it ready on the assumption that Spencer and Espresso's comments are implicit supports. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Unreferenced sentence in the "update", perhaps you could help there? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • There was one tagged sentence which I have referenced and there are eight references now covering every point in the update. The article tag complains there are disambig links that should be fixed, but I don't have a tool for that and it doesn't disqualify the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
        • You don't need a "tool", you just need to click the "check" option in the "article tag". There are 16 dabs that should be resolved before this goes to main page. No point in quality control (or a "five-sentence/three-ref" mythical rule) if most of the wikilinks point at the wrong page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Please don't assume implicit support just because I comment on a nomination to evaluate the article quality. SpencerT♦C 01:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I hoped "on the assumption", "implicit" and using a ? in the [Ready (?)] tag made it clear I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouth. μηδείς (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose based on the fact that the quality of wikilinks is demonstrably weak, per the comments above. 16 dabs need to be fixed before this hits main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done [18] ready. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone appears to have fixed all the disambiguations now. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. SpencerT♦C 01:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Conviction for fake bomb detectorsEdit

Article: ADE 651 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Multimillion pound fraudster convicted for sales of thousands of fake bomb detectors to Iraq (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​British businessman James McCormick is convicted of fraud for selling fake bomb detectors to military and police forces in several countries
News source(s): independentbbc

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I can't believe this didn't permit many killings, and I gather some people still think it works - so it feels like it might be sensible to post it. EdwardLane (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose it's certainly big news in the UK where this idiot is being convicted, and I agree (along with the experts) that dozens, if not hundreds of people have been killed as a result of this fraud, but sadly that's speculative and I don't think this will make it globally. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
well, there is this old 2009 article in theNewYork Times if you're looking for global, though if it had been nominated then as 'fraudster sells 50 million pounds worth of devices that are only as effective as a dowsing rod to governments for bomb detection' the result would have been wait for conviction. EdwardLane (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as per TRM. Also, whilst a noteworthy event, this is just news rather than adding than encyclopedic value to our readers. Pedro :  Chat  19:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
'this just news'? so don't list it under articles 'in the news'? encyclopedic value is 'what s this thing the ade 651 and how does it supposedly work' you could replace the particular article with dowsing rod and that might also be interesting to some people. I'm not sure that makes a good quality oppose. EdwardLane (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm unclear. Wikinews is a good place for news (obviously!). Adding this to in the news is an opportuniuty to show good enyclopedia content which happens to be relevant to current news. ITN should, IMHO, be about showcasing quality content not just adding every topic that's "in the news". Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
showcasing quality content - fair enough, the article looks to be in decent shape, no tags on it that I can see, a decent amount of recent expansion about the conviction. What am I missing? EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Awesome news in my opinion, but not quite up to the standards of an ITN main page listing. Kurtis (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Well fair enough :) Not meaning to sound grumpy, but just trying to figure out where the line to 'up to standard' falls - would it only be good enough if there were more confirmed deaths because of failed detection? I concede that perhaps this should have been nominated in feb 2011 when the iraqi general responsible for their purchase order was convicted and imprisoned, rather than the chap responsible for selling it? EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to really delineate exactly what is "up to standards", Edward — sometimes I even call it wrong. Just recently I proposed a blurb that got unanimously declined due to an overall lack of information and coverage. In this particular case, McCormick's actions arguably led to hundreds of deaths and he should face justice for fraud, but he is not a particularly high profile figure. In other words, not many people know his name. That's the primary reason why I don't feel this story should be featured on the main page. Kurtis (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
hi 331dot, are you complaining about not being in the international news (it affected lots of nation's security - admittedly not the USA/UK but might that be a developed world bias)? not encyclopedic (in what way is that exactly)? not quite significant enough (possible but a bunch of deaths is usually enough to warrant a posting)? or not quite good enough quality article (it seems pretty reasonable to me - as a non contributer to that article)? EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "complaining" about anything; but I do agree with the reasons that have been mentioned. This might be a better item for Did You Know. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean "complaining" in a perjorative sense, I meant which of the "complaints" (reasons above that were given as a reason to be opposed to the nomination) was/were the one(s) that you were espousing as your own. And yes if this article was smaller then a sufficient expansion might be possible to make it a DYK nomination, though I don't think there is any chance of expanding it 5 times over just on the basis of the conviction, so I think that's not possible. EdwardLane (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as Nom - forgot to do that bit, the conviction of the criminal responsible is usually the time for the article to go up I think. Might be that you want to wait for the company to get convicted of corporate manslaughter but that probably won't make any headlines EdwardLane (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Whilst this might not be the most Earth-shattering news, it's interesting enough and the article is good. The threshold for inclusion can be lower when the encyclopaedic content is of a high standard. Modest Genius talk 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major news in the UK and Arabia, but briefed around the world.[19][20][21][22][23] More importantly, the article is of outstanding quality. --hydrox (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb I could support this, but the blurb is not helpful. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I never thought that getting support would have been so tricky, I was expecting someone to have a better blurb suggestion straight from the get go. I couldn't think of how to phrase it myselfEdwardLane (talk) 08:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Can't think of anything similar to this happening. Appears to be unique. Article is indeed of excellent quality. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with a much-improved blurb. This was huge news here in the UK, and has attracted attention from around the world. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb suggestion:
    Businessman James McCormick is convicted of fraud for selling fake bomb detectors to military and police forces in several countries
I've added it to the template above. Modest Genius talk 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is well updated and has two to one support. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 13:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in FranceEdit

Article: Bill 344 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​French legislators vote to legalise same-sex marriage. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, ABC, Reuters, CNN, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais, France24, Le Monde

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: We recently didn't post the same thing happening in New Zealand, although there was enough support. Notable for the strength of public feeling on the issue in France and the size of pro and anti demonstrations. Article should probably be page-moved. Formerip (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: this is some pretty significant news, with international interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I don't know why the NZ blurb didn't go up. It should've, and so should this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, only if it is endorsed. So oppose for the current blurb. Egeymi (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    Comment: It is now endorsed and violent protests and celebration followed it. So it should be posted with a different blurb. Egeymi (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I feel that it should go up when signed as the signing doesn't seem like a formality from my reading of the BBC article. Ryan Vesey 17:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I was against New Zealend but I will be for France, they have much much much more population. And I am glad NZ did not go up. (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding the issue of signing. Technically, the law can and probably will be challenged as unconstitutional, but it is widely recognised that there is no chance of a successful challenge. The chair of the Constitutional Council, which decides these things, has already publicly ruled it out. The likely grounds for a challenge are in this article, but they're ridiculously shaky, as the last sentence points out. Formerip (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose These stories have ceased to present any meaningful threshold. It is a minor, and no longer novel, change in internal legislation that is gradually rolling out across the world. There is no merit in spotlighting every step in the journey. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • If it were a unanimous thing, I might agree with your point. But it's still highly contentious.[24] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This appears to have caused significant controversy in France, including large public protests. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Why should we post every law that gets passed somewhere? Just because something is covered by the controversy-gawking media of the world doesn't mean that it's significant enough for an ITN. We posted the first few nations to legalize it as "spearheading" for lack of a better word, but I have yet to hear a good argument for why this is so In the News that we have to put it on our front page and knock something else off. gwickwiretalkediting 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe just because it is a very big deal for the country where it is happening and of a high level of interest to the international media. I don't know what there is beyond that, but the idea of only posting things that are unique and new in every respect is a poor one, and one that we don't normally practice. How is there any consistency in posting the pretty routine fact of Man Utd winning the Premiership title yet again while rejecting a major event in the political history of a major country on the grounds that its not very original of them? Formerip (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Because that's a major sporting event. This is the umpteenth time that a country has legalized same-sex marriage, and it's not news anymore. I honestly don't care about it, as I assume others are just like "oh, they got with the program". What would be news is if Saudi Arabia or another country similar, opposed to gays/women/etc. did something of this sort. It's not news anymore. Give me a reason this is more special than the other 10+ countries that did it (which I would've opposed after the first 2/3). gwickwiretalkediting 23:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Shouldn't we wait until the voting concludes? It may pass; it may fail; shouldn't we wait to find out? This news is premature since there's nothing really to report yet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The voting has concluded. That's what the story is about. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Did it pass? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the wording appears to be unclear (at least, to me). How about something like, "France passes Bill 344 which legalises same-sex marriage in France"?. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Does the law need to be signed in order to go into effect? Sorry, I don't know how French law works, so I will say this. If the legalization of gay marriage has gone into effect, it should be mentioned. But if there are additional steps that have not yet been completed, it should not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
  • Oppose per Gwickwire. When does this stop? Or is there an agenda we need to feed? μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once the law is signed or otherwise formally adopted. This isn't the "umpteenth time" a nation has done this; it's only the 14th if I'm not mistaken(not even 10 percent of sovereign states) so pro-gay marriage is still a minority position, especially where homosexuality is a death penalty offense in some places. We're also not dealing with relatively small New Zealand, but a nation of 65 million people, and still a largely Catholic nation. There has also been violent riots due to the passing of this law. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Then let's post when "some places" where "homosexuality is a death penalty offense" legalize it, because then it's important. Umpteenth by definition is something 10-20 that is unremembered by me :) Also, riots are news then. But the law isn't. I highly doubt our readers care about the 14th country to do something in the world, it's far from a first in any method of looking at it. gwickwiretalkediting 03:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I would submit that it is important when a nation of 65 million which has some level of influence in the world does something that is a minority position in the world, even if they weren't the first to do it. New Zealand might be too small to be noteworthy, but France isn't. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
        • And I would submit that it's not important every time a large country has a minority opinion. The USA uses the customary system for measurements, and that's not an ITN sticky for being a minority opinion (although we'd probably post it if they changed their mind). But what this is is just a notch on the stick, gay rights isn't really a minority opinion anymore on the global scale, it's almost 50/50, so we don't need to post when every country gives in if you want to put it that way. gwickwiretalkediting 03:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
          • The US using imperial measurements is not in the news currently that I am aware of, as we have used them for quite some time. We're also not talking about a sticky. This is "in the news", not "things the US does that the rest of the world doesn't", and this law is currently in the news globally. It would be quite different if we were talking about simply posting that gay marriage is legal in, say, Canada, where it has been for a few years. That's not in the news. Gay marriage is a minority opinion globally in terms of nations where it is legal. Even if the people are 50/50, that means nothing until it results in laws being passed, which is difficult in many countries. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is generating significant coverage. I don't know why ITN precedent says these aren't notable enough to be posted. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Much more in favor of getting a bigger country into such a blurb than something like New Zealand (no offense; I love my Kiwi friends, haha). I simply did not want to see this turn into a blurb frenzy, as I seem to have rightfully pointed out in the last nom. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 06:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Hot Stop.--В и к и T 07:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there are massive/widespread protests; per Kevin McE. SpencerT♦C 08:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There has been widespread and sometimes violent protests, as well as an increase in anti-gay violence: [25], [26] [27] 331dot (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose 1. New Zealand was a precedent as the first in the region and this is no big achievement cause its neither first nor a landmark. 2. there was clear consensus in New Zealand and it was still not posted.Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The vast majority of votes came from the ruling party, so the bill is largely biased. The votes have not been distributed more evenly among the National Assembly parties. Brandmeistertalk 21:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Where else are the votes supposed to come from? The majority party in any legislative body gets to decide what happens there. This isn't any different. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely wrong, 331Dot. You might want to look at the 1964 Civil Rights Act which got overwhelming support among the minority Republicans and would not have passed or even got 40% of the vote without it. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not "absolutely wrong". The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was only passed with Democratic votes in the US. It happens that way most of the time; the Civil Rights Act is an exception. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
My point here is that it doesn't matter where the votes come from; all that matters is that it passed. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the honest reassessment. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and as none of the opposes provides a good argument against. This is global news, with major implication on civil rights in a country with tens of millions of inhabitants, concluding an intense and prolonged public debate. --ELEKHHT 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The riots are apparently global news. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Without the law, there would be no riots. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
The passing of the law is global news, if you care to read the sources provided above. --ELEKHHT 22:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Boston Marathon bombings stickyEdit

No consensus for sticky. SpencerT♦C 08:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

The case is still rapidly updating and the investigation is in the preliminary stages, especially now that the suspect is alive and talking. This is obviously a candidate for a sticky. Secret account 15:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose I feel as an ITN story it's now finished. The last item of real significance for ITN was the manhunt last Friday. A lot of the stories I read on the BBC are starting to discuss the finer points of law rather than give anything fundamentally new and ground-breaking. This is not a series of conflict-related stories, it's a single event and it's mostly over now. I'd happily support a new ITN when a guilty/non-guilty verdict is delivered by a court of law. CaptRik (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since only details are being added to the story. No significant change regarding suspects or victims.Egeymi (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Manhunt completed very quickly. Details now will trickle out over weeks and months. The TV keeps talking because that's its' job, but there is nothing to say. --IP98 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stickies are for events with major ongoing impact, not routine updates on a resultant investigation or legal proceedings. —David Levy 20:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Barring anything else, the next time I suspect the event would be ITN-worthy is on arraignment of the surviving suspect in trial proceedings. Certainly not a sticky for that. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - this item has run its course already and is no longer going on. It would only be a sticky if there were more bombings currently happening. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Event is over. When he can speak, the defendant will say he and his brother acted alone. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pile on oppose; it appears that the alleged perpetrators acted on their own, so a sticky is no longer necessary. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I doubt the article will be updated as regularly now that one scumbag is in custody and the other is road kill. Hot Stop (Talk) 05:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Richie Havens for recent deathsEdit

