Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 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.

August 31Edit

[Closed] RD Steven TariEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:28, 4 September 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: Steven Tari (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article updated
 --Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is tagged as an orphan, which makes it unlikely that Steven Tari passes the "very important in his field" threshold for RD. Formerip (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is interesting but his being hacked to death would really need a full blurb, which he doesn't merit. μηδείς (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. Not significantly important in his field, not a newsworthy enough story for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments by Medeis and Muboshgu - not hugely significant in his field, so he doesn't warrant an RD, and not a newsworthy enough event for a blurb. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis and Muboshgu; we're not talking the leader of the Catholic Church here (with around a billion members), just a "cult" of 6,000 people. Not very important in the grand scheme of things. Not seeing much news coverage of this event either. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd actually like to see this posted merely out of interest, but we'd need either a policy change or a huge update or both. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb or nothing The subject was clearly not a notable enough person to qualify for ITN via our death criteria, and is therefore ineligible for RD. But the event was so unusual that with a proper update this could merit an ITN posting. —WFCFL wishlist 12:47, 1 September 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.

August 30Edit

[Posted] New world's longest canyonEdit

Articles: Geography of Greenland (talk, history) and Greenland canyon (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new canyon is discovered under the ice sheet of Greenland. It is the longest canyon in the world. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A new canyon discovered under the Greenland ice sheet is the world's longest.
News source(s): The Independent

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I can't help update it - I can search for news, but not read it while I'm at work. "Longest canyon in the world" isn't a record that gets broken very often, so I thought I would post it here and hopefully someone can update articles. I don't know if it has a name yet, so I'm not sure what a good new article name for it would be. Jessica Ryan (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Feel free to propose a better blurb - I know mine is terrible. :-P Jessica Ryan (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The world's longest canyon is discovered under the ice sheet of Greenland. To qualify, that redlink has to point to an article about the canyon. You might start one and submit it to WP:DYK. Also, the canyon isn't new. It's been there for a long time. Jehochman Talk 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, are you sure that this is the longest canyon? Once the article is created (and please don't title it "world's longest canyon") that factoid will need secondary sources for confirmation. I suggest that the canyon is interesting enough for having been hiding there all these years, and that the blurbs should avoid calling it the longest. Abductive (reasoning) 13:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once the canyon has its own article. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support major discovery, have posted altblurb: "A new canyon discovered under the Greenland ice sheet is the world's longest." μηδείς (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
How about "Scientists discover the world's longest canyon under the Greenland ice sheet"? - Ypnypn (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that or "one of the world's" seems good. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this is the best so far. — -dainomite   20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Does the canyon have a name? "Greenland canyon" seems like an odd article title. Formerip (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No name yet. I support posting this once the article has been expanded a bit more. Jehochman Talk 17:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Dangit, your source only says "one of the longest". Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The source I read this morning called it the longest, and compared it to the current record-holder (in China, I think), but I don't recall where I found it. The one I linked here is just the first hit I found searching, but like I said when I posted I can't actually read it right now. I support rewording to Medeis's blurb, and changing to "one of the world's longest" if it turns out that most sources aren't calling it the longest. Jessica Ryan (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The current article has this ref. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Even then we don't have to have an official name. The thing itself is what matters, and we can always redirect. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The article requires two more paragraph's worth, yet I am called to sup. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yup, dat there be one hugely ginormous canyon. (Great encyclopedia value, article is being made from scratch, new worlds largest...) --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until the article is better updated. This is interesting, but to a casual reader it says very little without an image. I suggest somebody upload this until somebody creates a free version of it. Nergaal (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose File under "...and finally" to fill a slow news day. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Once the article is a bit more developed. — -dainomite   20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the story, but the blurb would be better phrased as "newly-discovered" rather than "new" as the article notes it is at least 4 million years old, possibly older. Geographical/geological features of this scale do not get discovered on Earth every day, so this is clearly newsworthy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted with Thyryduulf suggestion. Secret account 01:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Seamus Heaney RDEdit

Article: Seamus Heaney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Irish poet Seamus Heaney dies at the age of 74.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Won Nobel Prize for Literature, some considered him best Irish poet since W. B. YeatsThe Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Viewing his lengthy list of honors and awards, as well as the list of studies of his work, convinces me of his importance in his field. Article seems to be in good shape to me. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support. One of the most influential poets of the last hundred years. Nobel prize winner. Exactly what RD is for. Modest Genius talk 11:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Post-posting update: I have no objection to a full blurb. Modest Genius talk 11:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for either RD or, since he's generally considered one of the greatest English-language poets of the 20th century, blurb. Formerip (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support agree with comments above Tom B (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I remember studying his poems for my English Literature exams 25 years ago. Looking at the article, so influential that he probably qualifies for a blurb, to be honest. But definitely for RD. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd prefer RD but he may be notable enough for a blurb, though my general feeling his a mentioning on RD is enough. A Nobel prize winner definitely meets our death criteria but laureates die fairly often (obviously)--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think grouping him with other Nobel Prize winners is selling him a little short. Formerip (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb It takes a true newsworthy death, like Maggie Thatcher, to reach the blurb status these days. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD Jheald (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely & undoubtedly influential in his field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The Recent Death has been posted already, and it looks like there isn't a consensus to post the blurb. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Eh? No it hasn't, there's nothing on the template (and yes I did try purging and refreshing). Modest Genius talk 12:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for full blurb. Very notable Irish poet. Egeymi (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (full blurb) Enormously notable poet. --RA () 13:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for either RD or full blurb. Unquestionably one of the most influential poets of the past 100 years. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted as blurb There is clear consensus for blurb or RD, but I went with blurb instead, as finding consensus for blurbs are extremely rare. Needs a better update however. Secret account 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, surprised it's posted before update, but hey. Can you replace the image with the one of Heaney please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Post Posting Comment, look, either the blurb has to say that he was a Nobel Laureate, or he should just be in the ticker. Also, I post posting Oppose blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 15:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Note changed the image, added the link to his Nobel prize to the blurb. Let me know if any problems. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Updated wtf, people? The article has one new sentence, that he died. It needs pulling until it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, TRM, for updating (and while I'm here, I'll add my post-posting support for a full blurb given his stature in the world of literature). BencherliteTalk 16:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed to full blurb for the record, not an unexpected death or statesman in office. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you just point me to that policy that says that ITN blurbs for dead people have to be "unexpected" or "statesm[e]n in office"? (e.g. Margaret Thatcher didn't meet either of those criteria...) Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • (And after all, isn't it a refreshing change to not have ITN littered with American soldiers accused/charged/guilty of mass murder?) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
      • When RD was set up, I seem to recall what could roughly be called a consensus that Whitney Houston represented a sort of benchmark. I guess her death might have been unexpected, but then (I hesitate to mention) so was Cory Monteith's. Formerip (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Had Houston died at 77 she'd have gotten a ticker. Monteith was posted too quickly for deliberation, as was this blurb. Given there are only four supports for a full blurb, I think this should be downgraded. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Monteith gets the full treatment, that's a precedent. Here, we're talking about a landmark, heavily awarded poet here, not a kid in a TV show. It's not reasonable to argue against the full blurb now the standard has been set by blurbing Monteith. And, reiterating my question, where's the policy or guideline supporting the "unexpected" or "statesman in office" appeal? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Cory Monteith was listed as a RD, not a blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, my erroneous comments above struck. As the article states : "Upon his death in 2013 The Independent described him as "probably the best-known poet in the world"." Perhaps worthy of a blurb after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb. My understanding is that full blurbs for deaths are reserved for the very tip-top of society as a whole; a death that gets widespread, immediate coverage(such as breaking into regular TV programming) and is of wide interest. While clearly this poet is extremely notable in the field of poetry, I don't think he rises to the level of a Margaret Thatcher (I believe the last death to get a full listing) or a Nelson Mandela (someone I often see cited as someone worthy of a full listing). 331dot (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    • There's no precedent for such a strict interpretation of the death criteria for blurbs. In fact, we have featured many Nobel Prize winners as blurbs in the past. Teemu08 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been here that long, but I believe most of that "past" was before the advent of the ticker. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The ticker is irrelevant. There has been some discussion that use of the ticker should indeed raise the bar for a blurb, but to my knowledge, no consensus has ever been reached on the matter. If I am mistaken, let me know. Teemu08 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Meidis and 331dot: While you're entitled to post-oppose if you like, you both seem to be doing so on the basis of an imagined set of criteria, which is not a valid approach. We still have criteria for recent deaths and a recent attempt to remove them failed. The relevant criterion here is number 2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". It's fair to say that there is a general understanding that we should apply a higher bar than we used to before the ticker came in. But there's no basis for just pulling new criteria out of thin air. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I was merely summarizing what I observed to be the general consensus of discussions I have seen. I wasn't claiming they were specific criteria. Either way, it remains my opinion as to how I believe blurbs about deaths should be selected. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Being a "very important figure in his/her field" gets one on the ticker. There are no criteria that specify how people should determine which people who meet this criterion should qualify for a blurb, but most people apply quite a high threshold, since the ticker was intended to be used for most deaths. Neljack (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. The criteria predate the ticker, and there has been no consensus to dis-apply them. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If that's true, then it would seem there is little point to the ticker. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
No, we apply a higher threshold in one case than the other. Not a threshold based on different criteria, because there has never been a decision to do that. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I've never claimed otherwise. I haven't made up criteria, I have given my opinion that the higher threshold you speak of has not been met, for the reasons I gave(primarily the level of news coverage and global interest). This is still "In the News" and news coverage is at least partially relevant to something being posted. I don't believe he is equal in status to Margaret Thatcher. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
"Equal in status to Margaret Thatcher" is not part of the criteria. ITN is supposed to take into account the level of news coverage, but not sit in front of CNN in its underpants nodding. The question is: how important was he within his field? The answer is that at the time of his death there was no-one above him. That's what scores a blurb. Formerip (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I cite Thatcher as one of the very few deaths that have received a blurb in my time here to compare this to, not as a criteria. I believe that taking news coverage into account, this does not warrant a blurb. Otherwise, I could think of numerous others who should have gotten blurbs but have not. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me you're taking nothing but news coverage into account, as well as setting a silly standard. That's a bad approach. Formerip (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't seek to set any new standards, silly or otherwise; simply to state my opinion that this man did not meet the higher threshold that you yourself has said exists for blurbs about deaths, and provide a reason for my opinion. You are certainly entitled to believe that this death does meet that threshold; I simply do not agree. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Clearly a very important figure in his field, but I agree that blurbs should be reserved for people who have had a very significant global impact (e.g. Mandela, Gorbachev, Thatcher). Neljack (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb. I believe consensus (which seemed slight in the first place) has turned against having a blurb and I ask that it be pulled. While more than a notable enough death for the ticker, it doesn't have the level of news coverage needed for a full blurb. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Do not pull, and think about this. It replaced a very stale item, there are still items there over a week old, and if it appearing on the main page causes one single reader to go and investigate the work of Heaney, Wikipedia is doing its job here as the provider of free knowledge. To remove it now would be absolutely ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I support it being listed in the ticker, just not a full blurb. The goal of giving knowledge is still accomplished in the ticker. It shouldn't be present simply for the sake of having a recent event listed, either. Is this man really equivalent to Margaret Thatcher? I didn't see the extensive news coverage with his death that her's got. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The ticker is obviously far less visible, especially as the image is there. And what are we losing by it being there, as opposed to an 8 day-old story about a mass-murderer that disappeared from the news a week ago, or the CW attack in Syria that have since been overtaken by further events? Nothing. Let it be. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Not losing anything by keeping it is not a reason to keep it, especially if consensus changes. Unlike Thatcher, this death did not interrupt TV programming where I live, nor did the funeral receive extensive coverage(or will), nor did talking heads discuss the death for days and days, nor did it get front page treatment. He was important in his field, absolutely, but he was not equivalent to Thatcher in terms of global importance. Again, the lack of new stories isn't a reason to keep this one. New stories should be nominated. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Did Thatcher's death really cut into the TV schedule where you live? I didn't think that happened anymore when people die. It didn't happen in the UK. Here Heaney's death is the top story after Syria. I guess Aldous Huxley is probably looking down with a wry smile. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Since there aren't a good selection of new stories available, that's pretty moot. And comparing him with the person who happened to be the last one to get a full blurb is simply comparing apples and oranges; we post stories that are getting the most coverage at this point in time, and this one certainly has worldwide coverage. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I truly appreciate this exchange of ideas, but I still maintain my opinion. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD He is obviously very notable in his field. I don't support a blurb as news coverage will probably not be continuous. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin Note I posted per consensus the blurb. I knew about Heaney's impact on literature but I had no opinion of his death until now. The death ticker was only created for cases in which a blurb discussion would have been the slightest hint of being contentious. It was not created for deaths that otherwise would have been unanimously and universally approved for blurb treatment prior to the ticker (this is rather obvious). Also we aren't talking about a celebrity here, but a poet that many scholars considered was the greatest poet of our generation and who won every major award possible for his field, including the Nobel Prize. Reading all these obituaries, Heaney was not just "very important" to his field, but the very top of his field. The opposition is rather absurd here as his death regards a completely different topic area that is rarely posted (literature), and it definitely won't lead us to a slippery slope of RD vs. blurb unlike a random celebrity death.

Heaney death is top story after Syria in the New York Times and many other English media news sources as well as Spanish [1] , while this very convincing CNN obituary spoke about Heaney role in the Northern Ireland conflict with condolences from Bill Clinton, among other world leaders [2], plus [3], [4] [5] and this among dozens of other different obituaries (most obituaries, even of notable people are from the same news agency even if used in different sources) shows his global impact that I don't believe that the (mostly American) opposers are aware of, hell even this level of extensive legacy coverage shocked me. Any further discussion I believe would make a mockery of in the news in general by Wikipedia critics, similar to what happened with Monteith. Take the OMG only politicians who made a global impact on every country should deserve a blurb discussion to the talk page. Secret account 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I seek no such discussion; I was only giving the most recent and only example I know of such a blurb being posted, to compare to this one. I have never disputed that he was the top in his field, nor that he received wide coverage; only that IMO he didn't receive the coverage that others who attained blurbs received. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should be dismissed because I'm American, I don't know, but I can only state what I think. I am far less certain than you that it won't be a slippery slope; I hope you are correct. 331dot (talk)
I also think that consensus has shifted since the posting as the only persons defending the posting as a blurb supported it initially, while most posts since it was put on ITN have opposed posting as a blurb. That said, I realize this is going to stay, but my opinion remains the same. 331dot (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose full blurb that's for highly notable deaths. Thi s is much more minor akin to the other RDs we post. A full blurb also needs a clear mandate for that with strong consensus. No accusation here, think it was just mis-nominated and posted as such in good faith. Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Mis-nominated how exactly? I nominated for RD, that seemed appropriate to me. Others felt a full blurb to be appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Attention why hasn't this been demoted? There's clearly no majority or rationale for a full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Because it's one of only two ITN entries that isn't actually stale? (Yes, not a criteria etc. but there is actually still a small majority in favour, and I suspect, like Modest Genius, that some of those who just "Supported" with no further detail may have supported a full blurb as well - it was still advertised as an RD at the time). And per my comments above; since it's been posted now, we'd gain nothing by removing it. To quote Tariq on the Cory Monteith debacle "It was posted because, at least at the time of posting, there was consensus to post ... why hasn't it been removed? Because there hasn't been any indication that we're doing anyone a service by doing so." Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My guess is that no admin has so far felt that a compelling case has been made for removing the blurb. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Admins are also ale to express why they oppose a certain change, and none has given an opinion why this needs a full blurb against consensus, FormerIP. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This one has - per my comments above and because there isn't actually a consensus against it at this point. And more to the point, because no-one has yet pointed out how he doesn't pass ITND criteria 2. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't randomly post things because there is no consensus against doing so. There is no majority consensus for Heaney being on ITN, he should be demoted to RD--that is the policy decided on with the RfC establishing RD in the first place. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There was a consensus to post it at the time. There still isn't a consensus to pull it now. This, of course, is added to by the fact that anyone who would support the posting isn't going to comment now, because it's already been posted. The only people commenting now are the ones that disagree with it. There's absolutely no way we should pull it on the basis of that, because it's not a balanced discussion. I'd also point out that Frost is about to be posted as a full blurb (which I'm fine with), but there's no way he was as notable in his field as Heaney was in his. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
ITND criteria 2 is not a guarantee of a full blurb. Indeed, there are no guidelines whatsoever on whether or not a death should be a blurb or RD posting: that matter is entirely down to local consensus on a case-by-case basis. —WFCFL wishlist 12:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Trout Secret, leave blurb - I'll come out of my summer Wiki-break to say this is the second time recently that admin Secret has made what I'd call a glaringly disruptive call to post at the ITN feature. This was not an ITN blurb-worthy death, it was a good RD candidate. Though tempted to join others requesting a pull, it would be more disruptive to ITN to do so at this point, at a time when we need stability. I'd like to personally ask Secret, a compromised admin, to accept a trouting and stand down from any further ITN admin postings for the rest of this year. Now, let's get some new ITN nominations and move forward. Jusdafax 09:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • How about David Frost then? (evil grin) Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • As I say above, neither is suitable for the current standards for a full blurb at ITN, in my view. Before we had RD I would have said yes. Jusdafax 18:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Move to RD, in conjunction with a new blurb for David Frost (more blurb-worthy because of the unusual situation of dying whilst doing his job). —WFCFL wishlist 12:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, if we're going to put Frost in, why not remove one of the very stale other entries (apart from Saudi Arabia and the Ashes, they're all over a week old), rather than Heaney? Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Having seen how stale some of the stories are, I agree that having two deaths up wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. To lump two highly interesting writers with consecutive dull and formulaic blurbs doesn't do the subjects justice, but the alternative is to keep up an event which happened nearly a fortnight ago. —WFCFL wishlist 20:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