Article: Richie Havens (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major figure in the folk movement of the 1960s. --Jayron32 12:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. It seems like he is mainly famous for being the opening act at Woodstock. Which does mean he made a bit of musical history in his own way. But will we also be posting the death of the guy who made the announcement about brown acid? Or Jimi Hendrix's guitar technician? Formerip (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Might could support this if, as with the Divinyl's singer, there were a full five-sentence three source minimum update showing comment on their importance at their passing. Something is better than nothing. μηδείς (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Made up "rules" again Meds, made up "rules". Do you really believe that a "five sentence, three source" charade is actually correct? What if someone posted a "four sentence, four source" update? Or a "six sentence, two source" update? What a crock! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Medeis didn't even oppose - he posted a way for the nominator to garner a support vote. Update quality is part of the ITN criteria no matter how badly some people want it not to be. Item can (should) be judged both on importance and update quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Havens was already a legendary figure - perhaps not at a Bob Dylan level, but still legendary - who got the ball rolling by playing 3 hours at Woodstock, the concert that was arguably the high-water mark of the counter-culture 60's. I call that notable enough for ITN. The article is adequate, and I submit this is a good candidate for RD. Jusdafax 04:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support mythical rules met. Clearly notable, major news outlets using terms like "icon", widely reported. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, a major and influential figure in popular music. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: I've removed the "update needed" bit, as the information on his death and impact has been significantly expanded over the past day. There have been many editors in this area, but I've also added the names of the three most significant updaters. --Jayron32 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as a remarkable person and one of the most famous folk rock singers in his generation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support given update, marking ready. μηδείς (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to recent deaths. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Authorities foil terrorist plot in CanadaEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: Toronto train bombing plot (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrest two men in connection with a plot to derail a train between Toronto and New York. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Canada, CNN, Wall Street Journal

Article updated
Nominator's comments: RCMP arrest two men in plot to derail a train. Plot is notable for two reasons 1) Canada is not often a direct target of terror plots like this and 2) Plot is linked to an Al-Qaeda group in Iran, a country not known for harboring Al-Qaeda, which could represent a new development. Being covered by many news sources, besides the few noted above, this was the top-of-the-hour story on the radio tonight on the BBC World Service. --Jayron32 03:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Big news for the reasons given in the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing actually happened. CSIS and the RCMP have been planning the arrest for several months now, and basically acted on it solely because of what happened in Boston. They had everything under control the entire time, and while that is admirable, it isn't really notable. Note: I am Canadian. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • [citation needed] on that one. All three source above have explicitly denied a connection to the Boston events, if you have a source to the contrary, please share... --Jayron32 05:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • One of the suspects began to act "strangely" and the RCMP was tipped off. They were arrested accordingly. The media is speculating a political motive to Boston, perhaps to lead the public into believing that the government is actually doing something about terrorism, but yeah, it's just speculation. [28] Everything else I said is perfectly ground in fact, [29] and I encourage you to look at sources pertaining to the country in question instead of solely American sources. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Terrorism doesn't happen". We are not a news agency. --RA (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think everyday such events occur everywhere , why only those in Canada should be ITN material? Egeymi (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not that notable, and I'm even more cynical about the timing. Some politicians are trying to rush some tougher anti-terror legislation through parliament. How convenient that this arrest happens just now... HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A non-event. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 'Event doesn't happen' isn't significant in encyclopaedia terms. I'm sure there are dozens of these sorts of events per year, they just mostly don't make it to the newspapers. Modest Genius talk 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we have no idea how many of these so-called terrorist attacks are foiled well before they actually happen. Just so happens the Canadians wanted to brag about something for a change. This sort of thing has been going on for decades. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm? I think the TV is only talking about this because of what happened in Boston, but on what grounds do you make the statement the Canadians wanted to brag about something for a change. --IP98 (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 22Edit

[Posted] Manchester United wins Premier LeagueEdit

Articles: 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season (talk, history) and 2012–13 Premier League (talk, history)
Blurb: Manchester United win the Premier League, clinching their 20th first-division league title. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, Manchester United win the Premier League.
News source(s): [30]

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 21:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Question can someone please explain to me what the "top of sport" is for association football. Is the the Premier League, or the UEFA European Football Championship, the UEFA Champions League, the FIFA World Cup, what? --IP98 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not easy task to say what is the "top of sport" in football, because many players are eligible to play in each of the competitions you mention. Each of them is explained in turn:
      • Premier League - the top football club competition in the English football, specifically consisting of football clubs from England and Wales;
      • UEFA Champions League - the top football club competition in Europe, consisting of clubs from many different European countries based on the UEFA coefficient assigned to each league;
      • UEFA European Football Championship - the top football competition for national teams in Europe, in which only national teams representing the European countries are eligible to play;
      • FIFA World Cup - the top football competition for national teams in the world, in which, similarly to the UEFA Euro, national teams representing countries from different parts of the world are eligible to play.
    • Very important to mention is that a footballer can play in each of these competitions. For example, Manchester United's striker Wayne Rooney has played in the Premier League and the UEFA Champions League representing his club, and at the UEFA Euro and FIFA World Cup as part of the England national team.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
the EPL isn't the top competition in football in any way. It's on ITNR for other reasons, namely it's popularity and its interest among English speakers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It's the top competition in the English football. What is the top then if not this one?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Kiril. It almost seems like the same group of footballers are eligible to play in 3 different championships a year? Is any one considered "highest"? Per WP:NCAA we only post top level competitions, regardless of attendance, media coverage, revenue, etc, and I'm just trying to figure out what the one ruling association football championship would be. So now Man-U (but certainly not Liverpool) will represent GB in the UEFA Champions League? In that case, isn't the Premier League, though the top of English football, just a qualifier for European football? --IP98 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
IP98 It's a bit more nuanced than that. You're correct of course, the EPL isn't the 'top competition' of its sport. But it isn't just a 'qualifier' though by winning the EPL Manchester United will represent England (minor note, England, not GB) in the Champions League. Actually, the top 4 English clubs will all qualify for the Champions League, not just Manchester United. However, the Premier League title still has a great deal of significance--and as many posters have noted, is very widely followed around the world. including in New York where I currently live (note to self--need to update User page), not unlike how the NBA is followed around the world. The Premier League is a title that carries a fair bit of prestige in and of itself. This 'top competition' criterion is really a straw man. It's not an official ITN criterion--that was dropped a while ago. The real reason the NCAA is usually not posted is because of the perception that it isn't an 'internationally followed' tournament. The EPL is most certainly followed widely around the world.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The real reason NCAA is (sometimes) not posted is b/c enough people who don't like sports and Europeans have a preconceived notion about amateur sports and cannot comprehend how important they are in the United States. Every year it is proven beyond doubt that NCAA basketball (and probably also football) is covered in almost every 1st world country around the world and yet people say "the fact that it wasn't covered in Uganda proves it is of little interest internally" to justify their biases about the amateur nature of the competition/sport in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It really is impressive how people selectively use the "top level of the sport" criterion. It boggles the mind. –HTD 06:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Premier League says: "The Premier League is the most-watched football league in the world, broadcast in 212 territories to 643 million homes and a TV audience of 4.7 billion people." [31] The source is the official site and I don't know whether the numbers are inflated but I do believe it's the most watched football league. It's a national league but has lots of foreign elite players. The "top of sport" is international non-league tournaments with fewer matches. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
That would mean there are 7.3 people watching, on average, in each of the 643 million homes. Possible, but I reckon Wikipedia hasn't really thought about what it is saying. Formerip (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The TV audience of 4.7 billion is the estimated total viewers for all matches together. Manchester United alone gets around half of that.[32] The article should probably clarify the meaning. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Since people watching in pubs and bars would be counted towards the viewers, but not the homes, it might not be that unbelievable MChesterMC (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as ITN/R. --RA (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. The Premier League is more than important football league for inclusion with decent media coverage in many countries in the world during the whole season.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per lack of substantial prose update, and as too early. There has not been a substantial prose summary of the entire season in the article 2012–13 Premier League, which is the bolded article, and it should be noted, though Man. U. has clinched the Premiership, the season has not yet concluded. Seems like jumping the gun a bit, to me. That's less of a problem, however, then the paltry lack of prose in the article. It's a brief lead section and a bunch of tables. How about a week-by-week prose summary? Some general overview of key events of the season? I'm not as concerned about the fact that the season isn't over yet (though it is a concern) as to the fact that I would not feel comfortable promoting the currently bolded article to main page with the lack of prose that it has. If and when the prose in the article significantly summarizes the season, you can consider this to be a support. But what I see now is not main-page worthy, even if it is ITNR, which is only about significance and does not excuse problems with the article. Or, if you want another article to be the focus article of the blurb, do that so we can review that one. --Jayron32 00:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The news is that Manchester United have clinched the title before the conclusion of the football league; it won't be a news after the conclusion of the final week, as it will be something that is already known. As for the lack of update, the sentence in the introduction is enough and clearly indicates who, when and in what way has won the league. Unlike many other sport events that are posted on the main page the Premier League doesn't end with a final game, so it's not necessary to use more prose and the idea to provide summary for the games played every weak is overly. More importantly, the same story is posted every year with the same structure of the article and I don't see a reason why to do it in a different way.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Mistakes made in the past do not excuse continuing to make them. If articles of substandard quality were posted before, we can't fix that now, but what we can do is make this one better before we post it on the main page as a focus article for a blurb. I'm not at all opposed to posting this based on significance, the EPL is clearly one of the premier sporting leagues in the world, and its winner should bear mention on ITN, but I cannot support highlighting an article in a state that I consider poor quality. And if ITN posted similarly poor quality articles in the past, I can't correct that. But we should make this one better. --Jayron32 04:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, the update is important indeed, but we really don't need to consider our users morons that will not understand the introduction and the tables with the statistics in the article. Summarizing the games from every week is equal as to demand summaries for each game played in the NBA league, which has never been requested and the conclusion has always been posted. Sorry if there is no league-system in your country to understand better how does it work. Manchester United have won the title because of the scores in 34 games up to date and not by playing only one or series of games in a final, so to document each of these 34 games is silly and a dumb idea.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
          • It would be if we bolded 2012–13 NBA season. The bolded article should be free from any glaring omissions. If you want to suggest another article to bold which is relatively well updated, feel free to do so. For example, if the blurb bolded a link 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season, that would be acceptable based on the level of updates, as the entirety of the season is summarized there. Sadly, that section is almost entirely unreferenced, but if one could add references to the season summary from the 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season then we have a good, relatively complete and well updated article to bold, and then we could get this on the main page immediately. Or spend your energy arguing why it is better to not improve Wikipedia articles. Your choice. --Jayron32 12:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
            • The shape of the article you're referring to is not relevant as it is not mentioned in the blurb. It needs better update as well, but not as mandatory for posting on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
              • That article would be a better target for the pointer, as it is reasonably complete and only needs a few citations to bring it up to snuff. The one that's there now is not sufficiently updated. Again, it is clear that you are more interested in arguing than in making Wikipedia articles which you have an interested in a higher quality. I can't fathom why it is better to have any article be of lower quality than it is possible to be, but hey, if it makes you happy to insist that articles remain shitty, I really don't know what to say about that. --Jayron32 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
                • The blurb article has the mythical "five sentence, three source" update applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose any mention of '20th title'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Compared to the Champion's League, EPL is simply a minor league. On top of that, there is no tournament format to determine a champion. Thankfully, La Liga champions are not noted here. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The "tournament format to determine a champion" is the, in North American English, "regular season" per se. –HTD 03:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It isn't a minor league compared to anything, and any claims as such demonstrates your own lack of understanding of how professional soccer works to a level which completely discredits whatever you might have to say on the matter. --Jayron32 04:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The Premier League article needs expansion before it can be posted. There's no update there. The Manchester United article is pretty long, but also needs prose about the win over Aston Villa. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once updated. One of the most popular and most watched football leagues in the world.--xanchester (t) 04:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Xanchester. Plus since it's ITN/R then we only need update to post, which to me seems already there. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per PrimeHunter's reasoning, arguably the most watched football league in the world. --Droodkin (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready There is a whole paragraph in the intro about this, which seems to be more than enough for its immediate inclusion. I cannot see what else should be done with the article. If you think that the numbers from the tables should be reworded into prose text, it's definitely a very dumb idea that will surely not make any help for the reader.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • NOT READY. Update is 2 sentences. Also, in several places that article isn't up to date (e.g. it still states Manchester CIty ARE the defending champions).--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Wait until the season is over. Man-U may have clinched it, but with the attention 2012–13 Premier League will get from ITN, the season should be complete so reader see the standings for the other teams. --IP98 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Then the item will not be "in the news" as it's the fact Man Utd have won the title that is generating this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • We post the conclusion of the Premier League every year, the conclusion will be in the news. --IP98 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The Premier League has been won last night, not at the end of the season. It's news as of last night. It won't be news at the end of the season. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • You really believe that the end of the season will be a "ho-hum" event that no one pays attention to? Aston Villa may still be relegated to the Football League, LFC might still top Everton. If you genuinely believe that now, not at the end of the season, is the time to post the "conclusion of the 2012-13 Premier League" then fine, but a pre-strongest possible oppose for posting the end of the season when the standings for the 19 other teams is known. --IP98 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
          • The blurb will say the league concludes with Manchester United winning. It won't care who gets relegated and it certainly won't care whether Liverpool or Everton finish higher. The news item is that Manchester United have won the league, not that the league has concluded for the season. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Post now (once the article is sufficiently updated). This is when the news story is, and it avoids having all our football items within a week or two of each other at the end of the season. Normally we use a 'concludes with' phrasing to avoid the win/wins ENGVAR issue, but that doesn't apply here and I can't think of a good alternative. Modest Genius talk 11:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • In this case we can't use "concludes with" because the season has not concluded. --IP98 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Exactly, that's why I said 'doesn't apply here'. Modest Genius talk 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support obviously this is news today and won't be news (in the literal sense) in four weeks time... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm about to post, but the question is should I remove either the Boston Marathon one (still in the news as subject is talking) or the Albania relations one which is stale. Secret account 12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I think you answered your own question....! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Except...what Albania relations one? I don't see it there. Formerip (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I meant Serbia, they both had the same date of posting, so it was easy to remove that one. Secret account 15:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support now and keep the marathon (or at least keep the marathon as a sticky). Nergaal (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think we need to discuss the marathon as a sticky, as the news been very active the last few days. Also posting. Secret account 15:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Uhhh, where's the update...?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the update is poor to non-existent. The 2013 Major League Baseball season article has more information and that season just started a few weeks ago. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Article has five sentence/four source update. Matches the "requirements". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
          • You simply don't need to waste your time with the "trolls" who cannot find a strong argument to oppose this and are willing to advertise something that is not true. The paragraph consisted of five sentences and four references even before the first comment after posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
            • It most certainly did not Kiril. It was a mere two sentences at time of posting. And posters who are concerned about the update quality are not 'trolls'. Interesting that the Super Bowl always gets blocked until it's update is pristine though...--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
              • The last paragraph in the intro of the article consisted of more than two sentences as of 14:45 which is even before posting, concluding that the admin posted it because of the longer update provided. For the Super Bowl it's the same story as well, with some users having a "trollish" behaviour to halt its posting. You have my full support in it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
                • So, it is now trolling to be concerned for the quality of articles. Interesting. I thought what we were here to do was to make encyclopedia articles better. What do you propose is the reason for being here? --Jayron32 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
                  • As an admin you should stop to be so arrogant. The problem is not to be concerned for the quality of articles, but to advertise the problem again after it has been already solved. Please check my comment and then come here to argue with me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
                    • After it's been solved? The five-sentence metric is a minimum, not something that automatically constitutes a sufficient update. An article that has prose about the outcome of the season but no prose about the season itself is not sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
                      • Can you tell me where did you read that a five-sentence metric is a minimum? I couldn't find it in any rule. Else, we have another admin who doesn't know the rules on Wikipedia and tries to use a non-existing one to illustrate his point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
                        • "Doesn't know the rules on Wikipedia"? Like WP:BURO? As I'm sure you're aware, I very frequently update ITN; I think I have some idea of the "rules" around here. The point of the update requirement is to ensure that the article contains information about the subject advertised. Sure, it's got five sentences about Man U winning, but they're in the lead and followed by an entire "article" of just tables. We don't need FA-level here, but you've got to be kidding if you think that's sufficient information about the topic. The article needs something about what happened during the 2012-13 season, you know, the topic of the article. The article was (and still is) incredibly woeful given the apparent popularity of the league. I can count at least two other experienced editors and contributors to this project who feel the same way, countered only by your snide attacks. -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
                          • You don't need to count people who share the same opinion with you, as Wikipedia hopefully is not a prominent place for lobbying whether you're right or not. My comments or "snide attacks" as you call them are not against particular users here, but addressed to everyone who drastically violates the rules or tries to illustrate a point with no arguments or fake arguments that are eventually attributed to the arbitrary interpretation of the bureaucracy on Wikipedia. Now it's too late to continue a discussion for something that has already appeared on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tariq is correct - the real "rules" are that the article and update both be of sufficient quality. Five sentences is a guideline to give an about what usually qualifies as sufficient - it is neither a minimum or a guarantee of quality. We wouldn't post a new article with only 5 sentences in it, nor should we post an existing article that has a mere 1.5 paragraphs of text even if most of that text is an update which like would be sufficient in an already well developed article. Finally, it is shameful that the "world's most popular league" doesn't attract enough attention to have an actual (prose) article written about it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur with ThaddeusB and Tariq; this was prematurely posted given the overall quality of the article at the time of posting. Thank you Jayron for your article expansion. SpencerT♦C 08:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Chrissy Amphlett for recent deathsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 08:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: Chrissy Amphlett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Australian pop/rock singer and member of the Divinyls. Died of breast cancer. --Jayron32 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC) --Jayron32 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not very familiar with this person, so I could be swayed, but I don't think she qualifies as top of her field. Her band had success, but not enough for its individual members to be ITN material. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Her band had one big hit, which isn't cited as evolving the genre or having any significant lasting impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just list in recent deaths. Nowhere near notable enough for ITN. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 21:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Could might support this if it were fully updated and the reason for her death explained. Something is better than nothing. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nowhere near to being at the top of her field. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not at or even near the top of her field. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This currently has a four sentence update, with two of those sentences needing references. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bangladesh electionEdit