August 29Edit

August 28Edit

Lundsberg closesEdit

Article: Lundsbergs boarding school (talk, history)
Blurb: Lundsbergs boarding school in Sweden is closed by the Swedish School Inspectorate after several reports of abuse and bullying between students. (Post)
News source(s): [6],[7],[8]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Would be like closing down Eton in the UK or similar. Swedens high elite has been students on the school and the news has recieved attention from world media. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose I wish the school itself had an article on par with Eton College that would truly show how important it is. The article right now is an introduction with 1 body section that's all about the closure. Nonetheless, the closure is temporary and it doesn't appear that the effects on the school are that long-lasting (except for a PR nightmare). If I'm misunderstanding the situation, please let me know and I'll reconsider my opposition. SpencerT♦C 22:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Even though the school is closed temporary it is already clear that the school will not open again. These abuses has been going on as a part of the schools system for a very long time but has only been "outed" in the last couple of years. Everyone in the lead of the school has been let go of their duties including the head master.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. Neljack (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "temporarily" says it all. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer and Medeis. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Hanamanteo (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The school doesn't seem to be extremely notable and the closing doesn't appear to be a huge event. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You mean extremely american or english.. thats cool.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Come on, its article on the Swedish Wikipedia is hardly longer than this one. (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Saudi domestic violence lawEdit

Article: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​For the first time, Saudi Arabia enacts laws against domestic violence. (Post)
News source(s): [9]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Incidences of domestic violence in Saudi Arabia can't be expected to drop to zero overnight, but this is a significant development for women's rights in a country where violence in the home has traditionally been seen as no-one else's business. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support A noteworthy and interesting story in an area - women's rights - that we don't cover that much. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable development, not only for Saudi Arabia, but the Middle East in general. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Especially notable since this is occurring in Saudi Arabia. The article update is good, so I am marking this nomination as [ready]. SpencerT♦C 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Jehochman Talk 12:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

August 27Edit

Syria StickyEdit

Looks like majority of news out there is about Syria. The chemical attack is still up on ITN but will fall off soon... i suggest when we add another item on ITN we convert Syria blurb to a sticky given the amount of current and potential upcoming coverage -- Ashish-g55 18:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support headline today was that American strikes are a question of when, not if. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Actions against Syria could come as early as later in this week. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's certainly not true that the majority of news is about Syria - other international news continues unabated despite the attention on Syria. If it is true that airstrikes are merely a matter of time, then we can post them when they occur. I believe we should post stickies when there are too many stories involving something to post; I don't see that there are new stories here about Syria that we would normally post and if there are we can post them since the current Syrian story will be dropping off soon. Neljack (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Syria is currently the top story or near the top on NBC News, CNN, BBC News, The Australian, Irish Times, Times of India, Le Monde, Spiegel, should I keep going? This is something that people might come to Wikipedia to learn more about and we should make it easy for them to find it. We don't need to wait for actual strikes; this is in the news now. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't post stories about things we predict will happen and the same goes for stickies. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
we are not predicting anything. All im saying is when syrian story drops off convert to sticky since there is a whole lot of updates coming out of Syria and will continue to come (given the current situation) and the article isnt necessarily easiest to find on wiki. ITN is the place to keep it -- Ashish-g55 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There's already a Syria blurb on the template, and we should wait for something to happen before implementing a sticky (again). At the moment there's just lots of chat and speculation. Modest Genius talk 22:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Something is happening; attacks are being plotted. One nation openly plotting to attack another is not a common event. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Attacks are plotted all the time. Any competent general staff has dozens of attack plans ready to go at all times. What we've got is some rhetoric from politicians - and we all know how unreliable that is as a predictor of the future. Clearly if an attack happens that will be news. Politicians saying 'we have to seriously think about doing something at last' is not. Modest Genius talk 22:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Attacks might be planned "all the time" (and there is a difference between purely hypothetical planning and planning an actual attack) but they are not in the news "all the time", and this is "in the news". Part of the role of In the News is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events", both of which is the case here. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait for the attacks - The US and its allies will likely begin attacks on Syrian targets on Thursday (see [10]). Hopefully, an article will be ready for a blurb by then. I don't think there's a real need for a sticky for now. People interested in what's going on in Syria can easily search for the article. And it's already getting a lot of views.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose FormerIP makes a valid point and I agree that posting this sticky now seems speculative. Sticky might again come to question if something fundamentally changes about the conflict, such as major international intervention. --hydrox (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. While FormerIP's point is correct, I think we have enough going on here to post the sticky now. Aside from the ongoing violence in Syria generally, the US bas basically signaled it's preparing a strike. David Cameron has filed a UN resolution to authorize action. These are pretty high level moves. If the situation cools off we can remove the sticky.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
A general sticky is a different proposition. But, regarding current goings-on, a UN Resolution would probably be ITN-worthy and a military strike obviously would be. A sticky simply in anticipation of something we would post as a blurb makes no sense. BTW, I'm certainly getting the impression that David Cameron was "pretty high" when he came up with his plan of action over this. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Hanamanteo (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, what exact article would be the target of the sticky? Not the one about the (as yet WP:CRYSTALBALL) airstrikes that everybody will be trying to find.. Abductive (reasoning) 03:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, Syria is the global Breaking News Headline to the point that a debate in the British Commons is transmitted live on BBC-World, CNN, etc. so that anything else than Syria is "not in the news", completely being drowned out by Syria. Whether right or wrong, only Syria is "in the news", so it is wrong for Wikipedia to pretend that the oppositie is true. Count Iblis (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - We need to do something on ITN to show that Syria is an ITN concern. A sticky leading to the Syrian Civil War article is probably the best choice as we await further developments. Jusdafax 18:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support sticky I don't find it in the best interests to remove the chemical attack article that been posted for nearly two weeks, as that is the only link to the Syria crisis we have which is obviously in the news. We need a sticky posted now, especially after the Arab League asked for Western intervension [11]. Secret account 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

August 26Edit

Million People MarchEdit

Article: Million People March (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thousands of protesters join the Million People March in the Philippines demanding abolition of the country's Priority Development Assistance Fund. (Post)
News source(s): Rappler

Nominator's comments: It's a significant event in the Philippines as it's the first protests of this scale since the EDSA Revolution of 2001. It's also received news coverage outside the Philippines, and there were also protests among Filipino communities abroad. I think it's worthy of inclusion in ITN. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Article has POV problems. Describing causes of it in these terms is not neutral: "Outrage against the Priority Development Assistance Fund scam"; "Continued misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund by many politicians". Neljack (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Someone else has apparently addressed the infobox POV problems already. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Hanamanteo (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Amgen buys OnyxEdit

Article: Amgen (talk, history)
Blurb: Amgen agrees to buy Onyx Pharmaceuticals for $10.4 billion (Post)
News source(s): NY Times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Except for the occasional mega-scandal, mergers are the top stories of the business world. The announcement attracts the most attention so IMO that is the best top to post, and this is one of the top 2 or 3 biggest deals of the year. (Notice, for example, the in depth NYT story linked above.) We don't post a lot of business news (1 merger and 2 or so scandals is all we've posted this year, I believe), so here is a great chance to correct that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose in a story like this the bottom line will be some middle-management jobs lost as redundant. It means a cut in some costs, not a huge new investment or any new technological innovation because of the change in ownership. μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure that it's true that mergers and acquisitions are the biggest business news except for scandals. Policy announcements by central banks are very big - we could consider posting important announcements by the Fed and the ECB. As for this story, I don't see anything indicate great importance, but I'd be interested to know what the the dollar values of previous M&As we've posted have been. Neljack (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Did we post the United Airlines/ American merger? μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't nominated when announced, but I plan to nominate it when it completes. Also Neljack is correct, changes in the interest rate are bigger stories than mergers (but also very rare). The smaller of the two companies in the Publicis Omnicom Group merger was 14 billion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Are we talking about the American Airlines/US Airways merger? If so, I nominated it when it was announced - it wasn't posted. (I don't think there was ever a United/American merger.) --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I wanted (this was a request for help--not a test. Had I known the name I'd not have asked.) Thanks! μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
To make sure my point is clear, if the United/American merger wasn't posted for its size, this one shouldn't either. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The American/Cactus merger was opposed because it was "only" an announcement. The FAA approved it quietly and it wasn't re-nominated. Corporate mergers take some time, and happen in many small steps. There is no ribbon cutting or fireworks or parade or what-have-you to signal that it's done. The announcement is usually the big event. No comment on the above nomination -- (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is notable it needs a much better blurb to explain why. Currently my reaction is "so what?" for example there is no context to explain whether $10.4bn is big or small, nothing to say whether this is likely to be controversial (or not), nothing about whether it was expected or not, etc. Why is this merger more notable than any other merger - as it stands the blurb doesn't tell me it even is more than routine. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Never heard of either companies. Donnie Park (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
....which is likely the case with many of the 7 billion Humans on this planet. There may be other reasons to not post this, but that's not one of them. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
When Fairchild Electronics and Honeywell Computers merge to become Fairwell Honeychild I will support the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose with blurb as it stands. While not trying to quote User:Donnie Park, I've not heard of either company and have no concept of why this is important in the scheme of things that these companies are in. Something like 'major competitors' or 'fourth largest buyout' or any kind of context as to why this is major news may change my vote. (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

August 25Edit

[Posted] 2013 Ashes seriesEdit

Article: 2013 Ashes series (talk, history)
Blurb: England beat Australia 3-0 in the Ashes (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In cricket, the Ashes series concludes with England defeating Australia
News source(s): BBC Sport

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: The Ashes are now over. Well, the Tests are. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  • The Tests are the only things that count for the Ashes (at least in the men's version). The article could do with a few sentences of prose describing the fourth and fifth tests, and making sure all the records are up-to-date with the latest result. Then it will be good to go; ITNR so no need to support. Modest Genius talk 19:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh and we usually use an ENGVAR-neutral phrasing and avoid scores, so I've added an alt blurb. Modest Genius talk 19:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, now that they have actually won. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)... but not required apparently.
  • Support per ITN/R. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Events on ITNR do not need support for their posting(since they are ITNR); the discussion is to evaluate the quality of the article and determine if the update is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • When this was last proposed, consensus was to wait until the tournament was completed; since it is now complete, it should be posted. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC):
    I believe there was a consensus to post earlier when England had retained the Ashes but there wasn't a prose update at all.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    There was no consensus to do anything. The thread was allowed to collect dozens of posts containing completely nonsensical misunderstandings of how The Ashes work, and then allowed to die. If a wise Admin had actually cared, read and paid attention to the thread, England's retaining of The Ashes would have been posted weeks ago. It was a sad, pathetic scene in Wikipedia's history. It's good that this is over and done with now. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment test 4 and test 5 need some sort of textual summary before the article should be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Since no one has yet stepped up to do the update, I will volunteer if someone can find succinct match summaries of test 4 and test 5. (I know nothing about cricket, so it would be even better if a knowledgeable person did it.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It's Tests, not tests. ;-) Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and marked as ready, it's good to go now, update seems adequate for all Tests. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Julie HarrisEdit

Article: Julie Harris (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Award winning actress Julie Harris dies at the age of eighty-seven.
News source(s): New York Times USA Today

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: She won five Tony Awards, three Emmy Awards, a Grammy Award, and was nominated for an Academy Award. Andise1 (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for RD based on notability - I mean, 5x Tonys and 3x Emmys plus a Grammy. But the majority of the article isn't cited and there's already a couple of cite needed tags in there. Miyagawa (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the only "cite needed" that I saw. — Wyliepedia 12:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable in her field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Multiple award winner in both film and theater, indicates importance in the field of acting. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Fully support RD. Notable in any acting venue, plus Grammys. Article is translated into many languages. — Wyliepedia 12:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb The Tony, Emmy, Grammy, and Academy Awards and nominations do nothing for me. The Kennedy Center honors, National Medal of Arts, American Theatre Hall of Fame and Special Lifetime Achievement Tony Award convince me of the significant impact in the field. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Death update needs work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. So close to the EGOT. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Dying on the vine two more sentences would have done this. Am not a fan myself though. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

August 24Edit

August 23Edit

[Posted] Prison riotEdit

Article: 2013 Palmasola prison riot (talk, history)
Blurb: A riot at the Palmasola prison complex in Bolivia kills more than 30 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Daily Telegraph

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Looks like a pretty significant riot that is likely to have lasting consequences to me. I could be wrong, but I don't think this sort of thing is very common in the region (or anywhere else really). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support unless there's something else notable here this is just another death count-story. There have been two recent prison riots with 60 and 25 dead in the last year in Venezuela alone--although our article on riots doesn't even mention the smaller of the two. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC) The article has been well updated to give the story behind the death toll. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Substantial death toll and plenty of international coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I think without something else notable here as Medeis states, there isn't quite enough casualties here. 331dot (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
My specific objection is not that this would be a better story with 45 dead, but that death-count alone doesn't establish encyclopedic notability in any circustance. As for encyclopedic coverag, what we have now is a stub of a stub. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this event does not merit its own article, but we have the article about the prison itself, thus it is an encyclopedic subject. 331dot (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as Neljack says, substantial death toll and plenty of international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if updated. Prison killings are somewhat common in Venezuela, but this may be among the first major prison killings in Bolivia. 31 dead and over 50 injured (plus the extensive international coverage) seem notable enough for the Main Page. I wish I had more time to update the article, though. ComputerJA () 21:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated - article is now updated. Let me know if any quality concerns remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Technically the Palmasola article is updated. But the news story is about the riot, not the prison town. The prison town section is astub that wouldn't meet the update requirement on its own. I am removing the updated "yes" in hopes of bringing to attention my concern below. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment we really need to treat the riot itself as the new article, which would require three paragraphs of update, not the two Thaddeus (good ones) has contributed. AS of now the article explains that the riot broke out between rivals in cell blocks A and B, but we have no idea if the entire cell blocks are at war (two gangs, maybe?) or if this was just a subset of people in each block; why they are separated that way in the first place (a lot of jails in Latin America are run by the inmates); and what exactly the "extortion" going on between the cell blocks amounted to. Without addressing these questions, we basically have an article section that says "for some reason a riot broke out, and 30+ people were killed" which gets back to the idea that the death count is what matters. If the reason for the riot can be addressed in three sentences that will go a long way toward establishing notability. μηδείς (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I think extortion is pretty self explanatory - they wanted money in exchange for not beating up the others. I will change it to say "a gang in cell block A" rather than "members of cell block A" (as some sources say) - it obviously wasn't every person in the cell block. The inmates do control the prison to a large extent, as noted, but that doesn't mean they don't have assigned living quarters. I fail to see why the presence of a wall needs special explanation. More precise explanation probably won't be available until the investigation takes place, but I'll see what I can find. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I am not arguing with your interpretation. I am saying this nomination fails the update requirement (The article Palmasola has nothing to do with the story--so we need an independent three-paragraph section. That can be accomplished very handily by explaining why the prisoners were segregated into mutually hostile cellblocks, if the entire blocks or just some inmates were hostile, and explaining the nature of the extortion that was going on. This can be done by adding two or three additional sourced sentences. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated further - I have expanded from local sources that (hopefully) better explain the significance of the event. There is considerable local reaction calling for reform in the judicial system and an end of the children living there as a result of the riot. Hopefully that addresses the concerns. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
That's most excellent, Thaddeus! The only other thing would be whether the riot section should be created as its own Palmasola prison riot article. I strongly favor that, and would be bold, but don't want to cause a problem. If there's nothing to fear, it really should be separated. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
A stand-alone article now exists, as per your request. I am going to go ahead as mark this as ready now, but of course the reviewing admin should make sure the update and consensus are good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Great. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. Gamaliel (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I changed my vote to support, Gamaliel. I still wouldn't support this on death counat alone. But the update is a very, very good one, and shows what sort of material we can have when people put in the effort. (The effort here was Thaddeus' not mine.) μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Changing to support per Medeis. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Robert BalesEdit

Article: Robert Bales (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former United States Army sergeant Robert Bales, who left his outpost at Camp Belambay to kill sixteen Afghanistan civilians, is sentenced to life in prison without parole for his part in the Kandahar massacre. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Former United States Army sergeant Robert Bales is sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of sixteen Afghanistan civilians in the March 2012 Kandahar massacre.
News source(s): CBS News ABC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a notable sentence in a very notable event. Andise1 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not sure whether I support this or not, but I've written an altblurb that I think gives better context. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The article needs looking at. I won't tag it, but much of it is "background" outside the actual massacre. If this is a plea deal, I'd be happier with a "confesses to avoid the death penalty" statement in the blurb. Otherwise support the nomination, but strongly oppose the original blurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Brandmeistertalk 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The altblurb's good, I would just leave out the month, and Afghan is the proper adjective: "Former U. S. Army sergeant Robert Bales is sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of sixteen Afghan civilians in the 2012 Kandahar massacre" μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Kandahar massacre is a recognized good article. I would think it would be preferable to bold that page (update presumably should be very similar in both articles). Subject was discussed a month ago when Bales confessed and consensus seemed to be to wait until sentencing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whatever the merits of this and the Fort Hood story, we simply cannot post three US court martial decisions in a row. Surely we can't. There are definitely other things happening in the world. Formerip (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to combine this and the Fort Hood story into one posting? The Chelsea Manning story is probably too old and too big at this point to merge? Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment US got some sentencing spree going on... Just like we limit the number of airplane crashes if they happen one after another we should limit these. Pick and chose... cant post them all -- Ashish-g55 00:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Solution? - Post Bales and waiting for sentencing on Hassan (like we did with Bales)? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Wait on Hassan. The guilty verdict is entirely expected, and the sentencing trial doesn't begin until the 26th, by which time Manning will be leaving the queue. I can't quite see posting Hassan now, then updating him in 10 days for the sentence. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. War crimes are notable, and posting the sentence is a good time to. 331dot (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I remove any complaints of undue weight in the article, it seems suitable compared to other mass-murderers. The article is well written, and while the update is only 3 sentences, they are well referenced and quite fulfilling. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready Yes, I see there are just two full supports here, but every single comment favors the posting, including comments under Hassan above, insisting this be given precedence. This should be posted with all due haste. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I've added some details on each phase of the trial to Bale's article, which for an "ongoing event" in principle all counts toward the update. (Sentencing itself is 1.5 paragraphs anyway.) I nominated this during the last phase (pleading guilty) when it wasn't posted due to ITN's preference to wait for the last step, so obviously I support it now as well. Final end to one of the biggest stories of 2012. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - war crime. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Change blurb to "US soldier." The current blurb on the main page says "US sergeant," which is inaccurate, because he was reduced in rank to E-1. In any event the fact that he's a Soldier is more relevant than whatever rank he is or was. -LtNOWIS (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done --Jayron32 14:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Fort Hood massacreEdit

Article: Nidal Malik Hasan (talk, history)
Blurb: Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman convicted of shooting and killing thirteen people in the Fort Hood massacre, receives a death sentence recommendation by a military jury (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Daily Mail Death Sentence: [AP]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a notable conviction in a very notable event. Andise1 (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Was just coming here to nominate this. Major incident, convictions are usually posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, this is a highly notable conviction, and is the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11--am not opposed to waiting until sentence is passed. μηδείς (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhpas wait until sentencing - to avoid (potentially) posting 3 US military trials at the same time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait for sentencing. Clearly a notable event, but suggest we wait for sentencing. If he receives the death penalty he will be the first soldier in some time to get it. 331dot (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • See the Robert Bales nomination above, which I have marked ready partially in response to the comments on this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but wait until sentencing, per above.--Chaser (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for me personally I support Robert Bales ITN but this one is an national story of a shooting without any international implications or even major national ones for that matter etc...Not for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
According to his article, he had contact with the late Anwar al-Awlaki whom he said he could not wait to join in the afterlife, at least attempted to contact Al Qaeda, and frequented other terrorist websites. This is not just a workplace shooting. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can "attempt" to contact al-Qaeda and frequent terrorist websites, so that's not saying much. And Anwar al-Awlaki was imam at one of the most well-known mosques in the Washington, D.C., area, where Hasan lived, so that's not saying much either. -- tariqabjotu 18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how you define "much". The "much" here seems to be his victims. But his actions take place in a world-wide context, which he himself asserted in his "defense". The fact that he didn't, say, cross the border and kill Canadians is of no relevance to the nomination. One can't point at Hassan's contacting Awlaki as based on a desire to rekindle a prior friendship based on a shared joy of movies and pop-corn on Saturday nights. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems that ITN is now waiting for sentencing to post. Am I correct that this is the consensus? Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
That is my assumption. The Manning story will be off the queue by then, so we won't have three court martials. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sentenced Hassan has been sentenced to death[12], this is ready to go once updated. I will be busy for some time, in case anyone else can get to it. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear (and most of the sources reporting about this are not sufficiently clear on this point): The jury has returned a recommendation that Hasan be sentenced to death. The actual sentencing will be done by the judge, and has apparently not happened yet. In principle, the judge could sentence Hasan to life in prison with no possibility of parole, despite the jury's recommendation; this will probably not happen, but it could happen. Given the decision to wait on sentencing before we feature this item, arguably ought to wait on the actual sentence to be handed down before posting. (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt you, and agree if that's the case. Do you have a source? Because the sources I have read report the jury's sentence as final. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
CNN has a story with more details on the procedure for capital cases under the UCMJ. They are reporting that the judge has accepted the verdict, but that the "convening authority" - a general with authority over the court martial - could still decline to impose a death sentence. This is a recent update since my above comment, hence why it doesn't quite agree with it, but the point still stands. (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Brisbane Times article indicates that series of events could take up to four years (unless I'm reading the last paragraph incorrectly). Whether or not the appeals process occurs before the death penalty is upheld & definite is unclear and probably needs a military source. (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The news is that he has been sentenced to death now at the stage where that occurs, not that his heart has stopped beating. This should go up soon as long as we have no reason to believe it will be overturned by the convening authority. Even then it can be corrected. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:Medeis, day of sentencing is the main event - so to speak - and an appeals process or potential overruling or overturning (whichever is the proper term here) is a later event to consider when it happens. (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready I have modified the blurb to reflect the accurate fact that the jury has sentenced him to death. It will not be news in months if this finding is not overturned--which is not anticipated--just stale. The story is topical, the article well updated, and the news now. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
PS given the hold, this should be posted to ITN as of today's sentencing, not last week's conviction. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question, per the other US soldier mass murderer (Bales), has Hasan been removed of his rank, i.e. is it still correct to call him an officer? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    Aha, it looks like he was "dismissed". Perhaps, per Bales, this should be reflected in the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
He was an officer who was an officer at the time he was sentenced. I don't think we need to overworry the technicalities. I greatly prefer Tariq's blurb over the one I gave, which is too worried about technicalities. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
With Bales, his new rank (E-1) has replaced his old rank (E-5). So if you say "Bales is a sergeant," you're wrong. With Hasan, he will never again have a non-officer rank, and the dismissal isn't in effect yet AFAIK. So I'm ok with the current blurb. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, and "13 people" should link to Fort_Hood_shooting#Fatalities. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
@Dainomite: At least for me, that use of {{ping}} doesn't work. That being said, I saw this query earlier. I could understand changing that link, but I think adding Medeis' would make the blurb a sea of links. Fort Hood shooting is already linked anyway. One issue, though, is that I feel the blurb seems a bit contrived, shoehorning in the phrase "Fort Hood shooting". I guess it mirrors the Kandahar massacre blurb, but it seems like it would sound much better if it said U.S. Army officer Nidal Malik Hasan is sentenced to death for killing thirteen people at Fort Hood in Texas. In that case, I would leave out a link to any capital punishment article (it's hardly an essential link, given death sentences are self-explanatory) to avoid the sea of links problem. I'll add the link you request, but some thoughts on that rewording would be nice. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed current blurb is strained, no objection to TA's suggested blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Norrmalmstorg robberyEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 07:44, 24 August 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: Norrmalmstorg robbery (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 40th anniversary of the Norrmalmstorg robbery against the Kreditbanken in Sweden occurs, the robbery was the birth of the psychological phenomenon Stockholm syndrome. (Post)
News source(s): [13], [14], [15]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Feel free to change blurb. I find this to be a notable anniversary. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't find anniversaries to be notable at all, let alone newsworthy. In the case of the Iranian coup though, at least there was a new development (CIA acknowledging their role). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Said the american.... No offense.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What does my nationality have to do with this? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, what does his nationality have to do with this? Looks a low blow, to be honest. And no, I'm not American. Redverton (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, anniversaries are put in the 'On This Day' section. Abductive (reasoning) 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is an item for 'On This Day' or 'Did You Know'. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just an anniversary, which isn't noteworthy enough for ITN. Redverton (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as should all good Americans. (?!?) μηδείς (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fuck the Swedes Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:39, 24 August 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.

August 22Edit

[Posted] WISEEdit

Article: Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (talk, history)
Blurb: NASA recommissions the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (pictured) to search for asteroids. (Post)
Alternative blurb: NASA recommissions the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (pictured) to search for asteroids.
News source(s): Discovery The Register Syndney Morning Herald

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Its not everyday a decommissioned space craft is brought back to life. Coverage is broad, worldwide, and from a diverse set of sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - I like this nomination a lot, as the article is in fine shape and the information is interesting and of worldwide interest. ThaddeusB, I salute you! Jusdafax 01:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator's comment. (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Good news for space exploration. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, sure, why not? The failure of Kepler was posted. Abductive (reasoning) 19:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and other supporters. No reason not to post this. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready - article is updated and ready to go. Altblurb added with direct link to new section. (I have no preference between the two versions). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support/Blurb I support posting and slightly prefer the alt blurb. Darkest Tree Talk 23:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Hanamanteo (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Atomic clockEdit

Article: Atomic clock (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Researchers reveal the most stable atomic clock invented to date. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Research was published today in Science, but was previously hinted at in Nature Communications last month (and covered in some popular media sources at that time) so I'll let the community decide if it is "stale" or not... Clock is consistent to 10^-18 which will allow it to further our understanding of fundamental physical forces. CNN calls it a "breakthrough". BBC says it could "redefine the second". TIME says it is "Poised to Redefine Timekeeping". --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Three times more stable than previous clocks is, to me, not a revolutionary upgrade to performance. New technology is always going to be an improvement on old technology, and, in this case, I don't think it's such a huge step-change to be sufficiently notable for ITN. --LukeSurl t c 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with your oppose, but remember Windows Vista... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems appropriate for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to support anything that doesn't involve random mayhem or violence. But this article has two-updates of a total of 5 bytes. We'd need a new paragraph or a new article with three of them. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 21Edit


Article: Lemur (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An assessment of the International Union for Conservation of Nature indicates that 90% of all lemur species could be extinct within 20 to 25 years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The International Union for Conservation of Nature proposes a $7.6 million USD conservation plan to prevent the extinction of lemurs.
News source(s): MSN Now, The Telegraph, International Business Times, Epoch Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: IUCN announcement claims that a large percentage of all lemurs may be extinct within 20 years. --– Maky « talk » 04:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. This is a major claim that has a lot of validity given the situation in Madagascar. Lemurs are very diverse, and the number of species they encompass makes up a very large percentage of the order Primates. – Maky « talk » 04:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unfortunately, such a claim is the case with many species. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but last year lemurs are considered the most endangered mammals. Also, earlier this month ITNC supported the listing of a new lemur species, claiming any new addition to the order Primates to be significant. Certainly the impending loss of 90% of all lemur species is at least equally newsworthy. – Maky « talk » 12:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This assessment may trigger conservation efforts and as such the extinction may be prevented. It would be notable (alas) only if the event occurs. Brandmeistertalk 13:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright... would you rather I word it that the IUCN is attempting to initiate a $7.6 million USD conservation program in Madagascar to save lemurs? – Maky « talk » 03:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The original blurb can possibly be seen to be WP:CRYSTALBALL/predictive (that some editors may feel more strongly against); feel free to add it as an altblurb. SpencerT♦C 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Alt added, and I tried to make it not sound predictive. Funny... I thought ITNC wanted stuff about nature and conservation following the last ITNC candidate involving lemurs. – Maky « talk » 14:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Discoveries of species are notable as they can only happen once. Reports and predictions of future statuses of animals per se are not notable as they are by their very nature only predictions and in almost all cases are never fulfilled (probably due to responses to the report). Proposals are not exactly notable either... YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, species cannot be discovered *only* once. They can be discovered and made synonymous with existing species, then split off again by genetic tests, and then be made synonymous again by different genetic tests. A few "new lemur species" in the past 10 years have already been through this. But major conservation efforts to save the most endangered group of mammals (within our own taxonomic order)—a program that would also (hopefully) improve the lives of millions of humans, too—should be considered much more notable. It's not like the IUCN just made up the $7.6 million USD number on a whim. I'm sure there's mountains of research and massive collaborative attempts all coming together to make this happen. But you guys know what's best... after all, a lowly mayor in a US city resigning over sexual harassment charges is so critically important. ;-) – Maky « talk » 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

RD: Sid BernsteinEdit

Article: Sid Bernstein (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The man responsible for bringing the British Invasion (via the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc.) to the US music scene. Not influential enough (as a producer, not musician) for a standalone blurb, but reasonably significant for an RD line. --MASEM (t) 20:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as the inventor of the multi-billion dollar sports-arena concert venue. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to have had a major impact with the British Invasion. Article could do with some work, though. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Call me annoyingly over-sceptical if you like, and please set me straight if you have facts that say I'm wrong. I'm sensing that this guy was a successful concert promoter and a great self-publicist, but I wonder if his key claims to fame really stack up. Firstly, the Beatles first visit to America consisted of their famous performances on the Ed Sullivan show, and concerts at Washington Coliseum and New York Carnegie Hall. Bernstein was responsible for booking them for Carnegie Hall, their third booking in the US. So, while he was not an unimportant figure in their career at that time, "brought the Beatles to America" seems like an exaggeration. And the Beatles performance at Shea Stadium in 1965 was not the first concert to be held in a sports stadium. Elvis Presley had certainly made a number of stadium appearances and the Beatles themselves played 6 stadium venues on their 1964 tour of North America [16]. In any event, the article needs more content and more sourcing. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per FormerIP. He seems to be one of several promoters responsible for the Beatles success. The article doesn't do that much to assert his notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Bradley ManningEdit

Articles: Bradley Manning (talk, history) and United States v. Bradley Manning (talk, history)
Blurb: Bradley Manning is sentenced to 35 years in custody for releasing classified information to WikiLeaks (Post)
News source(s): [17]