Article: Bangladeshi presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Abdul Hamid is elected president of Bangladesh. (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 --Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support when updated But it does need expansion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R but 'election' was, as I understand it, simply confirmation in parliament as election was unopposed. Election article not a viable target for blurb (scarcely viable as an article), as no real election to report on. Suggest that Hamid's own article be expanded on official inauguration tomorrow, and that that be the bolded article. It is a notable event, but not that much to say about it: minimal update is all there is to say. Kevin McE (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sowas Yemen's which we posted. Granted it was popular election but unopposed.Lihaas (talk) 12
10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I would still like 2-3 more sentences before posting that... --Tone 19:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 Belgorod shootingEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 08:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

At least 6 people were killed in a shooting in Belgorod, Russia. - RT - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The death toll of less than 10 is surpassed by many other recent tragedies listed at Portal:Current events. Thus, I think an ITN listing would require some additional extraordinary circumstances, which I don't directly see here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per Mikael. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality: Needs a massive expansion. If article is improved to standards, I would change my vote to Weak support based on news coverage: major sources are covering it, but what I find is fairly cursory, except perhaps Russian sources, which I don't read, but based on length do seem likel to be giving a very in-depth coverage of it. --Jayron32 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once updated; this is not an area that often sees such incidents. And can someone fix the missing templates for this and other proposals, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support If the article gets updated. Ryan Vesey 20:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, nutjob shoots because his car was scratched, local, no lasting impact, article should be deleted, not featured on the main page. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to smh, five died in a shooting incident in Seattle yesterday. It's clear from all this that gun violence is becoming increasingly common. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk about observer bias. Seattle and Belgorod are rather far apart and have very different social and legal contexts. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If anything, Russia is more prone to such violence as indicated by its homicide rate, hence making such incidents more common. Also, I cannot see the relevance of the legal context of either nations to whether this is ITN worthy; social context - maybe. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Seattle isn't a place known for violence also compared to other major cities here in the United States, so I put it in the same category as this, neither of them deserves an article. Secret account 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. Spot on. --IP98 (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 21Edit

Carandiru Massacre convictionsEdit

Article: Carandiru massacre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Twenty-three Brazilian police officers are sentenced to 156 years in jail each for their involvement in the 1992 Carandiru prison massacre. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)afpxinhuadeutsche welleamnesty international

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: massacre was back in 1992 finally the courts have got around to dealing with it EdwardLane (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as nom - Just grabbed this from Current events - it seems like it ought to be nominated. EdwardLane (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update it needs some work. Reactions, etc. --IP98 (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] First Antares launchEdit

Article: Antares (rocket) (talk, history)
Blurb: Orbital Sciences Corporation launch the maiden flight of the Antares rocket, carrying a mockup Cygnus spacecraft to orbit. (Post)
News source(s): [33]

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Hugely significant launch - maiden flights are ITN/R anyway, and this is a whole new series of rockets, and also a rocket which will be used for future launches to the ISS which makes it even more notable --W. D. Graham 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support current ITN/R and the article is in good condition (although currently fails the fake "requirements", so don't be surprised you get asked for "reactions", "two more sentences" or something similarly banal from some of the ITN hordes)... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, updating is a real requirement and there is obviously more to say about the launch than merely that it occurred. Not sure why expecting items on "in the news" to contain news that is covered is dozens of easily available sources is "banal", but I never seem to have trouble updating stories I want posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I fully expect the article to be "updated" in the next half hour or so. Certainly by the time it's found its way through this process. --W. D. Graham 21:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update the Antares_A-ONE article might actually be a better candidate once it gets a tense update. The Antares article "Launches" section is basically a stub with a table of proposed future launches. No mention of the two scrubbed attempts, of the launch facility, payload or mission objectives. Compare to Soyuz_TMA-08M which was recently posted. --IP98 (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I would like to see Orbital Sciences Corporation mentioned in the blurb, or at least state that it was privately launched. (I think it would be a good idea, but I also have no idea what precedence is or if there are any compelling reasons not to, so don't think of this as a hard requirement for my support) Ryan Vesey 23:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, a milestone in a huge project. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated - I've also changed the blurb to include OSC. I think this is ready. --W. D. Graham 20:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not noteworthy enough. With SpaceX taking all the commercial firsts, this is just the first launch of a particular kind of rocket. Maybe when they succeed with docking a Cygnus to the ISS. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 20:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    Per WP:ITN/R, "the first launch of a particular kind of rocket" is considered significant enough to include. --W. D. Graham
  • Oppose I'd like a link to the discussion that got this added to ITNR. Until then it's just a commercial roll-out, however in favor of it I am. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant tech development and of worldwide interest, with a decent article. Opposers reasoning is unconvincing. ITNR a factor as well. Jusdafax 01:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted - local consensus & ITN/R agree this should be posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Paraguayan election, 2013Edit

Article: Paraguayan general election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Horacio Cartes is elected President of Paraguay, while his Colorado Party wins a plurality in the Congress. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Horacio Cartes is elected President of Paraguay, while his Colorado Party wins a plurality in the Congress.

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work, but when the result comes its aitnr. Lihaas (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose! Lugo is not running! Well, apart from that, ITNR, hence support when updated. --Tone 14:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all. We just run Lugo's photo and put "Previous incumbent pictured" in brackets. Formerip (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is going to need a substantial update. I thought of the possibility of bolding the winner instead, but somehow those are both stubs. Ryan Vesey 17:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply what's wrong with the article? There was a campaign, exit polls, just need a results table and a one-liner about the winner and it's done. We recently established that the 5 sentence prose update is a suggestion, not a requirement. I don't see why that should only apply to death noms. --IP98 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Article quality is always a consideration and a valid reason to oppose (or in this case merely comment). Five sentences is a guideline - sometimes more is needed to make the article acceptable, sometimes less is needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready. We have results with 99.3% of the ballots counted and a reactions section (with five sentences of prose!). So, I think it's ready to be posted. --RJFF (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I have also expanded the article on Cartes a bit, so it is not too stubby anymore. --RJFF (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we bold the article on Cartes and not the election? The election article is bad. The five sentence guideline refers to an update to an article not about the event. If the bolded article is the event, the update has to be more. I've proposed an alt blurb. Ryan Vesey 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The elections article should be bolded in the item (and imo could use some more expansion), not the Cartes article. SpencerT♦C 07:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Posting first blurb, article improved. Secret account 12:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 London MarathonEdit

Article: 2013 London Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: Tsegaye Kebede (pictured) wins the 2013 London Marathon men's race; Priscah Jeptoo wins the women's race. (Post)
News source(s): [34]

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: I think should be posted, per ITN/R. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't posted last year, apparently. Besides, the article needs lots of lots of work before serious consideration. --Tone 14:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not a fan of supporting an item simply because it's in ITN/R. Such marathons are local events for those who are interested and aren't major sport events of international significance. Brandmeistertalk 14:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • What the hell is this kind of farce? Wasn't posted last year? But it's ITNR! What's the POINT? Someone needs to get some reforms in here. Further more: The London Marathon is bigger and certainly more notable than the Boston Marathon, but that was posted because of the bombings. If the London Marathon gets struck off ITN/R then ALL of the Marathons should be. -- (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It wasn't posted last year because of lack of updates. Assuming updates occur, it will be posted this year regardless of opposition - that is how ITN/R works. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW, claiming London is more important than Boston in a normal year is ridiculous. Boston is the oldest and most prestigious marathon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it was in London where the length of the modern marathon has been established. Dunno if it's this race or some other marathon ran in London... –HTD 17:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
        • No, ITNR is based on presumed consensus, and if there's significant opposition there is obviously not such consensus. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
          • No, silly, that would make ITNR pointless in principle. Formerip (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Indeed, Meds' suggestion would make a mockery of the whole principle of ITN/R. The point of ITN/R is that it's just the update that needs to be assessed, not whether there's a consensus that the item is notable enough for ITN. Or perhaps we should revisit ITN/R...... again...... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's a significant record set or other actual news. μηδείς (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not relevant; if you oppose this event being on ITNR, then propose its removal; otherwise, it can be posted once appropriately updated. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Invalid oppose, the correct course of action is its removal from ITN/R. See that through, don't let this chance to reconfigure ITN/R die on the vine.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending sufficient update Major sporting event, biggest and one of the most prestigious marathons in the world. --Jayron32 16:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - article is now sufficiently updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on ITN/R and one of the World Marathon Majors. --IP98 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The article has been sufficiently updated and the arguments against posting are weak. The World Marathon Majors races are the top level of a sport of international interest. Ryan Vesey 17:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Are the wheelchair versions notable enough as well? Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    We can't fit everything in the blurb, so I'd say no. -- tariqabjotu 18:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    It would preferable if we could reorganise the blurb to accommodate the wheelchair winners, can you suggest one? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Severely Oppose. Would Wiki be willing to note every marathon winner? There are literally hundreds of those out there; or would the 6 Marathon Majors be enough? To debunct above opinions, I'm sorry, Boston is more prestigiuos than London, primarily in terms of inception. But it is ridiculous to claim one World Major marathon as more prestigious than another. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 03:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The place to express such an argument is over at ITNR, by proposing its removal. Until it is removed from there, it will get posted. 331dot (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • ITN/R currently lists the 5 older Marathon Majors. It doesn't list Tokyo, I'm guessing either because no one added it yet or because people are planning to give it time to see if it's clearly established as another Marathon Major or if it only lasts a year or two. The arguments both here and above about whether the London or Boston marathon are more prestigious seem besides the point. We would have posted Boston were it not for the bombings superseding the results of the marathon itself (I think it's clear either a combined blurb or another blurb just under the bombings would have seem at the very least odd). Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm not sure whether this is a candidate for the Main Page but Greece announces that it will sell off national assets in an attempt to meet its financial obligations . Greek government-debt crisis countermeasures and Greek government-debt crisis and possibly European sovereign-debt crisis are the articles which would need to be updated, I assume. I believe this is major news as a country is having to sell national assets, including islands and palaces, to avoid sovereign bankruptcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrewnohome (talkcontribs)