Nominator's comments: Of interest --Abductive (reasoning) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. This is major news with national and international implications. Girona7 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Such a long sentence for someone who thought of himself as a truth-teller will spur global debate over national-security issues vs. free speech and "whistle-blowing." Sca (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think(?) I may of opposed the initial nom but now he's been sentenced I think the story is suitable to go up. This is definitely news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We didn't post his verdict last month Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2013#Bradley_Manning_verdict. This time let's post his sentence. Let's also make sure the article gets updated in a timely manner. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A sentence roughly equal to ten My Lai massacres. Just saying. Formerip (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The words "classified information" could be linked to United States diplomatic cables leak --LukeSurl t c 18:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The person is now known as Chelsea Manning (although the official name is still the same). Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that the name should be changed on the Main Page if that's what the article title is now. The Moose is loose! 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That the article is titled that now is irrelevant. The move wasn't a result of a consensus-building process, but of a pair of editors' moving and a move-protection keeping it in place. It may be reversed, per WP:RMT. We especially have a problem on the Main Page, where it's a bit of a mouthful to clarify that Chelsea Manning is who everyone knows as Bradley Manning. -- tariqabjotu 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As I say below, MOS:IDENTITY says that the proper name of the page is "Chelsea". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the name change in the blurb until he/she legally changes his/her name and gender. The blurb is confusing and too long the way it is currently. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • She asked to go by Chelsea. Standard practice is to respect that request, even though she's more commonly known as Bradley. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Can you cite that standard practice just for my information? I don't advocate changing the article or article title, just the blurb which could confuse people. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
        • From GLAAD: "Always use a transgender person's chosen name" (scroll down to "Names, Pronoun Usage & Descriptions". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I was referring to a Wikipedia policy; but if we are going to go that route then "Bradley" should just be removed from the blurb. The blurb doesn't need to provide a history of her name change. Chelsea looks like the displayed image currently anyway. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh, LOL good point. I don't know if there is a Wikipedia policy on transgender individuals. I work in the mental health field, though, and it is our S.O.P. to refer to transgender individuals as they wish to be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I think the name "Bradley" should stay in the blurb, since it is the WP:COMMONNAME, but maybe we can change "legally" to "formerly" to reduce confusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
              • You do realize WP:COMMONNAME is an article titling policy, right? -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
                • Not one that should trump MOS. According to MOS:IDENTITY, "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. " – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Request: If we're going to mention Manning's old name, can we say 'formerly' instead of 'legally', please? In a common-law jurisdiction, someone's legal name is generally whatever they call themselves. Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about the state Manning is from, but in most states one must go to court to change their name legally. One can call themselves whatever they want (much like Stefani Germanotta calls herself Lady Gaga and Katy Perry's legal name is Kathryn Hudson) but that doesn't mean they have legally changed their name. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Manning has not legally changed her name yet. She is in the early stages of the gender transition. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a federal case. Do you have any evidence that the legal name of an adult at federal law is anything other than what they call themselves? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment per the discussion here and at the article talk about what "legal name" means and the lack of consensus about whether it is relevant, I have changed the blurb from "legally Bradley Manning" to "formerly Bradley Manning" as this is factually correct regardless of what their legal name is or what status it has. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Restore original blurb Can we restore the original blurb, please? Pouncing on today's announcement by Manning is titilating but can we please wait until the issue is settled amongst reliable sources, which still refer to Manning as Bradley. It's too soon and MOS:IDENTITY gives no guidance as to what name to apply to a person. --RA () 00:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Eh? The second bullet at MOS:IDENTITY starts Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest "expressed gender self-identification. (italics per original). It is reported in many reliable sources that Manning's latest expressed self-identification is as a female named "Chelsea Manning". Further, as extensively noted on the article talk page reliable sources published since this statement was made are using female pronouns, etc. Finally, the article is currently at Chelsea Manning and the main page link should absolutely match the name of the article. If you wish to express your disagreement with the title of the article, there is a currently open requested move on the talk page for this very purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    "Chelsea Manning" is not a gendered noun (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronoun, or possessive adjective. It is a name. As I wrote, "It's too soon and MOS:IDENTITY gives no guidance as to what name to apply to a person." Also, please don't be picky with reliable sources. For example, this BBC report on Manning's announcement uses "he" and refers to Manning as "Bradley" and is far more typical of reporting.
    This whole thing is far too rushed and the move (which was obviously going to be controversial) was made without discussion. I have already contributed to the discussion on the talk page to restore the article title. --RA () 00:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, given how clear both Manning's statement and Wikipedia's BLP policies are, it was not obviously going to be controversial. Which reliable sources refer to her as male and which refer to her as female is an issue not for here but for Talk:Chelsea Manning. All that matters for this page is that the main page blurb matches the current title of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In any event, I think the new blurb handles it very well. The Moose is loose! 03:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Restore original blurb The revised one cannot be interpreted as correct. His legal name is Bradley, that is the name he was charged and prosecuted under and convicted as. In circumstances such as this is is usual to use the contemporary name for the events in question, which is Bradley. If we cast that aside and reflect things as they are currently he is not a US solider. Therefore your possible interpretation of the blurb are either wrong, wrong or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's policies are clear that a person should be referred to using their latest expressed gender identity (in this case a female called Chelsea) for all periods of their life. Yes, she was charged and convicted under the name "Bradley" but while the article is at Chelsea Manning that is where the blurb must link. The "(formerly known as Bradley Manning)" gives the necessary context for people who are not aware of her latest expressed identity, so in the absence of better wording for the contextual note (please feel free to share any suggestions you have) there is nothing that needs to be changed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Propose closing this discussion. Manning's sentence was a near indisputable consensus for ITN. THe debate over the name change is being discussed at many places at the moment--I suggest primarily directing editors to WP:ERRORS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Any Wikipedia/ITN precedent? - In the past, if an ITN individual said something like "call me "The Pope" did we honor that or stick with using thier legal name? If "Chelsea" (whom I assume still has to use the toilet the way other men do) decided to be Barbara tomorrow or Bob the next - how is the article kept up? Just asking...

OR: Just preserve the news sequencing and say it as it actually played out - "Bradley Manning (who afterward asked to be addressed as Chelsea Manning) is convicted of..." - that way the name at the the time of conviction and the subsequent rename request are both acknowledged.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Your first comment (Barbara or Bob) shows a stunning lack of understanding of transgender individuals and what they go through. Your latter suggestion adds unnecessary words that are better expressed with the word "formerly". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
ITN and every other main page item practice is to match the title of an article in all cases except where pipes are used to avoid dismabiguation or for a more natural flow of words (e.g. today's featured article blurb is: [[Albert Bridge, London|Albert Bridge]] is a [[listed building|Grade II* listed]] road bridge over the [[River Thames]] in [[London]]...). Precedent is that if an article is moved, the link on the main page is updated to match the new article title. Regarding your comment "whom I assume still has to use the toilet the way other men do", the way any person uses the toilet is absolutely none of your or our business and speculating about it is a gross invasion of their privacy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Request to PULL Chelsea Manning from ITN, replace with new newsEdit

Hello, first time posting re: the Main Page, so forgive me if I'm not following convention correctly. But I would like to submit a request that Chelsea Manning be pulled from ITN. This item has already been up here for over two (?) days and I think the newsworthiness of this item is fading. There are other world news events that probably merit inclusion (which I am not here suggesting, but merely giving for examples) such as the bombing in Lebanon, wildfires in Yosemite, UN military action in the Congo, and the fires in Portugal. I think that the sentencing of Chelsea Manning has been adequately covered, and the name/gender announcement has been at least reported, even if Wikipedia can't agree on how. However, keeping this item at the top of ITN does serve to continue to draw attention to the ongoing large-scale conflict among editors regarding the proposed move of that article and use of gender pronouns throughout. I think that is detrimental to the overall encyclopedia project, and I think wikipedians need to have this conflict behind the scenes without essentially advertising it to the world on the Main Page. Also, I don't know if I'm reading the red box at the top of this page correctly, but it looks like a new ITN item is some 12 to 24 hours overdue, so, maybe it's time. Respectfully, Darkest Tree Talk 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Things don't get "pulled" just because they're not immediately new. They rotate off when newer items are posted. If you want something else to be posted, nominate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It looks like a number of good candidate news items have been nominated at this point. It also looks like a rotation of ITN items is overdue. Again, my concern is that the above conflict, and the one taking place at the article in question, are detrimental to the encyclopedia project. Given the circumstances, I believe we should remove this article from ITN at this point. I thought this was the best place to express that opinion. I'm new to interacting with the Main Page, so I don't know what other steps I could take here—I don't want to just re-post nominations for other news items that are already nominated. Darkest Tree Talk 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • If you want to argue an article is so egregious on its own it has to be pulled you can do that. But there's no combination dinner "stale pork, pulled chicken". Articles stay up until they fall off the bottom of the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not trying to argue that the article itself is egregious, although I do think its GA status has now been called into question, which would differ from when it went up in ITN, I think. But, the point I'm trying to make is, it appears World War III has broken out on Wikipedia over Chelsea Manning. I'm saying that maybe, under these circumstances, an exception should be made to normal procedure, and this article should fall off of ITN now. I'm concerned that keeping it at the top of ITN (newer ITN items are now being posted below it) is among other things helping to drive traffic to the conflict. Witness the canvas tags on the article's talk page. Which is not beneficial to the encyclopedia. Darkest Tree Talk 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • ITN blurbs appear in the order they happened, newest at the top, not the order in which they gained consensus for posting. Recent deaths always appear on the bottom line of the template, starting with the most recent on the left. Canvassing is when a person is asked by another to comment in a discussion, it does not happen by people themselves finding the talk page of an article from a main page link. Finally, we do not require articles to be of any particular standard to be featured in the news and in any case the GA review was closed as premature (unless another has been opened?). In short I'm not seeing any reason why this needs to be pulled. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Support Pull - The name thing has become ridiculously controversial. Having the ITN blurb just seems to advertise that controversy. NickCT (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Items are not pulled because they are controversial. --Jayron32 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I am not even sure where this is 'controversial' in regards to policy, and I am a conservative opponent of most gender-related topics at ITN. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                  • @μηδείς - Not sure huh? I suggest you take a quick glance at the several pages worth of debate that's developed on this topic. Perhaps you'll understand a little better. @Jayron - Oh aren't they? Cite please. NickCT (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                      • So, you've made a demand that we do something that's never been done before, and it's now other people's job to prove that you shouldn't do it? Riiiight. --Jayron32 11:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                    • Please don't comment using my signature, NickCT. My user name: User:Medeis is fine per policy. As for the debate you reference, you'll need to link me to it if you want me to read it. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                      • Talk:Chelsea Manning. Like, the whole entire talk page. Or check out WP:ERRORS. Or Talk:Main Page. Or WP:ANI. Or WP:VPP. Or, you know, right here. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                        • I take it, Tariq, you mean he was using "the debate" in the abstract collective sense then, not just referring to one specific discussion? In any case, Jayron has inserted the relative response above. One doesn't establish a new policy by asserting there's no rule against it and challenging doubters to prove the negative or accept the change. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose pull. We don't pull items because they are not new, too controversial, or solely due to article tags(usually if an article is that bad it wouldn't have been posted in the first place). Unless there was some sort of impropriety in the nominating process, it should stay. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Syrian gas attackEdit

Article: Ghouta chemical attack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Opposition sources report hundreds of people were killed in a government poison-gas rocket attack that struck the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Hundreds of people are reported killed in an unconfirmed chemical attack in the Ghouta region of Syria.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: If confirmed, the reports — one of which cited 1,300 deaths — probably would constitute the largest-scale use of poison gas in military operations in nearly a century (since World War I). Sca (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. So far this is only a claim by the opposition, and the regime has denied it. The alleged attack is definitely not the worst since WW1, see Halabja poison gas attack. The UN weapons inspectors are there in Syria and if the attack is confirmed, then I'd support. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with Mohamed CJ on this one. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Clearly "if confirmed" are the critical words here. I think we should hold back until then. Also Syrian Civil War is a vast article. Is there a more specific one that could be linked? --LukeSurl t c 15:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's comment: Given the amount of attention this will generate, I would expect the reports to be confirmed or disproved quite soon. I stand corrected re Halabja poison gas attack. Sca (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Approve if modified to have a clearly verifiable fact: The United Nations Security Council holds an emergency meeting after an alleged attack in Damascus with chemical weapons killing over xxx people. L.tak (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's comment: Updated BBC story refers to "chemical weapons" rather than poison gas, but Reuters still speaks of "gassing hundreds of people." BBC asks people on the ground to contribute info with this appeal: Are you in Ghouta or do you have any family or friends in the area? Please share your experience with us using the form below. Sca (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Poison gas and chemical weapons are almost synonymous here (a dedicated poison gas/spray is by definition a chemical weapon, but the latter is the common term I believe...), but the "who has done it", "how exactly" (and even "when") is not likely to be resolved soon. It's war out there, which means none of the information should be relied upon directly; hence my security council proposal... L.tak (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's in the news, we have an article in decent shape here August_2013_Ghouta_chemical_attack - I've change the article linked above to that, it seems like 100 to 1500 people are dead with significant international ramifications. I can't help but support posting. EdwardLane (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Seeing the latest developments, it looks like efforts to try and confirm and efforts to prevent confirmation are also part of the story. August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack is shaping up to be a good article, and, if it can be kept reasonably neutral, I would support main page posting. --LukeSurl t c 13:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack seems a credible summary based on current reports. In view of footage of victims online and general global outrage, posting without unequivocal confirmation seems justified. Sca (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: It's posted, without death toll, in French Wiki's Actualités et événements. Sca (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
PPS: Spiegel's English site says "Experts Attest to Use of Nerve Gas in Syria" — Sca (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is being widely reported, and not as a hoax. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this is ready. Please note that EdwardLane's and my bold supports are not nicely aligned to the left hand side and the two original opposes were quite early on in the development of the story. --LukeSurl t c 10:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Obama on Aug. 23 said the reports constitute "a big event of grave concern." Sca (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - High death toll, a lot of media attention.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready this is updated and supported, but I have no opinion on a proper blurb. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support/Blurb I think either the proposed or alternate blurb are fine. The alternate may be an overabundance of caution given all the news sources that are essentially confirming this event. Darkest Tree Talk 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted I basically posted the alternate blurb, but without "unconfirmed"; it already says reported anyway. -- tariqabjotu 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
At last! It's not clear to me whether Ghouta is considered part of Damascus or a suburban region of Damascus, but perhaps the blurb should say "in the Ghouta region of the Syrian capital, Damascus" — or words to that effect. Sca (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not in Damascus; it's in Rif Dimashq (which means the countryside of Damascus). If you look at the map on Rif Dimashq, you see a hole in the center of the region; that is the city of Damascus. -- tariqabjotu 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, how about "near Damascus" or "outside Damascus"? I raise this question because Damascus is widely known in the English-speaking world whereas Ghouta isn't — not yet, anyway. Sca (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 20Edit

RD : Narendra DabholkarEdit

Article: Narendra Dabholkar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Rationalist campaigner Narendra Dabholkar is assassinated in Maharashtra, India.
News source(s): The Guardian

Article updated
  • Hold: I sense that more would come out on the topic and i guess we can wait till then. As of now, the death is covered sufficiently, but the aftermath in politics and common public is yet to come out and be written about. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This was an assassination/murder rather than a natural death. As the death itself is the story (rather than an obituary piece) we should be considering blurbs. --LukeSurl t c 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Would support this as a blurb rather than RD. Maybe the article could be fleshed out a little first, though. Formerip (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • How important is rationalism as a movement in India? SpencerT♦C 03:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to get an answer to that. Important enough to get you killed, maybe?
The story seems to be leading in today's Indian press, though: [18] [19] [20] [21] Formerip (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Same here. I have been thinking for a while on how to answer this. Frankly speaking he wasn't someone who appeared daily in news; at least not in recent 2-3 years. But he started his activism in 1980s and that's when he must have created enough ripples. The fact does remain that his assassination has been covered as headline in various newspapers, both regional and national. The city of Pune remained bandh today, although not very strictly. But auto rickshaws stayed away from road from 10am to 5pm. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support - As said earlier, killing a person who used non violent means is a news in itself. And world must know about it. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There may be other reasons to post this, but using Wikipedia just to publicize an event is not one of them. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear 331dot, Thanks for the comment. My duty was to bring the issue to the notice of experienced editors and I guess I have done that. I leave the issue now to the wisdom of the community. He worked in his life to fight against blind faith. He was one of the most important figures in India who are working in this direction. There are very great editors and I am sure that they are reading this. I request them to take the decision as what they think is right. Thanks for listening. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose per aboe. WP does not run media campaigns to highlight POVs. He was not known and nor is his death features in international ,edia. Should be an easy oppose considering the hordes we turn down (and approve)Lihaas (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure which is worse: supporting something because you personally feel it is important or opposing something because somebody else feels it is important. Formerip (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support His death has also received some global coverage, for example see The Guardian and BBC. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, Australia [22] Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC) and United States [23] Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment As per given references, it is very clear that he was very important person. Now the question that remains is - are we supporting him or opposing him. Though we support or we oppose, we cannot neglect him. And I would like to state that people who are opposing are trying to oppose his thoughts. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No one is opposing anyone's thoughts here. The question is does this person meet the criteria for inclusion. No more, no less. This isn't a forum to publicize causes or to be a memorial to people. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Elmore LeonardEdit