It's interesting but I don't think there is anything we can really post at this time. Perhaps the actual sale of the properties would be ITN-worthy though. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

April 20Edit

[Posted] Italian presidential election, 2013Edit

Article: Italian presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Giorgio Napolitano is re-elected President of Italy. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Giorgio Napolitano becomes the first President of Italy to be re-elected to a second term.
News source(s): Repubblica Stampa

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Reelection of sitting president has been used to end the political stalemate in Italy. Napolitano is the first Italian president to be reelected. Hektor (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Although it's not a popular vote election (then again, neither are American presidential elections, but at least they try to imitate one) and the President of Italy has relatively little power compared to Italy's Prime Minister, I think the election of the head of state of a major European country should be on ITN. Note that there's also the article Italian presidential election, 2013 (added to blurb) --hydrox (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: this qualifies as WP:ITNR, which states 'Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included'. So we can post as soon as the article is up to scratch. The final two rounds and the result need citations. Modest Genius talk 17:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious recurring item. King of ♠ 21:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Posting. --Tone 22:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Sichuan earthquakeEdit

Article: 2013 Ya'an earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An earthquake of 6.6 magnitude strikes Lushan County, Ya'an in China's Sichuan province, killing over 150 people and injuring thousands. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian

Nominator's comments: Still developing, but worth keeping an eye on. The BBC is reporting "hundreds may have been killed or injured." Hot Stop (Talk) 03:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Death toll growing. Significant event.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Chinese sources report at least 44 people dead. And the photos are pretty terrifying too. Vegemighty (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Major earthquake. King of ♠ 05:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Serious natural disaster with expanding death toll. Update: 56 now reported dead, and I have updated the article accordingly. Could use a bit more work. Jusdafax 05:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. - Death toll is sufficiently high. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, significant as much as two recent Iranian earthquakes. Egeymi (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, BBC now reporting over 100 killed and many more injured. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment This incident killed far more than either the industrial accident in Texas or the small explosions in Boston, and yet it still is not listed. No doubt because it is a non US event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Or because people like you like to criticize us for being American-centric, without doing anything productive like editing the earthquake's article, which is the only reason why we haven't posted this yet. Hot Stop (Talk) 14:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • It's more to do with the fact that the stub has got a whole bunch of maintenance tags. Fix those, this is a no-brainer for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • That would be doing your job for you. If you think that is going to happen, you are very mistaken. And, citing article maintenance as the reason for not putting it up yet is laughable, I distinctly remember the Boston article being almost unreadable, and yet it was posted almost immediately without any quality control. Thank you for confirming the US Centric bias which exists quite openly on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. A catastrophe. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Maintenance tags have been fixed. Is this ready to go up, or still too short? Ryan Vesey 15:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Serious disaster --Ushau97 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Still seems a bit short and below standards for a new article, but I won't remove the [Ready] tag. -- tariqabjotu 16:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment When there's nothing more to say, there's nothing more to say. Still, might as well leave it hanging, despite the support and the multiple reliable sources, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • To the anon complaining about U.S. bias, this was how the offending article looked like at the time of posting. Compare it with this one... –HTD 20:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Two-and-a-half hours after the Boston bombings had happened, it was posted; the article on the earthquake has been fixed, supported and ready for much more than two-and-a-half hours, regardless of the time the earthquake actually happened, but not posted. Without digressing to the USA's vast over-reaction to two deaths and small bombs that are surpassed pretty much daily worldwide, USA!! USA!! USA!! (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Whatever the fuck happened to WP:TPO? I'm reinstating my comment, as no one, Tariqwhateverthefuck, should remove it, no matter how absurd it might have been because it was on topic. Free speech and all that, if we do wanna get political. However, I was aware of the states of articles at the times of (non-)posting. But size is no indicator of quality, and all the necessary information is/was in both articles. I simply don't understand why it is not posted. It is [Ready]! (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Size can be a proxy for quality. If this was DYK (the shittiest articles on the Main Page before TAFI came along), this won't also be posted due to the stub tag, and it's less than 1,500 characters. Just barely, though; it's at 1,426. Obviously, ITN's rules doesn't state any size minimum so... –HTD 20:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Chamal TC 21:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for posting. I have additionally updated the article with a new section on the rescue efforts, which I am sure will be added to as additional reports come in. Obviously any further efforts from ITN commenters will be welcomed. Jusdafax 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Al Neuharth for recent deathsEdit

Article: Al Neuharth (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: U.S. newspaper publishing giant; founded USA Today, which is the largest circulation print newspaper in the U.S., and has been for decades. --Jayron32 00:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose The Wall Street Journal has a higher paid readership and two magnitudes of order higher prestige--Neurath is simply lucky to have sold out to Gannett, kind of like that Napster guy nobody remembers. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Changed the very look of newspapers worldwide, and the way news was covered. Highly worthy of an RD mention, and not to do so in our ITN section would be quite ironic, in my view. Jusdafax 05:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
How did he "change the very look of newspapers worldwide, and the way news was covered"? His article says nothing like that. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure it does: He started Today in Cocoa, Florida, which eventually became Florida Today.[2] The color schemes used in Florida Today became an inspiration for the initial format for USA Today. He then ran the boardroom under Miller, whom he eventually succeeded in 1973. He helped to build Gannett into the largest newspaper company in the United States. And although I very, very seldom give my personal pov on Wikipedia, I'll add that I despised Neuharth for what he did to the newsprint field, but fair is fair and this in my considered opinion is a worthy ITN RD candidate. Jusdafax 06:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, it may well be. I've never heard of the guy (which certainly doesn't rule this out) so that was a genuine question, which you've answered in the worst possible way to avoid suggestions of US-centrism. I read the whole article. I read that section you quoted. It speaks of his achievements in the US, which are clearly great, but in no way does it support your claim that he "changed the very look of newspapers worldwide"? This may well be something worth posting, but perhaps you can lay back a bit on the rhetoric. It's not likely to help. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I suppose my "claim" can be considered OR. More personal pov, then... I have been a newspaper junkie all my life, and have traveled to many countries over the decades, completely around the world on one trip. I noticed when USA Today took off, the copycat trend of shorter articles began in many other worldwide English-language newspapers, as well as colorful "splashy" graphics. Often USA Today was the only US newspaper I could find on my travels; it was for sale from London to Bali and beyond. So in my view, I have no problem with "rhetoric," as I know what the truth is. Does Neuharth's Wikipedia article lay that all out as I have done here, in explaination? No, though there is probably an obit that makes this all clear. Does it matter to me? No. Do I care if I "win" this argument? Not at all. But I respect the nominator greatly, and have spoken up on a nomination I personally don't give a hoot about seeing on the Front page because it is the right thing to do, and arguably makes the Front page and ITN more comprehensive and informative... in my opinion. And as you likely know, "US-centric" considerations, pro or con, carry zero weight with me. Jusdafax 08:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
There was no argument here. Not until that post anyway. I was seeking clarification and information. Thank you for providing it, and highlighting that it's unsourced and not in the subject's article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the use of color, that was not an innovation of Neurath's--routine full-color printing in newspapers only just became economically viable at that point and was soon adopted as industry standard. There's nothing about the color logo of USA Today or its color formats in general worth noting. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. He was a newspaper publisher who simply had a unique way of carrying that job out. Reading his article I don't see much recognition for his accomplishments(such as awards or being in a Hall of Fame). 331dot (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • We have another RD nomination below where someone else noted that the person (a Briton) didn't receive any awards (indeed, the word "award" does not appear on his article), but that RD nom was unanimously supported so... –HTD 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • So indeed,..... awards or lack thereof are not the only means of judging notability; did this person have wide acclaim or has been the subject of study an analysis? Has the USA Today been called the greatest newspaper of all time?(as one of Thorgerson's album covers was) I only mention awards as one possibility; I'm not seeing much recognition in general here. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I don't know much about him but he must have been an influential publisher which seems to be an underrepresented profession. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Withdraw my oppose and I'll support iff this gets the full five sentence three-reference treatment. Something is better than nothing. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

April 19Edit

[Posted] Serbia and KosovoEdit

Article: Kosovo–Serbia relations (talk, history)
Blurb: Serbia and Kosovo reach an EU-brokered deal towards normalising bilateral relations. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A little good news for a change! --LukeSurl t c 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Notable as a significant step forward in their relations. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above, news of countries that were at war, taking official steps to reestablish severed ties is always notable. Wow, I don't believe ITN has seen this many worthy and notable candidates in such a short period of time in quite a while or ever. YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - While peace deals and changes in international relations come up quite a lot, and are not automatically suitable for ITN, this looks like a really solid candidate. This could represent the end of over 20 years of conflict in the region - many reading this will not remember the collapse of Yugoslavia and the first outbreak of war there. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, a thawing of a relationship like this is newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - article looks updated to me, if you consider the whole "2013 agreement" section the update (which I think is reasonable). Thue (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That section was mostly created by me splitting the "Overview" section in two, only the last paragraph is new. :) LukeSurl t c 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Doesn't change the fact that everything in that section is related to the ITN blurb, which would make the update sufficient to post. I therefore say the article is ready to post. Thue (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Cheers. The BBC updated their story, and I've updated the article accordingly. I think it's about ready to go, but may be improvable once more reports and details come in. LukeSurl t c 16:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely. This is a huge deal for Serbia and Kosovo, two countries with once very bitter relations. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Article has a good update and we could use some good news. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, notable and also reminds past disputes to the readers. Egeymi (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a major diplomatic milestone, though relations have not been normalised, as Serbia still refuses to recognise Kosovo. Article looks ready if you consider the description of the whole negotiation process. --hydrox (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to edit the incorrectly worded blurb. --hydrox (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] World's oldest man turns 116Edit

No consensus to post. King of ♠ 09:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

  • Nom. First man ever to become 116. Seems notable in my eyes. --bender235 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Encyclopedic content. Could also be mentioned in DYK.Regards, theTigerKing  15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Can the blurb be modified to say he is the first man to be verified as reaching the age of 116? Ryan Vesey 15:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a little different than the "oldest person" stories that sometimes get nominated; this man is apparently documented as the longest-lived human ever. That's notable. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Kimura is the longest-lived man ever. Mme Jeanne Calment (122 years) was the longest lived human. LukeSurl t c 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks- just about to correct that. :) 331dot (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I like the idea of posting oldest-person stories, as TigerKing says they are quite encylopeadic. However I would prefer for postings at time of death rather than birthdays, as this a) notes the person's point of "maxiumum age" and b) discusses that there is a new title-holder. LukeSurl t c 15:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I would normally agree; but what is notable here is that he is the first man to hit 116. If other men hit 116, those don't need to be posted, but this is the first one. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't post birthdays for anyone else; and this is a highly gender-specific record. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
"Gender-specific"? There are only two genders, aren't there? --bender235 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a matter of some debate. But what I mean (as if this wasn't clear already) is that quite a few women have already had 116th birthdays. I'm not sure why possession of a Y-chromosome entitles this dude to special recognition. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't we post an accomplishment by a woman in a field dominated (for lack of a better word) by men? Like a woman landing on the moon, breaking the 10-second barrier, or playing in the NFL? --bender235 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Growing old is not something from which men have ever been historically excluded. The relevance of 'first woman' (and occasional 'first man') records is to observe cultural change - not just senescence. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not like women have been excluded from running fast in the past, either, but still we would post it if a woman achieved something 83 men have done before her. Likewise, we should post when a man achieves something in which he is the first man to it, despite eight women reaching it before him. --bender235 (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this could set a precedent, we could have "world's oldest man" every few weeks in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you aware of the fact that the next oldest man alive is almost three years younger? You do the math. --bender235 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find my comment remains accurate. As does my opposition. But thanks for the invitation to do "the math" (whatever that is)! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, in fact you should give your statement a second thought. If this was to be a precendent, and Wikipedia would from now on post any of these kind of "milestones", what would that mean? Well, we'd post Kimura's 117th, 118th, and so on, birthday, which happens, well, not "every few weeks" but in fact once a year. If Kimura wasn't to reach this age, then we'd post some other man's 117th birthday. The next in line right now would be James Sisnett, who just turned 113. That—just to make it clear for you—would we might post his 117th birthday in 2017. So much for "every few weeks". --bender235 (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Second thought given. I said "every few weeks ... in the future" still accurate. Still oppose, but thanks for the invitation to reassess. At the most, we post his death at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Just for the fun of it: construct a future scenario in which we would post a man's first-to-reach-117th birthday, and a week later someone else's first-to-reach 118th birthday. I'd like to read how you imagine such a scenario, because it sounds literally incredible. --bender235 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I had assumed we'd moved to the "died at the age of" style approach for these super-cententarians (aka, I misread your birthday blurb!). Birthdays are not newsworthy. Try OTD? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait post final record when he dies. Thue (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The point of this isn't any "final record", but the fact that he reached the age of 116. Kimura already is the oldest man ever to live. --bender235 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
According to one source, set down thousands of years after the events described. You might as well ask us to think of Rip van Winkle. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Post when he dies. Ryan Vesey 16:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Again: "oldest living man dies" is not the hook of this story, because that by definition happens all the time. It's "man reaches 116 yrs of age", a milestone that can only be reached once. --bender235 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
And when the next man passes 116 and gets a day older and then dies, we'd post that right? Birthdays aren't ITN, try OTD? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. "N dies at greatest age ever achieved by a man" might be newsworthy; it happens very rarely. As you rightly observe, no matter what age the current chap lives to, his successor would then have to live three more years at least even to be in the running. But "N marks a date on which they are the oldest man ever" happens as long as a man is alive who has lived longer than any other; so it will be true tomorrow, and the day after, and so on until this man eventually passes on. Birthdays are not magic, and this is not a news story. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and ban the entire topic till we get someone who surpasses Jeanne Calment. This is mere Guiness Record ticker-taping trivia and of absolutely no encyclopedic interest. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Banning any topic is a outrageous suggestion. Each topic should be weighed on its merits. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. Jeanne Calment holds the record for humans. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
She doesn't hold the record for men, however. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder how women would react if we'd elimate the gender separation for track records, and just list top 100-metre times "for humans"? Just ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose He has been alive for 42368 days, a totally arbitrary number. Tomorrow, he will have been alive for 42369 days. Kevin McE (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point; the point is not his exact age, but the fact that he has lived longer than any other man in history. 331dot (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Which was proposed, and rejected, when he overtook the previous greatest age for a male. This is simply one number of days that he has reached that no other male has. Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have always found the "old person who did nothing except die of old age" stories quite useless and not encyclopedic. However, being the oldest verified person is a different story. That being said, this is really just "really old person did nothing except celebrate his birthday", which is no better. Chances are high that he didn't break the "oldest verified person" record on his birthday, making the point of his turning 116 completely arbitrary. He will set a new record for oldest verified age tomorrow, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday... I would support this individual when he dies, but not now. Resolute 17:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The point is not his exact age, which of course will keep increasing; the point is this man has reached a milestone that no other man in all of history has. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am convinced by the arguments that this should either have been posted when he first became the oldest verified man (back in December) or on his death, when the new record will be fixed. I don't think the gender-specific nature of the record is a problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I nominated this story when he actually set the record for "oldest male ever" and it was shot down (still don't agree) so that we could wait for his death instead. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - its a shame we didn't post the record when it occurred. Given that, its hard to justify posting at a whole number age. When he dies, however, I expect a full blurb, not some RD nonsense, since his record will be the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
And BTW, women routinely live longer than men, just as men routinely run faster, jump higher, throw higher etc. The situation is very much analogous to a women's sports record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Overall, this has turned into an amazing display of stubbornness. The separation of sexes is accepted in athletics records without opposition, because it would be ridiculous to compare male and female sprint times, for instance. Yet, for age records, only "humans" seem to exist. This is beyond me. --bender235 (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Let's ignore the gender issue, then. What's so special about his 116th birthday, as opposed to any other date on which this gentleman has lived longer than any other? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The same reason why running the mile below 4:00 min was more important than running it below 4:13 min or 3:56 min. Or why rushing 2,000 yards in a season is more special than rushing 1,897 or 2,053. It is what people like to refer to as "milestone". --bender235 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Boston Marathon bombings: UpdateEdit

Article: Boston Marathon bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A manhunt results in the death of one suspect and the capture of a second in the Boston Marathon bombings. (Post)
News source(s): See article

Nominator's comments: Update to the current Boston Marathon blurb NW (Talk) 14:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree we will need to update the blurb but I wonder if we should wait until this shakes out a little more before we do. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but Wait Wait for updates.~We should do the updation only when manhunt is over. The actual wordings would depend on its culmination.Regards, theTigerKing  15:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support But I don't think we need to wait until this is over. We can update this with the shooting of the MIT cop, explosion in Watertown, death of a suspect, etc. We can then update it again once the manhunt is over. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per Muboshgu. We don't know when this situation will end, and in the mean time, we look outdated to readers. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any reader worrying that we're outdated only needs to click through to the article to see that it is up to date. We don't need to post every development on ITN. We haven't added (and shouldn't add) the arrest for the Iraq bombings, don't add the manhunt for the Boston bombings. MChesterMC (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This isn't a rolling news service. We don't need to provide these kinds of updates. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait agree with theTigerKing, this could go for a few days, the end result could be very different from where we are today. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, it could. But why would we maintain an outdated capsule of the events in the mean time? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The blurb is not "outdated". It is an accurate reflection of the event on Monday, which is what the blurb was intended to highlight. If the death toll were wrong, okay, maybe it would be outdated. But we are not compelled to follow up with blow-by-blow updates of the aftermath. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on the grounds that an entire city of millions of people is shut down. Otherwise I wouldn't support. Abductive (reasoning) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a million people told to stay home is veeeery rare. Nergaal (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need to be posting real-time updates and, unlike the current blurb, this one will become outdated. That said, I am neutral on an alternate blurb referencing the death of one suspect and the fact that Boston was essentially put on lockdown. Ryan Vesey 16:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right we shouldn't be attempting to mimic an News ticker, but it is not unprecedented for us to update blurbs to reflect ongoing changes. The key is--does teh blurb reflect the updated content in the wikipedia article?--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a blurb highlighting the lockdown. That seems like a truly unusual and significant event. Teemu08 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This has become a major event in and of itself. All public transit has been shut down in Boston, all or nearly all public and commercial transport in and out of Boston is shut down or severely limited. The entire city is being told to stay home. Door to door police searches. This is clearly an ITN-worthy event. I suggest a blurb that is not in present progressive tense; something like. One suspect is slain while police continue to search for a second suspect of the Boston Marathon bombing..--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait. No need for a running commentary. We can update the blurb when it's over. Formerip (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - It would be silly to put the blast up on ITN without also posting its bloody resolution. Public transport and apparently much of the city shut down which is not something that has happened in recent memory. Blurb adjusted. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as soon as article has enough about manhunt - To those who say "we aren't a rolling news service" we update ITN postings all the time, especially when big cities are on lockdown due to a manhunt. gwickwiretalkediting 17:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the wording of the blurb had a lot to do with it. Marcus Qwertyus' adjustment fixes that for me. Ryan Vesey 17:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
So, er, when did we last update an ITN posting for a big city on lockdown for a manhunt, if we do it all the time? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It was two different things. I was saying we update all the time. And this should be an easy decision to update, a major city in the US is on lockdown and a manhunt in progress.. gwickwiretalkediting 17:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we've ever posted for an event that was "in progress". Formerip (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure we have. That said, generally news events don't extend long enough for us to update the article (significantly) before the event's over. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we haven't. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Hotel Inter-Continental Kabul was up during most of the attack and I'm sure many natural disasters have been posted in progress. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant event for the US and the city of Boston in particular. --Երևանցի talk 18:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait or ticker. As noted we are not a 24h news service. If it pleases everyone and if it drags on longer, perhaps a ticker would be a good solution. But not a blurb. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally feel that this is ultimately a sub-chapter of the (already posted) news story about the bombings. I completely agree that the way the manhunt is progressing is very unusual and possibly un-precendented in the USA but I think the fact that there is 24h news coverage on it is clouding people's judgement on the merit of it as a story in itself. Afaik we've never commented on (for example) lockdown/roadblocks/searches after events anywhere after serious attacks have occurred and are often much more common. In summary, unusual-ness doesn't necessary make it newsworthy for me. CaptRik (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is now the last item on the template. It shouldn't fall off, not with it being active. I do think we have enough with Boston being on lockdown for an update, and it should happen sooner than later. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready as there seems to be some consensus to post. Hot Stop (Talk) 22:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm removing the tag. There's reports of another shootout in Watertown and possibly another body so we should probably wait before anything is posted. FYI I'd support updating if both suspects are dead (and hopefully they are). Hot Stop (Talk) 23:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Was just coming to suggest this as there's definitely a shootout happening in Watertown again. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we don't normally post later developments of a story. I realize the circumstances here are pretty unusual, but I seriously doubt the manhunt would by itself warrant posting (i.e. if the bombing wasn't already posted). Thus, I don't agree that a new blurb is warranted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The spacific proposed update seems no better than the original blurb, and manhunt was to be assumed. Opposition to an update as such is odd, we update blurbs all the time. Something like "One suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing is killed in a shhotout, a second being sought" seems quite accurate, informative, and unobjectionable. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
News is reporting the second suspect is surrounded. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
BBC News is conflicted on this point (commentary says surrounded, ticker text says Breaking News: still at large) -- I think we should leave this until some clarity is reached. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when concluded. Currently we have one suspect dead and one cornered. It will likely be over soon, at which point a new blurb can be written and the story bumped. This is clearly a major story. All major U.S. TV networks have pre-empted broadcasting much of the day. It's been wall-to-wall coverage, so clearly this is not a normal ITN story. But we should wait until it is over. --Jayron32 00:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Police confirm he's in custody. I'd say that's a blurb. "first suspect dead, second in custody" – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated Sufficient support, conclusion reached, update in article provided. I wish there were some way to note the shutdown across the Boston area in the blurb without making the blurb unwieldy, but I couldn't. So I just emphasized that the manhunt was across the area. -- tariqabjotu 01:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Hot Stop (Talk) 02:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Boston and environs were shutdown as thousands of officers perform a successful manhunt for the Boston bombing suspects. ? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
        • If we're actively looking for a criticism, I would drop "across the Boston area" as obvious (if they were in Provence, we'd say so) but as it stands the blurb is unobjectionable. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I was just giving an idea to Tariqabjotu who wished there was a way to include the shutdown in, do whatever you want. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Arrest of Pervez MusharrafEdit

Article: Pervez Musharraf (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf is arrested on charges relating to the dismissal of judges in 2007. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Al Jazeera

Nominator's comments: Arrest of a former president of a major country. Section to update will be Pervez_Musharraf#Return_to_Pakistan, there's a bit there at the current time. --LukeSurl t c 13:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Arrest of a former head of state related to actions he took while President is notable. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as above. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support As per above.Regards, theTigerKing  15:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As above MChesterMC (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - In my opinion, arrests need to meet a very high standard of notability to get into ITN. General Musharraf meets that standard, as a former head of state wanted for actions taken in office. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready? The relevant section now contains all the pertinent details that have been reported as of the current time. We could wait a day for any developments, but the article is up-to-date with the current situation. LukeSurl t c 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. NW (Talk) 16:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Postmortem support — Very significant development, and in my opinion, good news. He should face justice for much more than just his dismissal of judges. Kurtis (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Storm Thorgerson for recent deathsEdit

Article: Storm Thorgerson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Famous artist and graphic designer, founder and key figure in the art collective Hipgnosis, designed many of the most famous album covers in history. --Jayron32 03:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. I'm sure this qualifies under "top of his field". I also certainly heard of him before, which is strange. Regardless, this would make for a bit of variety on RD. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Ericleb01 Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "the British graphic designer behind some of the most memorable album covers of all time" as the Guardian puts it. Jheald (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, partially on the fact that 24 other Wikipedias have deemed him notable for readers in their own languages. That's pretty strong backing. I did refer to Grammy Award for Best Recording Package, and was temporarily questioning support, as he only has one nomination. I then realized he has six more noms as Hipgnosis. Apparently Hipgnosis designed the original paperback cover for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I thought about nominating this myself, but decided against. Although he's definitely significant enough in his field, our article on him is disappointingly short, and (for copyright reasons) includes none of his artwork. That's not going to help readers much. Still, it's enough to meet ITN's minimum criteria. Modest Genius talk 13:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Since he has a single solo Grammy nomination, surely that image could be added to the article under fair use (highlighting the nomination to give a reason to choose it out of all the covers). Not too hot on the copyvio policy in this kind of case though, so will leave it for a more experienced editor. MChesterMC (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. OK article, looks ready. Could we justify adding one album cover to the article as fair use? LukeSurl t c 13:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. NW (Talk) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I've added the cover of Dark Side of the Moon to the article, and included a fair use rationale on the file page. Modest Genius talk 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Support: Dont delay the posting.Regards, theTigerKing  15:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull This is absurd, the man's got no awards or recognition. Yes, I own half the albums he's listed as having designed covers for, but, unlike Roger Dean, the covers are well-know because the albums are well known--and different covers would have been well known if they were done differently by different graphic artists. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry but there's a clear consensus to post this. As you can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, you can't just demand that things you don't like should be pulled. I'm not sure why you would believe otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you clarify your point? The item was posted, and since I am opposing it after it was posted I think it should be pulled. Are you saying that pull votes amount to personal attacks? μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I see seven supports and one weak support above your post, and no opposes. That's consensus. Your opposition, whether before or after posting, does not overrule that consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I see 'pull' rather than 'oppose' as a claim that there's something sufficiently wrong with the posting that it really needs to be withdrawn. I don't see where I accused you of a personal attack; but it's clear you just accused me of one. Your claim that this nomination was 'absurd' is uncalled for. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Outstanding contributor to a widely-consumed format of modern art. Widely-reported death, obvious signficance. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Among other things, Pink Floyd's album covers are among the most iconic in music history, especially that of The Dark Side of the Moon. That alone makes Strom Thorgerson significant. Kurtis (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

April 18Edit

[Posted] Explosion in West TexasEdit

Article: West Fertilizer Plant explosion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas levels over 75 buildings and leaves at least 100 injured and 60–70 dead. (Post)
News source(s): (Dallas Morning News), (CNN), (BBC News)