Article: Elmore Leonard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Highly influential writer. Being described by the New York Times as a "Novelist Who Elevated the Status of Crime Thrillers", and they haven't even posted an obit yet. Not much to update, and the article does a pretty good job explaining his legacy.  — PublicAmpers&(main accounttalkblock) 14:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Times obit up now. "Secured his status as a modern master of American genre writing", "reinventing [the thriller] for a new generation and elevating it to a higher literary shelf", etc. Think that should satisfy criterion 2. — PublicAmpers&(main accounttalkblock) 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, a well known writer, the article is updated. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Based on the number of his novels that was adapted into blockbuster films. Donnie Park (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Got to -- I've read probably thirty of his novels. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Article needs work - there are many short choppy "paragraphs", several bare url citations, and the article is somewhat short in general. The update is pretty minimal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable in his field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for blurb I personally think he's one of the few deaths that is acually blurb worthy, he was one of the top authors of the 20th century especially in the crime/thriller genrue, and paved way to countless authors who are still writing today Tom Clancy, James Patterson, and so forth and won the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution which is pretty much the top legacy award given to an author outside the Nobel Prize. Secret account 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD certainly meets the death criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • support per RD criteria--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb Given the awards and tributes, seems to qualify for RD. I don't think he's close to the blurb level, though, and I would have to dispute the statement that the National Book Award for Distinguished Contribution is "the top legacy award given to an author outside the Nobel Prize." It's only open to Americans, for one thing, and I would have said that the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, to give just one example, was certainly more prestigious internationally. Neljack (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The Man Booker International Prize is another example of a more prestigious award for an overall body of work. Neljack (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. As far as I can see, the only thing holding this from getting posted is the article; two of its sections have orange tags. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It's ridiculous that this hasn't been posted yet. Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • What's ridiculous is that people complain about things not being posted w/o making any attempt to improve the article. At current the career section is all of two short paragraphs, one of which is uncited. The early life section is also almost completely unreferenced. The adaptations section is unreferenced and full of short choppy paragraphs. Two of his five awards are unreferenced. The article is in violation of BLP at current (which applies to recently deceased people too) as too much material is unreferenced. I stand by my assessment that the article is not up to quality standards despite Medeis removing the issue tags w/o actually addressing the problems.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Also the death update is rather weak --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Removing "ready" tags again based on that sound logic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, "he was 85", is weak, but the section is technically updated. If we are going to get down to aesthetics, then the people who express dissatisfaction would do well to make the improvements they want themselves. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready, all tags have been addressed, collapsed or removed. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • While all tags have indeed been removed (and many of the citation needed tags were actually fixed instead of just removed as "unnecessary"), some were not actually addressed. For example, I hardly consider commenting out a perfect valid {{expand section}} tag in the career section with the rational "non-essential tag" to be an article improvement. I don't know why it is so hard to write more than 6 sentences (and reference more than 1 of those 6!) on a career that spanned 60 years. Apparently nothing notable happened in his career after 1960!?!? I won't edit war to restore the tag, but I consider it pathetic that much of ITN (apparently) rather try to force an article through in a so-so state because they like the guy rather than actually work on adding content to the encyclopedia. (And no it is not my job to fix the article because I object to its quality.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

TLDNR. Leave on my talk if important. μηδείς (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support RD, oppose blurb - This is a compromise. Article is on the thin side per Thaddeus but I think if some of his objections were posted to the talk page the issues would be dealt with. Let's run it before it goes wholly stale. Jusdafax 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Please Post unless there's some other problem not visible this is ready to go. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Very few of my concerns were actually addressed, instead they just hidden or declared invalid by Medeis. However, I am fine with the posting since the consensus seemed to be was was just barely "good enough" given Leonard's high importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I (mildly, don't get me wrong) resent the accusations of having pushed this through for liking the man. I haven't read a single one of his books, and have seen only "Be Cool" (which he criticized) and perhaps half a season of Justified, which holds my attention, but by no means thrills me or makes me want to try reading him. I only got involved after 24 hours of this not going up because any objective judgment of him from a critic or fan viewpoint required he be posted on the merits. Neither is there anything wrong with collapsing or deleting unsupported material. If anyone is going to expand the article, it should be a fan who knows his work who wants to put in the unpaid effort. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • For the record, the pushing it through for liking the guy comment was directed at no one in particular. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

August 19Edit

[Posted] Iranian coup d'état (60 years ago, but this just coming in)Edit

Article: 1953 Iranian coup d'état (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The CIA acknowledges its role in organizing the 1953 Iranian coup d'état for the first time. (Post)
News source(s): [24]

Article updated

 Formerip (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. I could understand posting this, but personally I think they're just admitting what everyone knew already. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-This is a meaningful admission of unwarranted interference within another nation's affairs. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the fact the CIA hadn't admitted it didn't mean it wasn't known. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I find affirmation of putative fact to be noteworthy, when the fact in question itself is noteworthy. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, it is a notable confirmation.Egeymi (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, notable correction of history. Been a topic of US presidential debates and influential in US foreign politics in the region. Somewhat akin to admitting there was no WMD after all. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Sun Creator's missing WMD is a good analogy. Thue (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose its been known and it has no lasting effect. (the admission). IF Iran steps up some measure based on thisS THEN we can consider postingLihaas (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - We need to avoid letting POV creep in here; there is undue and misleading influence on the nomination. Some of the opposes of "everybody knew this already" cannot be proven to be true, just because we surround ourselves with people who share similar opinions. The CIA's statement should serve to remove all doubt, not to merely affirm what basically amounts to conjecture. WaltCip (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Letting precisely what POV creep in here? This is a 60 year-old story, all the principals are dead. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Update is 2 sentences (in the lead only) at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The fact that this took them 60 years to acknowledge it is noteworthy. According to the BBC Arabic radio, American historians documented all of the details of this case, but due to MI6 pressure, this publishing the results was detailed several years. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've added a 3-line paragraph at the end of "The coup and CIA records" section. I think this and the lead updates are sufficient and have marked the article updated. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - mostly due to the limited scope of the update (which is as it should be), but also because I agree that the admission is unlikely to have lasting consequences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • support. This is a major admission of strong symbolic importance. There are many things that 'everybody knows'.that are denied by official sources. I strongly question how anybody can assert this will have no lasting consequences. Certainly, one can only speculate about the future. But this could become the starting point of an improvement in Iran-United States relations, particularly if Iran becomes controlled by a more moderate government. --Johnsemlak (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It WASNT an admission. It was a coerced release by the RTI with CIA ressitance.[25]Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if they were pressured it was still an admission. The source you cited says it was the 'CIA's first formal acknowledgement'; it goes on to say that "The 1953 coup remains a topic of global interest." Just about everything that article states strengthens the notability of this nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The update requirement is not fulfilled; while there have been recent updates to the article as a whole, there is only a one-sentence update on the CIA story. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sure this is longer than one sentence. In lead: In August 2013 the CIA formally admitted that it was involved in both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda.[8][9] The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out "under CIA direction" and "as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government."[10]. In The coup and CIA records section: In August 2013, at the sixtieth anniversary of the coup, the CIA released documents showing they have been involved in staging the coup. The documents also describe the motivations behind the coup and the strategies used to stage it.[6] The documents also showed that the UK tried to censor information regarding its role in the coup. The Foreign Office said "it could neither confirm nor deny Britain's involvement in the coup". Many CIA documents about the coup were still classified.[9]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Fascinating admission of interest world wide. Someone needs to do a bit of updating to get this posted. Can't be me, other matters compel my time. Jusdafax 03:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major admission, good article, encyclopaedic development. The coup itself has had major effects, and regardless of the widespread suspicions the involvement of the CIA is unlikely to be widely known to readers, at least until they read our article. Modest Genius talk 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated. I have re-marked the article as updated. Since I've !voted above, I'd rather not mark it as ready myself. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 06:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 China–Russia floodsEdit

Article: 2013 China–Russia floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Flooding in northeastern China and eastern Russia kills at least 85 people. (Post)
News source(s): Xinhua Daily Telegraph Times of India

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant death toll. Worst flood in "several decades" (China) or "a century" (Russia) in the affected areas. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Leaning support, presuming corroboration from non-native media sources that these floods are as exceptional as being claimed, and presuming further development of the article, (as noted by the nominator). —WFCFL wishlist 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Chinese flood we posted a few weeks ago was also reported as historical in scale. It's very sad, but it's monsoon season. Formerip (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The other one was in a completely different part of China, so both can honestly be said to be the worst in a long time for the region - if China was smaller, we would be talking about two different countries... It has been a bad year for floods globally, but IMO, that should not affect our evaluation of a given flood. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major disaster with high death toll. Article is updated. -Zanhe (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Apparently floods are everywhere: Pakistan & Afghanistan, Sudan, Philippines and Yemen. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support because this involves more than one nation. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not that unusual, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Death toll is up to 85, article is updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly a major disaster. Agree with Thaddeus's comments above in reply to FormerIP. Neljack (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
support p per precedence ...though would also support re-evaulting where these should be poste.d Weather incidetns and man-made disasters are very commonLihaas (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian train accidentEdit

Article: Dhamara Ghat train accident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 37 Hindu pilgrims are killed after being hit by an train while crossing the tracks near a train station in the state of Bihar, India. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose I dont see this article getting any better. Not much development will happen here since its just too common for people to get killed crossing tracks in India (perhaps not 37 at same time). can change my position if article improves -- Ashish-g55 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Article has got much better since your comment. -Zanhe (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if article is improved. This is on the front page everywhere. 37 deaths is a big deal. -Zanhe (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose its not notable as anything thatn NOTNEWS. It ought not to be an encyopaedic article as it has ZERO impact on anythingLihaas (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "zero impact on anything" is the phrase I would have picked. Formerip (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting comment from a long-time ITN contributor. Almost all major train accidents have their own articles and they are regularly featured on ITN. -Zanhe (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose for now. The interesting factor is the aftermath which per the NYTimes involved a mob dragging the driver out and beating him up and setting fire to the train after the incident. But if that's the extent of the violence, it pretty much is a non-story, and thus not ITN-worthy (or article worthy). --MASEM (t) 16:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont think these accidents are as common in Spain as they are in India which increases notability. In any case the incident as it stands falls under WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion and unless some more developments take place, should not go up on ITN -- Ashish-g55 17:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose encyclopedia, not newspaper. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Remember this section is called "In the News". If we don't even post major accidents or disasters like this, we may as well cancel the ITN section altogether. -Zanhe (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Remember this is an encyclopedia, and we use ITN to feature good articles of long-term interest, not the daily deathcount. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Daily death count? This is the worst train accident in India in the whole year and one of the worst in the world. IMHO major accidents like this have far more long-term interest than most of the sport events that we regularly post. -Zanhe (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I certainly think the subject is notable enough for an article (angry mob, contentious debate in congress), but our article would need significantly expanded before I can evaluate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support subject to update As Thaddeus notes, there are circumstances beyond the number killed that makes this notable, so I hope those who complain that we focus too much on the death toll will support this. Neljack (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's two sentences long. Abductive (reasoning) 01:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Hosni MubarakEdit

No consensus to post at this time; an updated, related item can be nominated separately (not as a part of this nomination). SpencerT♦C 07:47, 24 August 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: Hosni Mubarak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Egyptian Ex-President Hosni Mubarak is freed from prison (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Egyptian Ex-President Hosni Mubarak is ordered to be freed from prison
News source(s): Sky News NBC News
Nominator's comments: Things are moving in Egypt. The release of a drug kingpin was posted, this is on altogether a higher level. --Abductive (reasoning) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - He was not released from prison. Could be out in 2 days if he will be released at all. He will still be in trial for the 850+ deaths.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HTK; he is not out yet and might not be given the other charges he has. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A lawyer predicting that his client will walk free from court is not news. Formerip (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This lawyer likes to get media attention, he said before that Mubarak was dead. Oppose. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, since it was not an official announcement. But, it will be soon.Egeymi (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Support when it actually happens. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Released he's been released to home arrest pending retrial and is currently being treated at a military hospital. μηδείς (talk) 18:14, 22 August 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.

Entry into force of the Maritime Labour ConventionEdit

Articles: Maritime Labour Convention (talk, history) and International Labour Organization (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Maritime Labour Convention enters into force replacing 37 Labour conventions of the International Labour Organization (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Maritime Labour Convention enters into force governing labour conditions on over half of the world's large ships(/larger ships/ships over 500 tonnes)
News source(s): see article; (which has it all on their main page)
Additional info added on 20 August: It is covered by quite some decent sources now: e.g. Die Welt[26], CNBC has a press release posted [27] and Neue Zürcher Zeitung has an article

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The date of entry into force is the "newsy" event. For ILO, this event is a big one, as it is not a standard convention, as it consolidates many conventions; and as the parties cover (as flag states) over half of the big ships, which have to comply from tomorrow on... (note: I know: I am a major contributor to this article, so I might be a bit biased; I tehrefore will not take part in the discussion; except to clarify upon request...) --L.tak (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Obvious international significance. Thue (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I haven't seen any trace of coverage of this story in any news site I frequent. --LukeSurl t c 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not seeing this covered in the news, which is a prerequisite for a posting on "In the News". 331dot (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • support lasting impace.Lihaas (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: as far as I can tell this is just a codification of existing maritime law into one convention, not actually introducing any new practices. If so, I don't think there's enough news here to justify an ITN posting. Or maybe I've missed something? Modest Genius talk 12:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I see where you are coming from and I think materially not many new norms are introduced. Grouping them in 1 convention is however for two reasons significant:
    • i) the membership of previous conventions was variable, with some with very high and very low membership. Getting it into one convention gets more countries to introduce the same norms; and for most extensive implementation legislation was needed for those things they didn't subscribe to yet. Especially since most of the significant flags of convenience have signed up to this, this literally means that 75% (2014) or 50% (now) have to comply. That is for a maritime labour convention a lot!
    • ii) The compliance mechanism is new. Every ship has to apply that comes to a harbor of a state party and every ship that flies the flag of a party has to comply. In practice, that means that virtually every ship in the word has to comply (the US is as a non state party doing MLC-inspections so its ships can show they comply)....
That's the reason I saw enough relevance for ITN.. L.tak (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, so there is a bit more to it, in that it effectively means the accession of many new countries to the previous conventions. However, that information needs to appear in the article, and even then I'm not fully convinced. I won't oppose though. Modest Genius talk 22:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Dezso GyarmatiEdit