Article needs updating

 --gwickwiretalkediting 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get this started (which it inevitably will be in a while anyway), once we know more about number of injuries and/or deaths shouldn't be too hard to post, if I'm right :) gwickwiretalkediting 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated deaths per onair CNN and [35] (when they get the sense to update their website as fast as their onair personalities) gwickwiretalkediting 03:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support? With the current stated number of 2 deaths, I'd call it a tragic incident, but not significant enough for posting; however, the 70 deaths reported here would make this a clear candidate. If that larger number is true, my support is whole-hearted. Clearly, a period of delay is needed for official counts to come out, or at least consensus to emerge around a number. Ryan Vesey 04:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm actually supportive regardless of the total death count at this point. Here, we are seeing 75 to 100 homes destroyed. In a town of 2700, that is incredibly significant. Ryan Vesey 04:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • 70 is totally possible. I'm not sure I trust the colorado news source, but it's definitely possible from a analysis standpoint. gwickwiretalkediting 04:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending expansion The event is being picked up by all the major news websites, so once we have a decent article, coverage indicates this story is likely to have high interest and significance. --Jayron32 04:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not sure how to work it into blurb, but there is a 3 mile, 3,000 feet high exclusion zone around the plant (other than emergency personnel) at the time, if it merits being in the blurb. gwickwiretalkediting 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the current blurb is fine. It's attention grabbing enough to get people to click the link. We don't need a whole article contained in the blurb. --Jayron32 04:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I actually think it might be useful to include the destruction in the blurb, i.e. explosion levels x buildings and leaves 7 injured and z dead. Ryan Vesey 04:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Go for it. You don't need my permission. --Jayron32 04:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made a minor modification to the blurb to say 60-70 dead as per most sources, feel free to revert. It will probably change to something higher per the sources I'm reading. Ryan Vesey 04:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • One more minor modification to include the 80 buildings levelled. gwickwiretalkediting 04:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Support, pending updates and other info as it becomes available... (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Seeing as it's nearly midnight in Texas right now, we shouldn't expect many numbers or much information for at least a few hours. As always, let's not get ahead of ourselves. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
You can't expect many people to sleep when such a major tragedy strikes. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The police refused to release any information until 06:00 that day. That's the point I was pushing; we're in no rush. But as shown below, no one cares about being prudent. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Posted. The article is in decent shape and the statistics are solid enough for a blurb. Ks0stm (TCGE) 05:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Is the death toll confirmed somewhere reliable? Nothing reliable I've seen so much as mentions deaths, only injuries. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I changed the blurb to "an unknown number" as there is some deaths but the death toll is far from confirmed, look at the news sources that states "up to a number". We don't add speculation to ITN. Secret account 05:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, it seems quite possible that the less reputable news sources are blindly reporting information. CNN still reports 2 while quoting the EMS coordinator as saying he feared it could rise to 60 or 70 [36]Ryan Vesey 05:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'd say drop it down to "at least 2" because 2 are confirmed. As well as having multiple firemen "unaccounted for" in the explosion, and many other things. For now leave it as "at least 2" or something, seems prudent. gwickwiretalkediting 05:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No sure if anything has changed since but the CNN report was published an hour ago. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Clearly it is "an unknown number of dead" as the 2 confirmed dead was in the early breaking news stories which considering the tragedy the news is conflicting. This would have been a clear pull situation under most under circumstances, but most of a American (or any non-third world country) town destroyed by presumably an industrial explosion, I think this is a given first in recorded history. Secret account 05:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • [37], [38], [39] all confirm 60 dead. Ks0stm (TCGE) 05:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Nothing that says confirmed there. Secret account 05:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The point is, it is impossible to know the level of caution taken by those news organizations before posting. Two of them quote CBS, while one of them is CBS. CBS updated 10 minutes before CNN's most recent update; however, CBS quotes the EMS coordinator with "confirming" 60 deaths while CNN quotes the same person with estimating a death count that could rise as high as 60 or 70. Given what we know about news organizations and their lack of thought, the safest presumption is that CBS, and those quoting CBS, are not being as safe as they should be in their statements. Ryan Vesey 05:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Sometimes I really hate that journalists contradict each other like that. Ks0stm (TCGE) 05:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Change to blurb desired Can we actually change "levels" to "damages"? It appears that far fewer were actually leveled. Ryan Vesey 05:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Personally I'd suggest pulling till the facts are straighter, but I'm off to bed, so I'll leave it to others' discretion. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulling as these stats are extremely conflicting, and if the number of dead is confirmed as 60+ by multiple sources such as the sheriff department or the state, we can repost, otherwise the information that is being updated seems like the blast was an unfortunate accident with some buildings damaged/destroyed but nothing catastrophic that warranties an exception. Secret account 05:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Idk..."hundreds injured" and 75+ buildings destroyed seems pretty significant in its own right, deaths or not. Ks0stm (TCGE) 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sources doesn't confirm 75+ buildings "destroyed", simply "damaged" which is quite vague. Don't get me wrong that is a huge number, and some buildings were obviously destroyed but again, not worth a IAR posting here. With the injured and dead, there is a unknown number of confirmed dead, but the injured as far as the news is describing is more like broken glass type injuries instead of catastrophic many people are critical. This would likely be put back anyways, but lets figure out the facts first to something semi-stable at least, like Espresso Addict stated. I'm off to bed as well. Secret account 05:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once the facts are better figured out, this is ITN worthy looking at the sources and the type of disaster it is. However, I haven't seen the major the news media so conflicted in reporting this disaster all kinds of numbers are been tossed up, which clearly fails stability and this isn't an urgent ITN posting such as a terrorist attack, an assassination of a highly prominent politician and so forth. This could wait. Secret account 05:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose Industrial accident, would not even get a nomination if it happened in any other country, but almost certainly will because it is in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Lol at the argument of US centrism. Ks0stm (TCGE) 07:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It was nominated because dozens of people died. A similar accident that occurred in Africa or South Asia was posted on ITN a couple of months ago, and I'm pretty sure that accident had a lower death toll. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • There possibly is in some cases some US centricism here, but this is not one of those cases. If 70 people have died, as is being reported, then it's a major incident no matter where it happened.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Hey, if this happened in Northern Ireland, people would've edit conflicted for "ZOMG SUPPORT POST NOW" vote... –HTD 11:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - industrial accident yes, but of the kind that would make headlines no matter where it happened.
  • Also proposed revised blurb - "A fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas registers as a 2.1 magnitude seismic event, leaving several people dead and over 100 people injured." - Tenebris 09:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Revised revision - "A fertilizer plant explosion registers as a 2.1 magnitude seismic event, leaving dozens of people dead or missing and over 100 people injured." - Tenebris 09:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
  • Support once the article is up to scratch - I would think that an incident of this scale should be posted whichever country it occurs in.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You must be new here. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready - seems in good shape to me, 5-15 deaths, 2.5 magnitude earthquake equivalent (per Sky News), half a town destroyed seems more than significant. Requesting another set of eyes as this was previously pulled. Mjroots (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Sneaky little American Hobbitsies, posting this when most of Europe was tucked up in their straw bedsies! Support major industrial accident.-- (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted again. --Jayron32 13:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. As I mentioned in the Boston nomination, the only reason I supported it was because it was at a sporting event. To remain consistent with that (and the fact that nominations of this type are often shot down), ten confirmed deaths really isn't that notable. News organisations up here in Canada aren't dedicating nearly as much time to it as they did for Boston. Of course, the SAR isn't over yet... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This looks comparable to the Buncefield fire, but with fatalities as well as all the property damage we saw there. Industrial accidents on this scale are blessedly rare, and this has understandably made the news in many countries (certainly in the UK and Germany). AlexTiefling (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment From the article, there are 10 first responders (firefighters/medics) confirmed dead, so that should be the minimum number of deaths in the blurb. MChesterMC (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

April 17Edit

Same-sex marriageEdit

Article: Same-sex marriage in New Zealand (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New Zealand becomes the first country in the Asia Pacific region to legalise same-sex marriage. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​New Zealand recognises same-sex marriage.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: First in the region with the biggest human population is quite a landmark movment. (first commonwealth country as well) I believe we posted Argentina as well. Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand#Marriage_.28Definition_of_Marriage.29_Amendment_Bill is updated Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support You are correct about Argentina. Supporting on that precedent, and that a nation approving same-sex marriage is a big deal. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. France is also in the process of legalising it, the US is running it through their courts, in Germany it's going through the Bundestag, the UK is (AFAIK) voting on it... it's not a huge story anymore. Pinning a certain region into the blurb doesn't really help the matter. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • New Zealand is now the 13th nation to approve it. That's a small percentage of nations. It's still a big story. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • But that's exactly why we shouldn't post it. It's the 13th time this has occurred. It will be the 14th in France in a few weeks, and the 15th in the UK, and the 16th in Ireland in four months, and the 17th in Germany... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Add Uruguay to that list. This is getting to be a lot of blurbs... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't see why that's a problem. Less than 10% of sovereign states recognize same-sex marriage, so it's newsworthy when another country approves it. There's no limit to posting similar newsworthy stories. Iran just had two earthquakes in a week and both deservingly got separate posts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • I understand your point, but from prior consensuses, we normally post firsts and not much else. If this gets posted, each and every following legalisation should be posted. Otherwise this is just a case of posting whatever suits us. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • I understand your point as well, but I don't see a problem with posting every nation that legalizes it, or posting certain notable ones. The first in the region is I think sufficient, if we decide not to post every single one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Why not? It's news and NZ is a significant Anglophone country we don't often post stories about. Don't see why we need to mention any ocean-continent type stuff. Just "New Zealand legalises same sex marriage" will do. Why does it need to be spun as a first? Formerip (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, this is a pretty major event in that part of the world. Definitely "In the News" material. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • comment The verb in the blurb should be institute, not legalise. It was not previously a criminal act for which one could be prosecuted like drug possession. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as first in region. According to Timeline of same-sex marriage, we seem to have missed Uruguay on 10 April, and there are several other bills in progress at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Mujivca would be the last not to sign a left-winged agenda item. I don't think the catholic country status holds much water after argentinaLihaas (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
My point is that it would be inaccurate to say that it's legal in Uruguay, because it isn't yet. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as it is first in the region. Ryan Vesey 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose' 13th is pushing it. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moot region. If it were the first time in Southern Hemisphere for example, then probably yes. Brandmeistertalk 17:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose What, do we have to post it every single time it gets legalized? Save the attempts for nominations for countries like germany, larger countries with more population. Then at least you can combat against things like 13th time it has happened. (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Muboshgu.--В и к и T 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose first in the "region" is arbitrary synthesis. Neither a comparison with Hawaii (where it already exists) nor North Korea makes any sense. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not WP:SYNTH when a good RS puts it in their headline.[40] Whether or not its arbitrary is another issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, significant whether or not it is the first time. I think each of such legalization should be given in ITN since it is very notable societal and cultural event. Egeymi (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. First in the region; still a minority position among nations, even if it is increasing. Homosexuality is still a crime in most places (and can be a death penalty offense in some, like Uganda) so this is still notable. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with 75.73, I don't think we should be posting this every time it occurs and New Zealand isn't exactly a major world power. It was worthy of posting the first couple times it happened and will be worthy when it happens in Germany/UK, but not now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (1) There is strong reader interest in the topic - it is a subject that arouses strong feelings on both sides; (2) whether you look at it at a landmark advance allowing a traditionally discriminated-against group to participate equally in an important social institution or as a redefinition of marriage contrary to thousands of years of tradition, nature and the moral law, it's important, so it seems to satisfy the significance criterion; (3) it's not happening that frequently - it would be a problem if it was happening weekly or monthly, but I think we can deal with a few a year - and the significance that I mentioned above is not changed by it happening elsewhere - it still has the same important effects and implications, whether for good or ill; (4) it's received lots of international coverage, many of the stories being in prominent positions in the world section (and even high up on the front page of BBC News): [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Neljack (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You said it better than I did. I hope those opposing will consider your well-reasoned comment. Ryan Vesey 23:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support! While we're on the subject, why not bring Uruguay (and maybe even France) into the blurb? One story; three continents! How non-centric is that? (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. 5,200 hits as the one-day peak for an ITN nomination amounts to high interest among our editors, who are disproportionately gay white male college students. What a silly claim high reader interest is. Our readers couldn't care less. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Where exactly do you get your information on the sexuality of our editors from? Neljack (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Um, you've responded to the wrong comment. My support did not mention reader interest. (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the indenting but the point is valid, 5200 hits is not exactly a landslide. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Ryan Vesey. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — In my mind, it's a significant development when any country allows gay marriage. As a supporter of LGBT rights, I don't think I'm biased in saying this. By the way, I added the word "country" to the blurb, if that's OK with everyone else. Kurtis (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready Neljack (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you'd be pushing it to say there's consensus at this point. There's still a decent amount of opposition. Is the legalization of gay marriage something that could be put on ITN/R or is it not regular enough? Ryan Vesey 06:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • When I looked through to judge if there was consensus, I too expected to conclude that there wasn't, but it is now 11-6 in favour. That's almost 2/3rds, and items with similar margins are often posted. Obviously it's not just a matter of votes, but I'm confident our arguments are pretty strong too. I don't think regularity would be a problem in terms of putting it on ITN/R - there are other things e.g. involving space exploration that don't recur at set periods - but I'm not sure whether there'd be the support for it. I'd be open to it, but I suspect many editors would take the view that whether it should be posted would be quite dependent on the particular circumstances. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • According to Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, the bill hasn't been passed yet, it's still a proposed law, so I don't think the link change is warranted. Brandmeistertalk 08:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It technically does not become law until it receives the Royal Assent, which is a formality since the Governor-General is required to assent by constitutional convention. I have edited the lede of the article to make clear that the bill has been passed by the House of Representatives and just awaits the Royal Assent. Neljack (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb the "first in asian pacific region" statement is bizarre--Hawaii has same-sex marriage and it is culturally and physically closer to New Zealand than any part of mainland Asia. μηδείς (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    Same-sex marriage is banned by state law in Hawaii, but I support altblurb as a compromise.--В и к и T 16:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
What!?!?! Ugh, last time I trust anything I find at google. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose These stories have ceased to present any meaningful threshold. It is a minor, and no longer novel, change in internal legislation that is gradually rolling out across the world. There is no merit in spotlighting every step in the journey. Kevin McE (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Don't see what the issue is. A major story from a major English-speaking country. The update is there, it's well-written and well-sourced, the article is in good shape. We posted the same legislation being passed in New York. The current list of stories being shown includes two sets of bomings, an explosion and an earthquake (that's four disaster stories) - let's get some diversity here. Osiris (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a comment that New Zealand has approximately 20% of the population of New York, and more recent events of legislation being passed in US states in November 2012 [ were not posted). SpencerT♦C 20:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kevin McE; this is nothing truly new for a developed nation (if the nation that does this is in the Middle East, that's an entirely different story), and prior consensus (Denmark, Portugal) has been to not post an item. SpencerT♦C 20:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Denmark and Portugal were not the first in a [conservative[]] region. And neither was New York the first in the countryLihaas (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I oppose this nomination, I was about to insist it be posted based on 13 to 8 (over 61%) support. But as of this edit it is nowhere near updated. I suggest those who support the nom do the work. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't gorget the nominator's support ))(which is implicit, otherwise it wouldn't be nominated). Theres clear consensus
And 5 sentences is more than many postings like the sports ones and thatcher (at first posting)Lihaas (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's been in the news. SSM is still not very common; any progress is still noteworthy. Anyway, we need something up there soonish. Ignatzmicetalk 13:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The passing of the bill in the legislature is already old news; if introduced it would already be near the bottom of the list, so it is unsuitable at this time. Could an argument be made as for the Royal Assent on April 19? -- King of ♠ 05:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've unboxed this discussion. Judging a story not recent enough is not a good reason to archive it. In principle, it can still be posted at any time up to when it is technically stale, and it's five days clear of that at the moment. Formerip (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Black Caviar retiresEdit

No consensus to post. King of ♠ 09:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: Black Caviar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Australian Thoroughbred racehorse Black Caviar is retired having been undefeated over 25 races, the most since the 19th century. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Australian Thoroughbred racehorse Black Caviar is retired having been undefeated over 25 races, the second-most of all time.
News source(s): BBC, The Australian,

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Undefeated after 25 wins, historical milestone, not many Australian or horse racing stories in WP. This BBC article sums up her influence on Australian culture and racing culture as a whole. (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Good idea to get some Australian stories in here! (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but oppose. We don't post retirements of sportspeople, therefore we should not do it for sportshorses. Though in this case it is less likely that he will change his mind and start racing again. --Tone 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • More about the achievement than the retirement. No other horse in the 20th or 21st centuries has been undefeated over more than 20 starts, and even then, the majority of other undefeated horses raced in only one country. Huge impact on Australian culture—BBC article above notes her races would regularly attract 30,000 people where usually only 3,000 would attend. Article is in quite good shape, and updated. (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a retirement. Other than paperwork or something, nothing has actually happened. -- (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose I don't think this is a very significant news, also Tone has a good argument. digitalSurgeon (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post sports retirements of humans, so I don't see why we should of a horse. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Mobushgu's argument. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose announcement of retirement, but strongest support possible if the horse announces its intent to return. –HTD 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry but we cover news items on the merit: we don't do nationalist quota filing. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Hope someone remembers that such a nomination for the retirement of Gabriel G. Marquez was not approved and posted. Egeymi (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pile on oppose; we don't post retirements. When the horse dies, then RD is a possibility, but not now. If it was about the achievement, it should have been proposed when he set the record. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Retirements of anyone except monarchs tend not to be notable. People (and animals) grow old, their careers end. Such is life. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 16Edit

[Closed] George Beverly SheaEdit

Stale. King of ♠ 09:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: George Beverly Shea (talk, history)
Blurb: George Beverly Shea died on April 16, 2013, following a brief illness. (Post)
Article needs updating
  • I assume this is an RD nomination; support; nominated for 10 Grammys, won one plus a lifetime achievement Grammy; has other awards and is in a couple Halls of Fame. Seems to be notable in their field. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Support for RD. Must admit I hadn't heard of him but he seems to be a leading light in this field, the awards 331dot highlights above show his significance. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD when updated (with reaction to death/legacy info). A lifetime achievement Grammy is more than enough to demonstrate being at the top of one's field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, just make sure it's updated with a couple of sentences... (don't let it "die on the vine" (copyright Meds 2013))... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Pat Summerall for recent deathsEdit

Article: Pat Summerall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, USA Today, NFL

Article updated

Nominator's comments: NFL player and long time NFL announcer. "In 1999 he was inducted into the American Sportscasters Association Hall of Fame." and "The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association named Summerall National Sportscaster of the Year in 1977, and inducted him into its Hall of Fame in 1994." Andise1 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support pending better update iconic broadcaster, though a little more information (cause of death) would help if such information is public. --Jayron32 22:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support arguably the premier sportscaster of professional American football throughout its 93 year history, very iconic figure even if its slightly centric to a particular sport. Secret account 01:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with the use of the word "iconic". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly notable in the field of broadcasting. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron32. AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 01:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Skeptical I am not at all opposed to this, but I think the supports are on a lower standard than usual. If this is going to be posted we should definitely have posted El Raton who had his own documentary and video game. Perhaps those supporting this nomination should first support lowering the bar overall--which it seems many think is set too high. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Summerall is (was?) human, Raton was a bull. I did support that nomination FWIW. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Medeis, but this is a ridiculous argument. I generally agree about the bar set for RD- especially considering how often we post 80-something TV actors- but a sportcaster from America and a bull from Spain have nothing to do with each other. -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Nothing except that the bull was more notable, his death covered internationally, and that he had a biography and a video game made about him. Let's see the international coverage of Summerall's death. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • While international coverage or international impact is one criteria, it is not the only one. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • neutral the article is rated Start Class and while it may be better in fact, it's not great. While Summerall was a prominent broadcaster for a very very long time I'm not sure what else is notable about him. I'd say John Madden is much more notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I feel the two of them were about equal in the booth. Granted Madden has his own impact independent of Summerall... – Muboshgu (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - will need more than a one sentence update if it is going to be posted (reaction to his death/legacy material). Also a proper lead would be nice. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Lead written. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • And a second sentence. Not sure how much else there is to say without getting quote cruft-y. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Scratch that, the death section is now four sentences. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I am now satisfied with the update quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral, Leaning Oppose I'm a fan of Summerall's work, and I don't question his importance in the realm of sportscasting (and I work in sports television, so it's not like I lack love and respect for the field), but is being the third- or fourth-best-known sportscaster in the US- keeping in mind that he wasn't even as well-known as the broadcast partner he had for the majority of his career- really worth a mention on RD? I'm not so sure. -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing against Mr. Summerall, but I don't think this nomination rises to what I'd consider notable enough for RD notification, but then again I'm not an American football fan. (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very old, known for doing his job. Abductive (reasoning) 01:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Known for doing it better than anyone else, arguably. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That would be an argument against virtually all submissions for RD. What other reason are people supposed to use to nominate an article? "Doing his job" is what he is notable for, because he did it well and was recognized for it. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
        • For improving the human condition, not mentioning the new colors of jerseys. Abductive (reasoning) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
          • There is no RD requirement for nominated persons to have "improved the human condition", only to meet one of the three criteria; in this case, #2.(important in the field of broadcasting). 331dot (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
            • You know what's amazing, 331dot? Even though I (basically) opposed this nomination, I like your support rationale infinitely more than I like the other oppose rationales. In this case: When a president dies, he is old and known for doing his job, but that doesn't mean his death isn't important; when Elizabeth Taylor died, she was not remembered for having improved the human condition, but that doesn't mean her death wasn't important. The deciding factor is importance, and I don't happen to think Mr. Summerall has enough to warrant a mention on the main page, but I at least tried to make that point rationally. -- Mike (Kicking222) 12:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Jayron32's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Sistan and Baluchestan earthquakeEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​A 7.8 magnitude earthquake strikes east of Iran. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, IBN

A 7.8 magnitude earthquake strikes Iran. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Wait While there are multiple news agencies reporting the quake occurred, so far none appear to have any information the impact (Any casualties or structural damage? How are people in the area being affected?) of the quake. --Allen3 talk 11:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems likely that this will be notable enough to post, but without knowing the damage or casualties it's too soon to tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait but support once we've got enough information. An earthquake of this size in an inhabited area is (tragically) generally going to be big news. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once the article has enough basic details. BBC reporting 40+ deaths so far. CaptRik (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Wait changing my opinion, latest story has claims that nobody killed, 5 injured and it's out in the desert away from population centers. [53] CaptRik (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait USGS recently revised their epicentre depth estimates so the damage\casualty estimates are much less severe, also a small possibility that the bbc (and other media) are accidentally conflating reports from the previous quake - so wait until rescuers actually reach the scene (5 hours or so) EdwardLane (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support after update. The BBC radio reports that over 40 are dead and that electricity/communications are out. They also mention it being the strongest in Iran in the last 40 years. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    It also seems logical that the other earthquake is either removed or merged with this one once it's up. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, huge impact. I think the previous earthquake blurb can be merged into this one such as like "...only days after a similar(?) earthquake in Iran". Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but oppose merging the blurbs - the Bushehr earthquake is old news, it's unrelated, and it's due to drop off the bottom of the template in a day or two anyway. There's absolutely no harm in having two Iranian earthquakes on ITN for a little while. --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and bump off the older blurb. Second in a week... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree the older blurb should go. μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted and removed older earthquake blurb. I have boldly put a more descriptive blurb in as well. --Jayron32 21:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Multiple bombings in IraqEdit

Article: 15 April 2013 Iraqi bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​More than 50 people are killed and approximately 300 others are injured in a wave of bombings across Iraq. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC), (CNN)
  • Support Pending update of course. The information should either go in Iraqi governorate elections, 2013 or in an article devoted to the attacks. I'll note that we would normally be more conservative in posting Iraqi terrorist attacks due to their frequency. This is an exceptional attack though, the attacks are coordinated and occur in multiple cities and while the news sources listed above don't confirm that the attacks are directly related to the elections, they do mention the upcoming elections in relation to the attacks. Ryan Vesey 04:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously notable given that Boston marathon (happily) with three dead is immediately posted. However, an article should be given. Egeymi (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This has been a big story, and the widespread casualties have attracted much attention. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support- per others- EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 15:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Wide-ranging coordinated attacks like these are pretty rare, even in Iraq. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Boston "bombing" has 2 deaths and we rush to post it in two hours. This has 31 and we sit on our hands. 'Merica. (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit curious as to what you are complaining about. 15 hours after this was posted, you still hadn't created the article. Finally, Eugene Simion did for you. We still have an article with only one sentence. Why don't you stop sitting on your hands and expand the article so the update is sufficient for it to be posted. Ryan Vesey 20:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't suppose you have bothered to actually look at the condition of the article? If you are that anxious to see this posted, you could help make that possible by improving the article. It's not as easy as complaining, but it's much more effective (and almost as much fun). --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — It's disheartening that such incidents are so common in Iraq that we'd even have to "sit on our hands" in posting such an update, to quote above. I wish it were like the U.S., where coordinated terrorist attacks are relatively uncommon and something like what happened in Boston would be notable enough for inclusion within such context. Kurtis (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Erm... have you looked at the article linked above? That's going nowhere near the front page. This has all the support it needs, but the article's not ready as it's not long enough. Nothing to do with being in Iraq (at this end at least) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
      • My support was for the blurb itself; it had no bearing on the article it's linked to. I haven't checked it yet, though. I will do so shortly. Kurtis (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is now fit for posting. If someone had done the work earlier, we could have avoid the latest addition of US-centric conspiracy nonsense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

April 15Edit

Musallam Al-Barrak sentencingEdit

Article: Musallam Al-Barrak (talk, history)
Blurb: Kuwaiti opposition leader Musallam Al-Barrak is given a five-year prison sentence for insulting Emir Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, BBC, Al Jazeera

Article updated
  • Consider withdrawn. Clearly won't build consensus in time to make the main page at this point. I tried removing, but was reverted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Boston Marathon explosionsEdit

Articles: Boston Marathon explosions (talk, history) and 2013 Boston Marathon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two explosions have gone off at the Boston marathon finish line. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Two explosions go off at the Boston Marathon finish line.
News source(s): (CNN), (NY Times)