Article: Dezso Gyarmati (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: Dezső Gyarmati, one of the greatest Water polo players of all time, dies at the age of eighty-five.
News source(s): Times of India Boxscore Global Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: From the article about him: "Gyarmati was the most successful water polo player in the Olympic history, and is considered the greatest water polo player of all time." I suggested a blurb as well as Dezso Gyarmati "was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." Andise1 (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support RD pending update - The most decorated water polo player in Olympic history certainly meets the notability requirements. Article is a bit thin and doesn't have a sufficient death update yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update. As per ThaddeusB. – Connormah (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD The evidence indicates that he is widely regarded as one of greatest, if not the greatest, water polo player in history. Not quite blurb level though. Neljack (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Water polo is waaaay too much of a niche sport, and I don't consider his proficiency in that sport to be an automatic free pass to the main page. Gyarmati himself is largely an unknown, and his passing would probably be of interest to only a tiny, almost insignificant percentage of our readership - his article's daily average pageviews were in the single digits before his death. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Water polo may not be a big sport where you are from, but it is in some places - it's huge in the Balkans, big in much of continental Europe and growing in the US. It's an Olympic sport too. I doubt Gyarmati is an unknown in Hungary or other countries where water polo is big and I think many people who haven't heard of him would be interested to read about his remarkable career. In any case, this is person is clearly "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field" and that is all that is required. Neljack (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that he was at the top of his field, but there seems to be some sentiment that we are obligated to post this because he meets the death criteria. We can (and do) decline to post individuals whose field wasn't sufficiently important, which I believe is the case here. Quick, name the second-greatest water polo player ever. See? --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, but others have the opposite beliefs. What you see as unimportant is seen as very important by others. We are not "obligated" to post anything that meets the criteria just for the sake of doing so, but we are obligated to post something that meets the criteria and gains sufficient support. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably Aleksandar Šapić. Neljack (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
His death was reported in multiple languages throughout the world, which suggests he wasn't a nobody playing unimportant sport. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is light and under-referenced at the current time. There are no references in either of the Coach career, Political career nor Family sections. --LukeSurl t c 07:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Article sufficiently updated and referenced. Support RD as per nom. --LukeSurl t c 10:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD only pending update. A long successful career with several medals would seem to suggest he is very important in his sport, but article needs to be expanded. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD only per 331dot, article needs some work (only 2kb prose when I clicked on it), but five Olympic medals (three gold) plus the International Swimming HOF indicate sufficient importance in his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose too narrow to amount to actual notability. μηδείς (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Medeis may have misspoken - notability is clear - just for 5 olympic medals. I presume he's asking if water polo is a mainstream sport - so that enough people might want to look for the article - maybe. This chap was part of the 'blood in the water' match between hungary and russia, and his article whilst only a C or maybe B class article links to some interesting politics too. The article is certainly in better shape than some that get posted - if it does get an RD nomination it will get improved. So I think a support for RD is warranted, and I think it's probably ready/close to ready. EdwardLane (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready The article has been updated, expanded and referenced; consensus seems clear. Neljack (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

August 18Edit

Marich Man Singh ShresthaEdit

Article: Marich Man Singh Shrestha (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Former prime minister of a soverieng state. We usually post these. Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree the death meets our notability criteria. The update is not sufficient as it contains completely unnotable aspects of his death.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support upon adequate update. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending expansion When I clicked on it, article was a stub with ~1200 characters of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a sitting politician, not significant influence in any field. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Impossible to judge whether he meets the criteria without more information on his political career - the article's coverage is very limited. Neljack (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 World Championships in AthleticsEdit

Article: 2013 World Championships in Athletics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In athletics, the World Championships conclude. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In athletics, the World Championships in Moscow conclude with Russia winning most gold medals.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: World Championship, Biggest competition since the Olympics. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - The event won't be over for another 18 hours or so. The article will need a substantial prose update - most likely a summary of the most notable happenings. (I'm willing to write the update if needed and am open to suggestions on what the update should include.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when the championships officially end. I'd also like to propose mentioning the most successful nation of the championships instead of the total number of nations winning at least one medal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
support and it should be ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to pip you to the post but it was nominated when the games began but its still not too late to nominate. Donnie Park (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If you feel that way, propose it. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It has already been proposed. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable sporting event, and agree with the suggestion above about ITN/R.--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - when officially finished.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose amy mention of specific medal winners or nations; support first blurb--maybe mention the host city.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Why not when we did it two weeks ago with the conclusion of the World Aquatics Championships in Barcelona?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The blurb should include a location. Formerip (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. But would we be better for a blurb to do with who tops the medal table, it look like a tight race between the old Cold War rivals. Please also support my proposal to get both World Aquatics Championships and World Championships in Athletics included in ITN/R. Donnie Park (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's over. Russia is the most successful nation with 7 gold medals won.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready The article looks updated with enough prose for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yep, I just finished updating it with prose on many of the most notable happenings. Altblurb is preferable I think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major international competition. Agree altblurb is preferable. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of images we could use if we wanted to. --LukeSurl t c 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

August 17Edit

Mexican drug kingpin arrestedEdit

Article: Mario Ramírez Treviño (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Alleged Gulf Cartel leader Mario Ramírez Treviño is arrested in the state of Tamaulipas. (Post)
News source(s): Huffington Post El Universal NBC News BBC News Le Monde ABC News(Australia) Times of India

Nominator's comments: This might be a far reach, considering that we had another Mexican drug lord posted on the Main Page about a month ago (see: Miguel Treviño Morales). Nonetheless, the arrest of this man marks another major episode in the Mexican Drug War and is a huge blow for the Gulf Cartel. The arrest section needs to be updated a little bit more, but that can be fixed as more sources start to pop up. --ComputerJA () 00:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Regardless of the farce of posting a similar story every other week, Mexicans are subject to the benefit of the doubt in criminal proceedings no less than South African double amputees and former governors of New Jersey. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether he is innocent or guilty shouldn't be the focus of supporting/opposing this nomination, I think. I nominated the article for the significance of the arrest for both the U.S. and Mexico. Just added the word "alleged" to the blurb to address your concern. Thanks for your input. ComputerJA () 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
So the arrest is important whether he is innocent or guilty? μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. This case is likely not going to be resolved this week, this month, or even this year. It's in the news now. No judgments are being made about his guilt or innocence. Per the ITN criteria I cite below it is not unreasonable to post this. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'm sensitive to the concern that we might post a Mexican drug lord every week- but we do post the arrest of notable fugitives or wanted criminal suspects, and this man had a $5 million bounty on him from the US. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We rarely post arrests, preferring to wait for convictions, and I think that is a sound practice which should be followed in this case. Neljack (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Understood, though it would seem that the world media does not hold the same view (this is news in France, UK, US, Australia, India). The first two listed ITN criteria are "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events". Readers might come here wondering who this man is. 331dot (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That's a fair point about the news coverage, but no doubt a conviction would also get plenty of news coverage, and I continue to think that is generally a more appropriate time to post. A conviction for serious crimes would generally seem to be more significant than an arrest based on (unproven) allegations of such crimes. Neljack (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If it were the arrest of an extremely high profile criminal (e.g. Osama Bin Laden) then I'd support posting the arrest (I agree that generally a conviction is preferable to post). Trevino may be such an example, but looking at the BBC source, he's the 'second high profile arrest since december' and 'one of the country's most wanted drug-gang leaders'. That doesn't sound quite singularly notable enough for me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Convictions for organized crime warlords usually take a few years because people have to gather evidences and whatnot. It's not as easy to prove that a man headed an illegal, loose network of criminals than to prove that some guy shot another. In addition, I highly doubt that his conviction will get as much press coverage as his arrest. Thank you for your input anyways. Cheers, ComputerJA () 18:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
ComputerJA, how notable was trevino before his arrest? Was he extremely well-known in Mexico as a target of Mexican authorities and as an alleged gangster? If we were talking about a crime figure of the stature of, say, John Gotti I'd probably agree the arrest is notable. But I'm not that familiar with the Mexican situation.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Mmmm, being the top head of the Gulf Cartel certainly means something. But I surely do not think he was as important as Miguel Treviño Morales and Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano (two drug lords who were posted on the Main Page), nor close to the stature of John Gotti. Ramírez Treviño was the top leader of the cartel for 11 months after he succeeded Jorge Eduardo Costilla Sánchez, but I nominated him for the significance of the arrest for Mexico and the U.S. His absence creates a dangerous power void in northeastern Mexico, considering that Treviño Morales was arrested just a month ago. The Gulf Cartel is without a visible leader—there are just a few regional warlords I can count (just one with a Wikipedia page), but none are of his stature. ComputerJA () 00:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm supporting based on ComputerJA's comments.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone please explain why a famous white athlete arrested for the admitted shooting of his girlfriend is not posted due to BLP concerns, but there's no presumption of innocence for Mexicans? μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Was Pistorius the head of a drug-based organization, and did he have a $5 million bounty on him? Regardless of guilt or innocence, these things cannot be denied. It is not impossible to post a story about an arrest without declaring the person guilty. Most legitimate media do this regularly. 331dot (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Your point seems to be some accused people are lower than others. That's foreign to my thinking. I don't think Mexicans lose their human rights, the presumption of innocence, or the protections of BLP because their arrests are "important". To me that sounds like we are treating these men (one of whom was released no more than a fortnight ago) not as humans with rights and dignity, but as pests with a commercial bounty on their destruction. Who's the last European whose arrest we mentioned? μηδείς (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The point is that the arrest is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion if it gets the amount of supports needed. The blurb does not assert that he is the leader of the Gulf Cartel. It asserts that he is the alleged leader, just like the international media and the government have been handling the case. Thank you for your input. ComputerJA () 04:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Really? That's how the international media and government are handling it? It looks more like this is Medeis trying to shove the word "alleged" into this (again, just as he failed to do with the Zetas leader), even though most news sources just describe him as a Gulf Cartel leader -- since, you know, that's kind of what he does for a "living". Has he denied that title? No, and he probably never will. And our article treats it as undisputed since, well, it pretty much is. Once again, if anyone wants to play this game that he may not actually be a Gulf Cartel leader, you're going to have to drastically rework the article to say that. -- tariqabjotu 04:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
We really shouldn't prejudge the judgment of the court. Stating that he is the leader of this criminal organisation is effectively saying that he is guilty. There is no harm in exercising some caution and restraint by included the word "alleged" if this is posted. Neljack (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
If that's the sentiment people want to have (contrary to all seven of the sources used in this nomination), the article cannot possibly go up in its current state. Other than a lame alleged forced into the lead, the article presumes that he is, in fact, a leader of a cartel. -- tariqabjotu 06:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hence my oppose. Neljack (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't prejudging anything to state what he spends his time doing according to most sources, especially if he does not deny it. He doesn't spend his time knitting sweaters. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
How do we know he doesn't deny it? Do we have evidence that the allegation has been put to him? Neljack (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe it is common for people to walk up to suspected leaders of drug cartels and ask them if they are a leader of a cartel of drug dealers, no. At least not without going missing afterwards. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point, 331 Dot. Accused drug-dealers are simply just such obvious sub-human scum that we don't bother to presume their innocence (like decent Americans and Europeans) unless they spend their time writing exculpatory screeds and getting themselves arrested on purpose so they can testify to their innocence in court. And people like Rafael Caro Quintero are never released due to prosecutorial misfeasance. Who's got the rope? Let's string'im up. μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
One can presume innocence of specific charges while still discussing what sources claim this man does for a living. If he doesn't spend his time dealing drugs what does he do all day? They wouldn't bring in the Army and Navy to arrest him if they didn't think he was a threat to them. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

August 16Edit


Article: Rugosodon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Scientists announce the discovery of Rugosodon the most basal member of the multituberculate (rodent-like mammal) lineage. (Post)
News source(s): TIME Nature

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is perhaps not as "sexy" as finding a new living species, but scientifically much more important. This discovery answers several questions about the evolutionary history of the most successful mammal group in history, as it is the first (mostly) complete multituberculate skeleton ever found from the time period. A discovery of this magnitude is quite rare. (It's only the second prehistoric discovery this year I felt was worth nominating; the other one, Aurornis, was posted.) Results of the research were published by Science. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Support this is an excellent, well updated article, a credit to WP, for which no reason exists that it not be posted to ITN. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Medeis, your reasoning seems to support this articles inclusion at ITN but your !vote is oppose?--BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was also bemused by this. Perhaps you could clarify, Medeis; I wondered whether you meant to say "support". Neljack (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: As a recently created article, this should also be eligible for DYK. SpencerT♦C 05:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Highly significant. Neljack (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. A large part of the mainstream media is ignoring this. With the exception of the Daily Mail, but I don't know if that's a good thing. Formerip (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll be in the minority so far and oppose this; it seems a bit esoteric for ITN. Further, as FormerIP points out it's coverage outside of mainstream news is limited at best. At least, I haven't seen it yet on news outlets. Seems better suited for DYK. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • In addition to TIME and the Daily Mail, it has been covered non-speciality sourecs such as CSM, Times of India, Herald Sun, and Huffington Post among others. Naturally, it has also been covered by all the "science news" sources. (Coverage can also be found in most major languages, but I don't know if those are mainstream or specialty sources just by glancing.) Like I said in the nomination, its importance outweighs its interest, which is not surprising given the multituberculate family is extinct and rodents aren't all that popular. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected regarding news coverage; those were not listed as news sources until now. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The list of sources that haven't covered it is far more impressive than the list of those that have. You won't find it on the BBC, New York Times, Guardian, CNN etc etc. Formerip (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Which can also be said about most science stories we post. The new lemur, for example, had far less coverage. I would classify this one as "average" among science stories that gain mainstream attention (which is less than 1% of the total scientific research). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That we posted the lemur story when the news media was mostly not interested doesn't surprise me, nor does it convince me. The BBC has a subpage for science stories. There's nothing unfair in suggesting that science stories need widespread coverage just like anything else. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I was implying anything was unfair, just providing information on the level of coverage here compared to other science stories... Coverage level is a factor, but typically it is not the main factor in any story we post (if it was ITN would look very different). I don't see why science stories should be different in that regard. I.e., we can judge them by importance (high here) and coverage (average here) just like we do with every other kind of story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It's no more esoteric than declaring having found the oldest placental or oldest marsupial mammal would be. μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, it seems to me that the story is really that Rugosodon pushes the Multituberculata lineage back in time. But given that the Multituberculata split off before the Marsupials and after the egg-laying mammals (who split off perhaps about 220 mya), this is unsurprising. Abductive (reasoning) 01:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think we've been oversaturating biological history on the main page... and I've got nothing but interest in science news. But unless someone can point out what the significance of finding the oldest member of an extinct infraclass of mammals, I would be very disappointed to see this go up. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the [Ready] tag; there is well-reasoned opposition to this. -- tariqabjotu 06:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Query are you voting and adminning at the same time, Tariq? With the nom and not including your oppose this is two-to-one in favor of posting; it's updated; and it's mature. μηδείς (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    I did not oppose the nomination. But the objections by 331dot, Formerip, and Ericleb are meaningful, juxtaposed against supporting remarks that simply say "Highly significant" and "Definitely for ITN". -- tariqabjotu 06:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, when the nomination was marked ready there was no opposition yet. Also, Formerip stopped short of actually opposing (of course his comment can and should still be considered as part of the consensus/lack there of). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I understand that the tide shift after you marked it [Ready]; I wasn't saying that you were wrong to mark it ready then, just that it was no longer ready now. -- tariqabjotu 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine, I'll Oppose and here's why: Every fossil find that gets published expands knowledge a little bit. In this case, as I mention above, the expansion is very limited. It seems that scientists are already well aware of the beginning and end of Multituberculata's tenure on the Earth. The lay press articles are wrong, for instance calling Rugosodon ancestor to rodents and generally missing the point. But if you read between the lines, you'll see "one of the earliest multituberculates ever" (meaning not the oldest), and "even more surprising discovery. Although its bone structure made it clear that the animal ran along the ground — a behavior that usually requires stiff ankles like our own — Rugosodon was incredibly flexible, capable of rotating 180 degrees". So, the most interesting thing about this find is its flexible ankles. I just can't see that being ITN-worthy. Finally, the lack of interest by the BBC and others suggests that those science reporters might be as unimpressed as I am. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Isinbayeva gay remarksEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 05:16, 18 August 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.

Articles: Emma Green Tregaro (talk, history) and Yelena Isinbayeva (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva issues an apology to Swedish high jumper Emma Green Tregaro and the Gay community for supporting Russias Anti-gay laws and condemning Green Tregaro for painting her fingernails in the "Rainbow flag colours" at a press conference during the 2013 World Championships in Athletics. (Post)
News source(s): [28], [29], [30],[31], [32]

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Has becomed a worldwide known manifestation by Green Tragro in support of the Gay community, mostly by Isibayevas first insulting comments and then her apology. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think this is that big of an issue, and certainly not significant enough for ITN to take notice. Celebrities say dumb things and later apologize for them all the time. This doesn't look like anything that will have any lasting ramifications. Also, the current blurb is a bit too long, but that can easily be fixed if this gains consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Bongwarrior. PR gaffes by high-profile celebrities are not ITN worthy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose First off, that would be the longest blurb in ITN history. Regardless, as Bongwarrior said, I see absolutely no real significance here- just an instance of someone newsworthy saying something offensive, then apologizing for saying it. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No significance here- just someone apologizing for an offensive remark. If countries try to boycott the Olympics over the Russian anti-gay legislation, that might be ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree this isn't important enough, and note that she hasn't actually apologised: "However, she stopped short of issuing an apology or withdrawing her support for Russia's now notorious "gay propaganda" law." [33] Neljack (talk) 03:16, 18 August 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] Philippine shipwreckEdit

Article: MV St. Thomas Aquinas (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: More than 30 people are killed and more than 150 are left missing when the MV St. Thomas Aquinas collides with a cargo ship near Cebu, Philippines. (Post)
News source(s): AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Final death toll will likely exceed 100 given that there are 200+ missing 15 hours after the ship sunk. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. A ship sinking with significant casualties is not a common occurrence. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Brandmeistertalk 10:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Tragic accident with a lot of casualties is most certainly worthy of being on ITN.--Giants27(T|C) 14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Per Giants27. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Death toll currently stands at 31 and is likely to rise higher. -Zanhe (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose minor incident with minor casualties. (per precedence) Lihaas (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - When this is posted, please consider replacing olinguito and going w/o a picture. That story has been up the longest except for Egypt and Egypt is still very much at the top of the headlines. It is only at the top of the template because of the picture. (The other 3 stories have been featured only about an hour so far.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted I removed the Egyptian raids blurb and shifted it to a sticky. We can easily just remove it after a couple of days. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Yasuni National Park opened to oil drillingEdit

Article: Yasuni National Park (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Ecuador announces it will open Yasuni National Park (pictured) ending a six-year initiative aimed at protecting the rainforest. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Decision will bring an estimated 800 million barrels of crude oil to the market while (potentially) threatening "some of the planet's most diverse wildlife" and the livelihoods of indigenous people. This is a done deal (executive order) - exploration is expected to start very shortly. Outside of the occasional natural disaster, we post very little from South America, so here is a good chance to get an under represented area on the mainpage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Very disappointing. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, certainly worthy of being on ITN.--Giants27(T|C) 14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is now updated and ready to be posted unless there are any objections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support wonderful to hear a leftist darling sing the praises of economic development and call out developed-world hypocrisy. The blurb should say "aimed at protecting" instead of the awkward "aiming to protect". μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 22:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I could not understand the meaning of the blurb "Ecuador announces it will reopen Yasuni National Park, ending a six-year initiative aimed at protecting the rainforest from oil drilling." I read it as "previously closed to visitors, or delisted as a national park, or something along those lines". It would be a lot clearer if stated as "will reopen Yasuni National Park to oil drilling..." -dmmaus (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you, much better! -dmmaus (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Rosalía MeraEdit

Article: Rosalía Mera (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Bloomberg Today Show/AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death of Spain's richest woman, co-founder of the Inditex fashion mega-company. --LukeSurl t c 13:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as a notable businessperson not just in Spain, but worldwide(on the Forbes list). 331dot (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when expanded (not just an update but also an expanded lead and bio). Founder of the famous zara chain. I'll work on the article a bit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Being super rich doesn't necessarily qualify as "significant contribution/impact". Article quality is too poor at this time to convince me otherwise. I'll revisit this if Johnsemlak or someone else improves the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If she simply inherited her super-wealth, then I would agree, but this person founded and owned several large businesses; she worked for her wealth and it is an indication of her success and notability. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Change !vote to support pending article improvement. I did some of my own searching and now see Forbes calling her the "World's Richest Self-Made Woman". When I opposed earlier, the article did not make that clear to me. The article is much better now, and should be postable with a bit more work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Muboshgu. As a business person (the deceased, not me!) I'm not sure if she qualifies for RD.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no prohibition on businesspeople from RD; the only question is if she was notable in the field of business. Forbes certainly thought so, enough to include her in the list of the wealthiest women in business. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if article is significantly improved. This is a good example of how systematic bias works. Here we have someone that co-founded a company that grosses nearly $20 billion a year and operates over 6000 stores spanning dozens of countries, but who isn't a celebrity and isn't from an English speaking country. Thus the article is not great. However, I would say she certainly very important to her field. (And yes wealth is a strong indicator of importance in the field of business, as that is how success is primary measured.) --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The article has been expanded a bit, with a full paragraph for the lead summarizing her notability and 3-4 paragraphs describing her career.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support obviously top of field. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready updated and no strong opposition. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose we dint hypocritically (if this is posted) post the death of the founder of Russia's biggest search engine.Lihaas (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Could be wrong but I don't believe he was said to be one of the richest men in the world(as this person has been said to be one of the richest women in the world). Consensus can change as well. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
His article also was never brought up to standards, as I recall. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 15Edit

[Posted] Winnemucca Lake petroglyphsEdit

Article: Winnemucca Lake (talk, history)
Blurb: Petroglyphs at Winnemucca Lake are dated between 10,500 and 14,800 years ago, making them the oldest petroglyphs ever found in North America. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Petroglyphs at Winnemucca Lake are dated to at least 10,500 years ago, making them the oldest petroglyphs ever found in North America.
News source(s): Nat Geo

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It is not very often we have a chance to feature a story form archeology or anthropology, but here is an excellent chance. It is not very often a legitimately important "oldest ever" is announced. These carvings date to around the time people are thought to have first migrated to the Americas, potentially increasing their importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm a little worried about this one. Have you seen any photographs of the petroglyphs? Abductive (reasoning) 04:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Nat Geo is giving the pictures Nat Geo now from the source given in support of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Something is bugging me about this. Off to do some research. Abductive (reasoning) 04:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, yes, see Radiocarbon dating#Hard water effect. Abductive (reasoning) 04:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Let me see if I can spell out my concerns a little better. I would need to see their article to see how they address the problems associated with dating carbonate. Even dating actual shells is fraught with difficulty since the organisms may be taking up recently re-dissolved carbonate from the environment. Here they are dating a carbonate film from a rock. Winnemucca Lake is stated to be active, growing and shrinking and consequently re-dissolving sediments. As far as I can read, there is no independent method provided for dating the rises and falls of the lake at that location, just the radiocarbon dating of the carbonate. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I have access to the research paper. I haven't read it yet (it is pretty long), but there is extensive information about how they obtained the date range - it is not simply form carbon dating. email me and I'll send you a copy if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I would love to support this - but - the above "issues" should be resolved/clarified and the article updated some more if needs be. Obviously not a field of study I'm knowledgeable in! --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is notable even if we're looking at the lower range of ages. If there's a published challenge to the dates a link would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I read the paper now. The researchers used three indirect methods to date the waterline level rises and falls in addition to the direct method of carbon dating. All methods were largely consistent. Additionally, the younger date range is consistent with human artifacts previous found in the region (and in one case at the lake itself). (In the paper, the author argue for the younger date range, but "cannot rule out" the older one.) While I am not qualified to say the evidence is conclusive it certainly looks like a solid piece of science to me. I have expanded the article to explain all the dating stuff as best as I could. Hopefully this is sufficient for people to form an opinion about the story now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I support putting the younger date that the authors argue for in the blurb, but not the older date. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed, that seems like a good idea to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per ThaddeusB - thank you, sir! --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Secret account 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Kaesong Industrial RegionEdit

Article: Kaesong Industrial Region (talk, history)
Blurb: ​North and South Korea agree to reopen the Kaesong Industrial Region which had been shut down since April amidst tensions between the two countries. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A sure sign that the spring tensions/posturing by North Korea is coming to an end. The two sides did say they wanted to reopen the region a month ago, but there was no actual agreement until today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support-I personally consider a notable-enough news item to be presented on the ticker, but this particular category of nomination does not occur frequently. It is best if we achieve a finite consensus before posting. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously good faith, and better to read about than a bus crash, but too much like a 12-page insert in Scientific American. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant that they have managed to reach agreement; it certainly seems to indicate a thaw in relations. I also really don't see how this is "like a 12-page insert in Scientific American". I wasn't aware that Scientific American ran 12-page stories on diplomatic developments on the Korean peninsula. Neljack (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You put me in the very awkward position of advising you to read the SciAm more often, which is not a place I want to be. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I confess it has been a few years since I last read Scientific American. Do they publish this sort of stuff now? Neljack (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The status of Kaesong is central to the North-South Korean relationship. Thue (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd support this, but I don't see much scope for an update. Formerip (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with FormerIP here. The 2013 closure section is pretty small anyway, and there seems to be little scope for much prose on the reopening. --LukeSurl t c 12:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable development, the closing of Kaesong was a big precedent to North Korea's last tantrum. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Somchai Sun. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated - article is now updated to minimum standards; let me know if more is desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. LFaraone 22:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • @LFaraone: Just an idea here but what would you think about linking the word "tensions" to the 2013 Korean crisis article? — -dainomite   23:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
      •   Done Seems reasonable. LFaraone 01:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Kepler demiseEdit

Article: Kepler (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Kepler space telescope is declared unfixable by NASA, ending its four-year-long planet-hunting mission. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Kepler space telescope is declared unfixable by NASA, officialy ending its primary mission.
News source(s): NYT

Article updated

Nominator's comments: When Kepler broke back in May, the consensus was to wait to see if it could be fixed. NASA has now declared it can't be fixed, effectively ending its planet hunting days --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support as consensus follow-up. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is basically a retirement story, isn't it? Formerip (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the blurb as currently written as being misleading. Yes they have given up trying to fix the wheels, and yes that means the current mission needs to be modified, but it does not necessarily mean the end of planet-hunting because they have asked the community to propose alternative mission plans "potentially including an exoplanet search, using the remaining two good reaction wheels and thrusters" as mentioned in the NASA press release. One of the proposals that has come back is to modify the software on Kepler to compensate. Instead of the stars being fixed and stable in Kepler's field of view, they will drift. However software could track this drift and more or less completely recover the mission goals despite being unable to hold the stars in a fixed view. For details of this proposal see KeSeF - Kepler Self Follow-up Mission. Astredita (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The final paragraph of the lead states there are options open and that Kepler is not a dead-loss. What has really happened isn't important news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Astredita. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think everyone is missing the point. Yes, Kepler may still be used to do some scientific research in the future, but this is the official end of its primary mission. When the wheel failure was previously nominated, this is precisely the point that people said we should wait for. Arguably, the first announcement was the more important news, but ITN likes to wait until things are official. Well, they are official now. To say "What has really happened isn't important news" is flat out wrong. There is a huge difference between hunting for exoplanets and tracking comets within our solar system (one of the proposed future uses), for example. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I see the point fine- it is still usable but cannot carry out its intended mission- but was this the only means humanity has to search for exoplanets? 331dot (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It was certainly the best way, and was responsible for finding most of the exoplanets we know of, but that's not really the point. The point is that this is the end of a highly notable 4+ year mission. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The end of the hugely successful primary mission of a very important telescope. The exoplanet hunt has been all the rage in astronomy lately, and Kepler's primary mission has been front and center of that. (also, I can't believe I am agreeing with Medeis). Thue (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It hurts me far more than it does you. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think story is quite a bit encyclopedic, article looks updated, mid-mission failure are decently rare... last one that was this high profile was probably the mars rover getting stuck (i dont remember if we put that on main page...). However i suggest changing blurb to "ending its primary mission" or something similar as im sure there will be more secondary missions to come -- Ashish-g55 17:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I added an altblurb per discussion above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this story is about as big as when the Hubble was announced to require fixing to be used. Kepler won't be fixed, but considering that THIS SPACECRAFT ALONE has more than quadrupled the number of exoplanets we know of, and has done so much more for our knowledge, even a "retirement" announcement is worth being posted. Continuing the sports analogy, even if the goals will be extended (like coming back from retirement) that mission will likely be quite different the one it had. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support per last discussion on this topic, the mission's impact, and the high encyclopedic value of the article. Kepler's secondary mission is still workable with two wheels, but what made it notable is its huge impact on exoplanet hunting. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per above, this is most certainly more than your typical "retirement story".--Giants27(T|C) 14:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready this is updated and has 60/40 support, much higher if we count the three support/waits from May that haven't voted yet. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, any possibility of still using the crippled observatory is just wishful thinking. Abductive (reasoning) 20:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Secret account 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Beirut bombingEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 05:41, 19 August 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: 15 August 2013 Beirut bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Twenty people are killed when a car bomb explodes in Beirut, Lebanon. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Al Jazeera

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: A car bomb exploded in Beirut, Lebanon killing twenty people. This event has been covered by many news sources. It appears to be a pretty significant event in Beirut. Andise1 (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support-The death toll for this occurrence is not quite high enough for inclusion, however, bombings in a national capital are far and few between. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I actually agree with QSL, except that Beirut is no stranger to bombings. Article is also pretty skinny at the moment. 331dot (talk)
  • Support Second story (after Egypt) on the websites of BBC News, Al-Jazeera and The Guardian's world section. Neljack (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:DENY. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how that link is relevant here. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I must ask, which user do you consider a noted vandal? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The bombers are the vandals and the decision to post needs to take into consideration whether this merits encyclopedic treatment. I think a policy of WP:DENY fits perfectly here. μηδείς (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think potential terrorists are going to decide it isn't worth it because we deny them coverage here. Heaps of media sources that are a lot more prominent than our little section of WP have already covered it. In any case, I don't think it is our role to censor what we post based on whether it is desirable to deny recognition to terrorists. That is a political judgment that would be inappropriate for us to make. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:DENY applies to malicious on-wiki editing and regards non-mainspace Wikipedia content. Cataloguing the horrors of the world is part of the encyclopaedic remit. --LukeSurl t c 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me if I prefer to go on believing you know what an analogy is. The vote stands. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess we should delete the Osama Bin Laden, September 11th attacks, and Al-Qaeda articles too, since the presence of those articles gives terrorists recognition. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - article needs to be adequately updated. Blurb needs fixing. Just because it's a criminal act doesn't mean it doesn't go on ITN – DENY is a poor argument; if it was a good one, no terrorist act would ever be posted. – Shudde talk 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This story has had a full 194 views on its own. Our putting it on the front page would be a huge donation in free publicity to the cause of the otherwise unnotable bombers. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As per LukeSurl said above, your argument has no basis in policy. The idea that bombers are motivated by whether or not an article is posted at ITN is absurd. – Shudde talk 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This is being covered nowhere, we haven't even got a stub on it. Putting it on the front page would be a ridiculous amount of publicity for a crime designed to elicit publicity. I am sure that is beyond clear. But if you want to mention a fourth time that denying these killers our site as a forum is not technically the literal meaning of WP:DENY, feel free. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I came here to support but after seeing such a short article that is scant on details surrounding the bombing, I have to oppose.--Giants27(T|C) 14:44, 17 August 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] New mammal carnivore discoveredEdit