Both articles updated
  • Wait clearly we need to see what's happened, so far indication of a few injuries, nothing more. But of course, things can change. Patience required here I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There's an article brewing at Boston Marathon explosions, which is probably a better target for this information than the main Boston Marathon article. Currently, it says three people were killed, which seems to be corroborated by a couple sources right now. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Early reports are three deaths and 30ish injured. I'm assuming by the time the article is large enough for posting we'll have a more accurate death/injury count. Ryan Vesey 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not really seeing any RS with the three fatalities, a lot of injuries have been reliably reported though. Any RS for the deaths? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I haven't been looking at internet sources. They've been reporting it on the television for the past 10 minutes. They reported that it was confirmed by the police. There's also some reports of other bombs being found around the city, but they're much less reliable [54] and not confirmed yet. Ryan Vesey 19:55, 15 April 2013
        • It's certainly a big deal, and has all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, of course. But watching the live feed on the BBC, no mention of fatalities thankfully. Let's hope it stays that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • And reportedly: "explosions came from within the Fairmount Hotel"... what is that all about? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Regardless, the notability and significance of this should not be tied to if/how many people died. I don't know what your confusion about the location of the explosions stems from. -- tariqabjotu 19:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Firstly, I'm surprised at the number of people quick to comment on the number of deaths without any reliable sources. Secondly, did the hotel explode then? I have no idea on the geography. Sorry if you can't be helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
          • There's apparently a hotel next to or near the finish line and the explosions apparently came from within the building. That seemed easy enough to infer... -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh, so the hotel has been destroyed? Two explosions from the same hotel? Perhaps, in that case, it's some kind of accident. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
              • One from around the hotel, but the other was dozens of metres away. They're probably not accidents. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Technically the sporting event would have been ITN/R anyway. Obviously these explosions would mean making a sport-related posting seem completely wrong. Obviously post (when article is appropriate). -- (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Was just about to say the same. The marathon is ITNR, but given the events, this is obviously the bigger story. Resolute 20:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now It really feels too soon to post anything - nobody has a solid clue what's happening, including us, so it seems premature to put anything up right now. I say we wait a few hours when the facts will be more clear. Redverton (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Explosion at a major sporting event. 2 dead, 23 injured. The circumstances make it worthy, and we have enough information to post. It's not like we need to wait for the "why". --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We have reports of 3 deaths, now reports of two deaths, the article reads three. We're an encyclopedia, not a news agency, we should wait to put this on the main page until some true consensus comes out of the official reports. Ryan Vesey 20:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support There are deaths and almost two dozen injured at the finish line of a major marathon that has an international drawing. Let's call it like it is.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We're not a news ticker and as such should not be susceptible to media sensationalism. We can wait until all the facts come in and notability is established.--WaltCip (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
People are dead at an important event, therefore notability is established. Nergaal (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Boston Marathon is ITN/R. I suggest a single blurb with two bold links - results and explosion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agree with WaltCip here. We're not in a hurry. Let's wait until it is clear what happened there. --bender235 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Still wait. Of course, kneejerk is to suggest some kind of act of terror, which is likely, but until we have some genuine evidence, wait. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Abstain until conclusion of event, per Thaddeus's comment.  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until the basic facts are clear. The event might be sufficiently notable, but it's far too soon to link to our volatile article from the main page. Let the news outlets report the news. We can revisit the matter when we have a decent encyclopedia article to offer. —David Levy 20:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I came here and was stunned this wasn't posted ... I realize that there's a desire to not be US-centric, but this is a pretty darned big event and the top news story of the day. --B (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • B, there's virtually unanimous support for posting this, it's a matter of not posting too early. See my comment below. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
B, please read more of the comments above. No-one's opposed this on the basis of it being in the U.S., but more - like my own oppose - because we just don't really know what's going on yet. Redverton (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've proposed an alternate blurb 2013 Boston Marathon needs to be created, it's currently a redirect. In addition, I can't comment more that this shouldn't be posted within the next few hours. There's currently reports about a fire in the JFK Library, but nobody knows if it is in anyway related. We need to wait on posting these things and let the news sources do the speculation. Ryan Vesey 20:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Considering that the Boston Marathon in a regular year is something we post as ITN/R, a series of deaths and maimings at the finish line make this a no-brainer for the front page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as soon as the article meets the three paragraph requirement. WP is not PERFET and this is obviously the top of the news. μηδείς (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Technically it has somewhere between three and six paragraphs already, depending on which edit conflicted version you see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support ASAP, per definitive knowledge per sources that these were bombs, a third was disabled, etc. This is way over ITN worthy by itself now. gwickwiretalkediting 20:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready this is updated, a third bomb has been detonated, there's no need to solve this before we link it for our readers. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Is that a joke!?!? μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not restricted to the marathon, bomb also exploded at "JFK library" per news conference. Suggest changing the article/blurb accordingly. gwickwiretalkediting 20:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Give the source for that if you have it, I have only seen there's a fire. μηδείς (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no source, it's a coincidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not. [55] "Third blast later reported at JFK Library about 5 miles away, police say. Not clear whether that blast is connected to first two." Highly doubt that says "was just a coincidence", and even the library is saying now that there was an explosion there, which was most likely unrelated to the fire. gwickwiretalkediting 21:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
False. The library director has been saying all along that the library fire has no connection to the marathon bombs. [56] The police is "treating" them to be related but have not linked them. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, BUT don't mention casualties until the Boston authorities confirm them, which they have not done so far. Media is offering conflicting numbers, AP's being the most widespread but I've seen numbers up to 12. Another news conference at 23:00 UTC. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, there has already been a third incident at the JFK library, and two more bombs are reported. The FBI is treating it like a terrorist attack and the WH and other areas are on high alert.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no source for that, it's a coincidence. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The library is already saying that the fire is unrelated. Not an explosion. [57][58] EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when ready. This is obviously main page worthy. AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 21:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - It seems inevitable to anyone watching the live coverage that this will be the largest story in large segments of the world. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Even if we don't yet know who did it or why they did it, we know that they did it, and that's what's in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment 2013 Boston Marathon meets minimum ITN standards. I will continue to work on it, but it can be posted now. Please use a double bold blurb when this goes up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thoughts going out to anyone reading this from Boston. Formerip (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Image question do you guys think there is any chance of posting File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png on the main page? It is really rare that an actual notable explosion is captured on camera. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, that is a fair use image, which cannot be used on the Main Page. SpencerT♦C 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Lol, so, this year, there was a car bomb that went off in Syria that killed 53 people and was not posted. A terrorist attack in india that killed 7 not posted. But then this is posted. I am starting to think the US centric stereotype is true. (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. What's all the hype and fuss about? More people died in Chicago last weekend than in this little race. Seems to be symptomatic of the American culture of violence. (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I have the impression that terrorist attacks are quite rare in the U.S., as compared to bombings in Syria which is a war zone; this is sorta same reason shootings in the U.S. are quickly opposed (unless there are double-digit fatalities(?)), while shootings elsewhere easily get in. Dunno about the Indian bombing, but this suggests that terrorist attacks (that include bombings) in India are "quite" often (an average of 2 per year), as compared to War on Terror attacks in the US, which are quite rare. (indeed, most of the articles in the US navbox are plots, which are also snowball opposed, and the last were the 9/11 attacks?) For some reason it didn't include "homegrown" terrorists though... –HTD 06:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, would have quickly opposed had it not been at one of the most prominent events in sports. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. The one thing that makes this notable is that not that it happened - it's a minor bombing on a global scale - but that it happened at the Boston Marathon. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The thing that qualifies this event for inclusion here is threefold: 1) it is being covered extensively and prominently by news sources 2) there's a worthwhile Wikipedia article for us to point people to to read more and 3) Someone cared enough to create a discussion here so people could discuss the issue and promote it. Bias at Wikipedia and at ITN is a real problem. While we have no control over #1, people who worry about bias in what we post at ITN have no one to blame but themselves if they don't improve articles and nominate them here if worthwhile. Complaining that "it isn't worth it because they wouldn't get promoted anyways" is just sour grapes. If you want to fix the bias, fix the bias by giving us topics to promote, don't simply fight against articles which completely and totally meet the standards of ITN merely because they cover regions of the world that ITN covers a lot. If you want to fix the imbalance, do it by performing good work yourself, not taking down the good work of others. --Jayron32 05:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd bet my hat that the next person to complain about US-Centric bias of ITN/the main page will not have taken part in the above discussion about the Iraqi bombings. I'm going to lose this bet because some smart aleck is going to leave a comment in the above discussion and then complain about the bias, just so I'm wrong. Ryan Vesey 05:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. [After Edit conflict] We should also be encouraging those who enthusiastically posted here and developed the article on the Boston bombings to also look at other equivalent incidents. There are plenty of Americans here to build the Boston article, but not many Iraqis to build a good article on the Iraq bombings on the same day. Both deserve attention, and I plea with those who rushed to build and promote the Boston article to help with other articles such as the Iraq one as well. We all have access to pretty much the same sources. (There. Do you win your bet Ryan? I didn't want your hat anyway.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Who opens their comments about a fatal explosion with 'LOL'? If there's a discussion to be had about 'US-centrism' on here, this isn't the place or the manner in which to have it. If you think there should be more news from around the world, post some! Vote on some! But if you just came here to mock Americans as their fellow-citizens lie bleeding, well, get lost. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
opposeIt is only important to some as it is in the U.S, but I would change to support if the iraq bombing and drone strike in Afghanistan are included, which is just as important is included. I would suggest that all tragedies, that affect a country should get automatic consideration. If not minor ones such as this should not be considered. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
"all tragedies, that affect a country should get automatic consideration." W000t. I can earn a boatload of ITN credits for every random shooting in the U.S. There's one every month... or better yet, the latest Syrian bombings; there's like one in every week. –HTD 08:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Each event should be weighed on its merits; every one is different and has different circumstances. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not just some run of the mill minor event, this was a terror attack on an International event which resulted in worldwide effects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you really trying to tell us that this isn't a major news story? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, for what it's worth. Obviously significant event. For what it's worth, I think this supersedes the race itself, but I'm not strongly opposed to posting that as well if people want to. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. Just to clarify; The Boston Marathon is ITNR. Is this posting overriding/substituting for the posting of the normal results, or will that be a separate posting? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think a posting about the result of the race would be in good taste. I think IAR. But others may disagree. Formerip (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The results article is bold linked. I think that is sufficient to satisfy ITN/R; no need to list the winners in the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that. It's too bad for the winners, but they're understandably overshadowed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to note that the Boston Marathon article is bolded in the blurb as well, the first time I can ever remember multiple articles being bolded in one blurb. I think, given that it's bolded, that this counts toward ITN/R (and if people want the race results they can click on the article?) Just my thoughts. SpencerT♦C 18:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb update The death toll seems to be settled at 3. Please remove "at least" from the blurb. The article is no longer carrying "at least" in it's lead. --IP98 (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Venezuelan presidential election, 2013Edit

Article: Venezuelan presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Nicolás Maduro is elected President of Venezuela. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In a snap election called after the death of Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro is elected President of Venezuela.
News source(s): BBC CBC

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Presidential election, therefore it meets ITN/R under "results of the elections for head of state" criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Do we mention the percentages? Maduro's 50.6 and Henrique Capriles Radonski's 49.1? On another note, the blurb should mention Capriles. Ryan Vesey 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Why are we linking to a 2012 Japanese election for this? --Jayron32 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops. Sorry. I took the template off that ITN article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note – I'm currently in the process of updating the article with all the new articles that are coming out. Your patience is much appreciated.Bloom6132 (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Posting. I'll post the alternative one, as it is more informative. --Tone 08:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
CommentThat was fast... oh, and support because its an important change of power. (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Image available --hydrox (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Change Blurb It was not a snap election - which (according to us) "Generally it refers to an election ... called when not required (either by law or convention)", the election was required by law. LGA talkedits 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. This wasn't a snap election. Formerip (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thirded. Can we get 'Snap election' removed, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Tone 12:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Sir Colin Davis for recent deathsEdit

Article: Colin Davis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Popular English conductor who has served as principal conductor and president of the London Symphony OrchestraLord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Hopefully no one would give a "one of several hundred men worldwide doesn't serve as an automatic qualifier for RD" argument on this British guy... –HTD 04:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Along those lines: Oppose we post too many British people see how stupid that sort of reasoning is? Please stop applying it to Americans. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when updated - Like Tallchief, Davis appears to be a highly notable artist in his field and thus meets the RD criteria. Is Davis the best conductor in history? Probably not, but that should not be the standard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support One of the great Mozart interpreters and perhaps the greatest of all Berlioz conductors. Many acclaimed recordings, and received many honours not only in Britain but also from other countries. Undoubtedly one of the leading conductors of our time. Neljack (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support One of the big names in classical/orchestral music. (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, very notable in his field. Rob (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and now updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As Neljack writes, one of the prominent conductors of his time. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support, a leading figure in 20th century British music. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

April 14Edit

[Posted] The MastersEdit

Article: 2013 Masters Tournament (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Adam Scott defeats Angel Cabrera to win the 2013 Masters (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Australian golfer Adam Scott wins the Masters.
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, The Augusta Chronicle, USA Today, Herald Sun, TSN

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Perhaps an image can be added of Adam Scott? Also, if anyone feels the blurb should be modified with different wording, feel free to make changes. Andise1 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support major tournament, but reword blurb. "professional" seems unnecessary and some amateurs participate, Adam Scott is a disambiguation page, and we usually pipe the year. I have suggested an alternative blurb. He is the first Australian winner but I don't think we should include that. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb in the form of "In golf, ...". Once it gets updated, of course. I'll try to get it up to par later in the day tomorrow if no one else has by then. -- Anc516(Champs!) (TalkContribs) 04:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Alt Blurb and I agree with Anc516 that it should say "In golf, ...". Ryan Vesey 04:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll note that this is dependent on the quality, the article is so far away from having adequate quality right now, I'd be surprised if it can reach an appropriate level of quality for posting. Ryan Vesey 04:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Currently the article has very little prose and is just a glorified list of tables of who made the cut for each round. Needs expanding first before this is on the front page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Lugnuts. The current state has a three sentence paragraph describing the final round. That's not enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I've made an update to meet the minimum requirements (I think) but I agree that an article of this nature could use some more prose. However, I'd support it for ITN so we could get more eyes on it and more interest in updating it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, now. We would probably want the first round to have a bit of prose, but in general the article is good enough. Marking ready. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 00:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

April 13Edit

[Closed] Evidence of chemical weapons usage in SyriaEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

Article: Syrian civil war (talk, history)
Blurb: The London Times reports that British scientists have confirmed the use of chemical weapons in Syria. (Post)
News source(s): Israel Times, Haaretz

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The usage of chemical weapons is a significant development and a very, very serious concern for the international community. Kurtis (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There just isn't enough information. They have no idea what kind of chemical weapons were used, who used them, and to what extent they were used. Ryan Vesey 02:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No doubt that, if this is credible enough, there will be worldwide action very soon. Let's wait for that instead. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose until more info is available. "Chemical weapon" is a very broad term that includes even tear gas (although the researchers have ruled that out), and it seems some reports suggest it was a "strong riot-control agent" according to this and this. We need to know the nature of the weapon and the amount of damage caused to determine if this really should go on ITN. Chamal TC 03:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually think the damage done is irrelevant in this case. If we're talking something along the lines of Agent 15, Sarin, or anything to that effect, it's a game changer for the conflict regardless of how many casualties it caused. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right. If it's something like Sarin, then I agree that even the fact of using an agent like that would be significant. Chamal TC 04:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons given; Coverage of this seems to be limited outside the Israeli press, which suggests it isn't widely regarded as a significant development in the conflict. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 12Edit

[Closed] Nepal-Papua New Guinea relationsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
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.

 --Soman (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose apart from the lack of an article to link, it is hard to envisage this happy event having much impact on life in either country, yet alone the rest of the world. Kevin McE (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular reason why these two countries linking up is notable (past tensions for example)? If not it's hard to see any significance here, especially when the nominated article doesn't even exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The two nations haven't had any people to people relation/contact in the past. Hardly any economic activity between the two nations.Establishment of diplomatic relations alone can't be ITN worthy.Regards, theTigerKing  19:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the others and WP:WTAF. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, link to the article fixed now. --Soman (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Representatives of two countries which have almost nothing to do with one another holding a meeting isn't news. I really doubt that this is notable enough to sustain an article. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] Maria Tallchief for recent deathsEdit

Article: Maria Tallchief (