Article: Olinguito (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists announce the discovery of the olinguito, the first new carnivorous mammal found in the Western Hemisphere in 35 years. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Washington Post NBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First carnivorous mammal to be discovered in Western Hemisphere in 35 years, according to article. Starting to get major traction in media. Tombo7791 (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - the "first new species of carnivore to be identified in the Western hemisphere in 35 years" is certainly worth posting. Article needs some work. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Came here to nominate this myself. Species of insects are discovered all the time, but mammals not so much. Gamaliel (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom - rare, notable, special, wide coverage. Me likey. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A rare event, receiving wide coverage (currently the top headline story on NBC 331dot (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the undeniable notability, and per the fact it's cute. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It's Thursday, so it must be time to post another one of those once-in-a-lifetime animal classifications. Formerip (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
What was the last mammal that was posted? As the nomination said, this is the first new one found in the Western Hemisphere in the last 35 years. New insects, I agree, are not once-in-a-lifetime, but this comes pretty close. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't feed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The last one was the lavasoa dwarf lemur. Twelve days ago. Formerip (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Madagascar is not in the Western Hemisphere. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Why are you telling me this? You asked a question, I answered it. Formerip (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Your initial comment made it sound like this sort of thing happens every day; I was merely saying that it does not, and that the most recent posting that you brought up was not from the Western Hemisphere so that's a different situation. That's all. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it happens literally every day, but you can make anything sound a lot rarer than it really is by sticking a few qualifiers on. Marion Bartoli is the first female winner of Wimbledon born in the Eastern hemisphere to retire while wearing a hat, but no-one seems to have taken account of those factors. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
We live in a world of qualifiers and technicalities, but the question here is whether or not it is notable. If it was headline news that Bartoli was the first female winner of Wimbledon born in the Eastern Hemisphere to retire while wearing a hat, then it might be notable. In this situation, we are talking about the discovery of a new mammal in the Western Hemisphere (half the world geographically) and how that is a rare event; we aren't talking about one country or even one city. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
So, the reason for not posting Bartoli is that the media thought it was important enough to run without qualifiers? Formerip (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
People retiring with hats is not a notable category, and neither is one-time Wimbledon winners. I've made my point above, and I won't further stray from the topic on this page. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, I guess. The sources call it a major discovery. I think we can use a picture from the ZooKeys article, it seems to be licensed CC-BY. Abductive (reasoning) 18:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready This is minimally updated. I suggest we use the free picture. Much cuter than that lemur. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pile-on support A new species isn't discovered every day. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted however I need another administrator for the image to be placed in the main page, as I'm not fully familiar with cascading protection and I don't want to screw up anything. Thanks Secret account 20:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Marion Bartoli retiresEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:09, 16 August 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: Marion Bartoli (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Reigning women's Wimbledon singles champion Marion Bartoli retires from professional tennis (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Current Wimbledon champion, unexpected retirement age 28 which is young for tennis players --Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support world known tennis name, current Wimbledon champion, her retirement has been reported worldwide. The article is updated. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose she has not lasting legacy in tennis. Looks like she trying to go on a high knowing it was a fluke. This would set precedence for a whole bunch of mid-ranked retirees in other sports too.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
7th in the world is not "mid ranked" and the retirement is due to injury, if she wanted to go out on a high she'd have retired straight after Wimbledon not after losing in the second round of a minor tournament a month and a half later. If this sets a precedent for covering other sports professionals who make international news for unexpectedly retiring young while ranked in the top 10 and being the reigning champion of one of their sport's major tournaments, then I'd say that's a good precedent to have. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We generally don't post retirements, especially from sports, unless they were at the tip-top of their field usually with a long career. Even then, we do so only rarely; the last one we posted was Alex Ferguson (which I opposed) who was regarded as the top of his field (soccer managing). I'm not convinced this tennis player is (she only won one major and is retiring at only 28 due to injury). 331dot (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I too opposed Alex Fergusson as an old person retiring after the second or third time he said he would didn't strike me as news. It turns out that I was wrong on that and it was a massive news story. This is a young professional and reigning champion unexpectedly retiring young due and not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
      • She is still not at the tip-top of her field, which seems to be the unwritten criteria for a posting of someone's retirement. It sounds like this would be a better Did You Know item (Did you know Marion Bartoli retired at just 28 due to injuries sustained over her career?) 331dot (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, retirements are not posted (I could not forget the case of Gabriel Garcia Marquez). Egeymi (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't remember that case, have you got a link? Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, I could not find archives for 2012, it should be July 2012. If I can find put here.Egeymi (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Link is here. That person retired due to dementia. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    He was 85 at the time and had not published a book for 8 years. His 2012 "retirement" isn't even mentioned in his article Gabriel García Márquez. I don't think his case deserves being viewed as any kind of precedent for not posting retirements. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Not mentioning his retirement or dementia is about editors' insufficient coverage. Egeymi (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    The point is that we don't usually post them, especially with sports. Even the Ferguson one was hotly contested. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks 331dot for both the link and your last remark which I tried to say. I did not want to show Marquez's case as precedent for not posting retirements. Egeymi (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The article has been reasonably updaed, and as the current Wimbeldon Ladies Champion she's fairly high profile. Also, as the nominator ponts out retirement at 28 is quite young so newsworthy. However she's ranked 7 in the world and can hardly be regarded as at the absolute top of her sport so I don't think this cuts it for me. Pedro :  Chat  10:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Her career high rank is 7 and she only has one title in the 14 largest tournaments. Female tennis players often retire relatively young. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose any and all sports retirements. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this specific retirement. It's mildly interesting, but people retire from injury early every single day. People, like Alex Ferguson, who aren't one-hit wonders, far from it, don't retire every day. That's the difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
If we'd posted Ferguson every time he said he was going to retire it could have become embarrassing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For me, the minimum bar for posting sporting retirements is not being a great. It is not even being exceptional. It is being peerless in your field for the vast majority of your career. —WFCFL wishlist 23:21, 15 August 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] Bahrain Tamarod protestsEdit

Article: Bahrain Tamarod (talk, history)
Blurb: Bahraini security forces crack down on the pro-democracy Tamarod protests. (Post)
News source(s): AFP, Associated Press, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The protests were highly anticipated since early July and the government severe reaction only added more anticipation (and media coverage). While protesters failed yesterday to form large gatherings (mainly due to the heavy deployment of security forces and overuse of barbed wire), the protests proved to be "an upsurge of a two-and-a-half-year-old campaign"[34]Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Update is definitely sufficient, but the blurb is somewhat unclear. What where the protests about: were they religious? political? etc. SpencerT♦C 05:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment No comment on the nomination, but that's one hell of an article for an event that just happened two days ago. -- tariqabjotu 07:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, maybe significant if it took place in other regions but it is not so significant in a region where events in Egypt and Lebanon are much more violent, unfortunately. Egeymi (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support - event has not attracted all that much attention (probably due at least in part to Egypt), but article quality is exceptional and the event is clearly highly important locally. Article is DYK eligible, so I urge you to submit it there as well in case this nomination fails. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Looks like it's getting posted soon. Anyway, I still have one more day to nominate it. Nevertheless, thanks for your concern. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This seems like a classic case where an exceptional update should tip a marginal story over the line in favour of posting. This is just the sort of article we want to showcase through linking it on the Main Page. It certainly fulfils the ITN purpose of "featur[ing] quality Wikipedia content on current events", and also that of "point[ing] readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them" - I found the article a very interesting and lucid explanation of what was going on in Bahrain. The protests and crackdown have also got a fair bit of international media attention - more that I expected. The blurb could perhaps mention the injuries too. Neljack (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted, however an image could be useful here for the Main Page. Secret account 23:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

August 14Edit

[Posted] Egypt declares national emergencyEdit

Articles: Aftermath_of_the_2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#14 August (talk, history) and Political violence in Egypt (2013) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Egypt declares a state of emergency as security forces kill scores of pro-Morsi protesters. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Egypt declares a state of emergency as security forces kill hundreds of pro-Morsi protesters.

Nominator's comments: I am not sure of the article or update yet but im assuming this will make it to main page as possibly 100+ people have been killed and state of emergency declared in egypt. Change the blurb and article as needed ---- Ashish-g55 14:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. I have added suggested wikilinks, but I suspect there are other possibilities. Think we should be vague about numbers of dead for now, which are sadly rising as we speak. Formerip (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant escalation. Actaully, the article that needs to be updated is probably this one: Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - But change the article linked from the protests article to Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Hello32020 (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I started the update before noticing this nom, see Aftermath_of_the_2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#Chronology (14 August). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Update at Aftermath_of_the_2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état#14 August needs a bit more info to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. We previously had to pull a story about Egypt because the article title included the word "coup". Has that now been resolved? Formerip (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Is it relevant? This blurb doesn't include the word "coup". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Not the blurb, the bolded article. That was what previously got the blurb complained about and pulled. Formerip (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Huh, since when do we let politics (in this case that would be the Obama administration not wanting to cut of funding to Egypt, at least they want to be able to do that at their own discretion), get in the way of simply reporting the news, which does involve calling a "coup" a "coup" but of course, without taking a position on whether or not this coup was justified or not. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Since when, I'm not sure, but I believe its what happened. I think it may be that the appearance of the article on the front page led to a dispute about it and the article becoming unstable. So my question is possibly about whether there is now an established consensus behind "coup" which makes that less likely to happen. Formerip (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
            • it is a coup by definition. i dont think any consensus is required for that. If after posting people think otherwise then thats really more for article talk page rather than ITN. I think we are OK to post it as is. BTW its 149 deaths reported now with the brotherhood saying 2000! WTH. Nobody knows who is right but both numbers are pretty high. -- Ashish-g55 18:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
            • It was removed because of an orange tag at the top of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état article noting that the article's title was disputed, which is very much was. (The article had been up for awhile though, and was basically at the bottom of the template.) I think article title tags should be used sparingly, but the use of the term "coup" was a major article-wide issue. Regardless, that tag is gone now, so, presumably, consensus has been that the use of the term is accurate and neutral. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A state of national emergency, severe clashes, 200 people dead etc. in a major city is a huge event.--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Agree that we should be vague about number of dead, since it seems there isn't clarity on that at the moment. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - there is now a stand alone article, August 14th clashes. It is a bit stubby at the moment - I will work on it within the next couple hours if no one else gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated that for deletion. At best it should be a redirect. Imagine someone looking at wikipedia a year from now and finding that August 14th has its own lone article. This is not the news, and we do not need to be creating articles for the sole purpose of supporting nominations. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose using the term pro-Morsi supporters. We haven't yet identified any dead in any post as anti-Morsi supporters. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point, but if it is about the redundant "pro" in "pro-Morsi supporters" the blurb actually uses the word "protesters". Formerip (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, this appears to be a major event in Egyptian history. I hope the situations with the blurb and the articles gets sorted out soon. Abductive (reasoning) 00:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Feel free, admins, to tweak wording per subsequent discussions. Jehochman Talk 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
We should not be identifying the dead as pro- or anti- anything. We haven't done it before when the protestors were against Morsi and we shouldn't be doing it now. Just scores of protestors killed is fine. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
What event are you referring to? -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Change target? - there is a standalone article now (August 2013 Egyptian clashes) that is in decent shape and provides much more information. However, it has a (malformed) AfD on it, so not sure what to do about that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Given you know it is malformed you could fix it. Even better, remove "supporting former president Mohamed Morsi" from the blurb as an odd time to forget neutrality here. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Or you could read the instructions on how to nominate an article for AfD. It is not something I do often so I'd have to read them myself to fix it... A have no idea why describing the protestors as supporters of Morsi (when that is the way every source describes them) is supposedly non-neutral. Unnecessary, perhaps, but POV I think not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What's POV about "supporting former president Mohamed Morsi"? -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no POV when the protesters were in FACT supporting Morsi. Both camps were entirely there to support him. Thats the reason this whole thing went down... -- Ashish-g55 04:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
comment please move the bold link to the article that now exists August 2013 Egyptian clashesLihaas (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Change Blurb: The blurb is biased saying that security forces moved in to kill 100s of demonstrators is clearly not what happened. The main news event is that the security forces cracked down on the 6 week long sit in by the brotherhood. The sit in included many firearms, molotov cocktails and many videos and pictures show that these "protesters" fired at the security forces with klashinkovs and other weapons. The word used by most media is a crackdown not the killing of demonstrators. You can clearly see that here for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talkcontribs)
That's a POV issue; you see it that way, the other side sees it differently. What is factual is that people were killed by security forces. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You should also know better than citing ayoutube video as encyclopaedic fact here.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Change blurb. The blurb should be changed to say "hundreds" dead instead of scores, now that the death toll has gone past 400. [35] 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Huh? The blurb has said "hundreds" almost since it was posted to ITN. The blurb here is not the blurb on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 13:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, guess I looked at this posting more than the main page. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] INS Sindhurakshak (S63)Edit

Article: INS Sindhurakshak (S63) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An explosion sinks Indian submarine INS Sindhurakshak (Post)
News source(s): BBC [36]

Article updated

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - significant accident, minority topic too. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but wait till some more info is available like the number of dead... i dont see that anywhere. And i dont think we should say "explosion sinks" since its sort of sitting on the port slightly under water. just damaged with casualty figures would be enough. -- Ashish-g55 13:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support + add an image of the submarine to the main page. Significant accident, "one of the worst tragedies in the history of Indian Navy", covered by media worldwide. The article is updated and gives a good information to our readers. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Just as soon as we have a reliable casualty total. It seems to be that up to 18 could have been killed or are currently trapped, potentially more. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions that 18 sailors are trapped inside. Why do we need "casualty total" to display the article at WP:ITN? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Many sources seem unsure if they are trapped or dead... its too breaking right now. -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, but it's for sure that INS Sindhurakshak sank, which is what the blurb says. The rest is explained in the article, with a possibility to update/improve it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether to support or oppose this, since we already have one story about the Indian Navy in the box, and this doesn't seem to be getting really major coverage. The article seems to be updated, though. Formerip (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
IMO, this is clearly more important news compared to Vikrant.. ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. I'm not sure. But it wasn't really my point. Formerip (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
well indian navy managed to produce two news events in a week. its a rare case and doubt we'll be seeing two items from them anytime soon if ever -- Ashish-g55 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant coverage...described as one of the largest disasters of the navy... ƬheStrikeΣagle sorties 16:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A tragic and signficant, newsworthy event. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support it's reporting worldwide and is indeed a tragic and significant event. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready well updated and supported. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've posted the sinking; we can add the casualty information to the blurb when we have it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • There's something about "a pair of explosions" which reads weirdly. Could we maybe just say "two explosions"? Formerip (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
      I had used "a pair" rather than "two" because I thought it sounded a little more natural. I won't stand in the way if someone wants to change it, but I still prefer "a pair". --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: why "a pair of explosions"? All sources I've read only mention one explosion. There was a more minor explosion in 2010, but there's no indication it is related to the recent explosion and sinking of the vessel. -Zanhe (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Tragic accident, and subs sinking is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Request. Please resist the temptation to add casualty figures when known. This incident is so obviously serious and unusual that its Main Page worthiness is independent from the statistics – I think keeping the blurb short and sharp makes it all the more poignant. —WFCFL wishlist 00:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Our blurbs are not there to be poignant. They are there to provide information to our readers, who are likely to want to know whether people have been killed and, if so, how many. Neljack (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The question for me is whether the death toll will make the reader more or less likely to go to the article and learn more about the event. In the case of a school shooting or mid-sized earthquake, the toll is very important – events of that nature happen multiple times per year, and the toll helps to emphasize that the impact of that particular event is exceptional. An explosion on a submarine achieves that on its own; adding the toll would in my opinion make the reader less likely to go through to the article. —WFCFL wishlist 23:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Saw the huge ball at midnight with orange flams. And I was not even near it. It was massive. Forget to get a pic for WP though ;(Lihaas (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 13Edit

August 12Edit

Mali electionEdit

Articles: Malian presidential election, 2013 (talk, history) and Ibrahim Boubacar Keita (talk, history)
Blurb: Ibrahim Boubacar Keita is elected President of Mali. (Post)
News source(s): [37]

Both articles need updating

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.

Nominator's comments: Updaters apply here. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • According to that BBC report, the results aren't official yet - though Keita is almost certain to be declared the winner when they are. --LukeSurl t c 07:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Per ITN/R as soon as they become official. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • While I can't see any official figures, the other candidate in the two-candidate run-off election has conceded defeat. [38] --LukeSurl t c 00:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:ITN/R and obvious importance of any national presidential election, but I have to say that the article Ibrahim Boubacar Keita needs more thorough update. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Results in. The article is not sufficiently updated, but the percentages have been added. Anyone care to add a few lines of prose? Formerip (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] NYC stop-and-friskEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:22, 13 August 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: New York City stop-and-frisk program (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A judge rules that New York City's stop-and-frisk program is unconstitutional. (Post)
News source(s): WSJ
Nominator's comments: "Stop and frisk" is controversial, as police officers are far more likely to stop and frisk individuals of color --– Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Municipal legal matter, combined with an intensely POV article. By no means suitable for ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Purely a local legal matter. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a Federal judge's ruling, but her remedies are absurd, the policy should just be made illegal, not justify a whole new federal oversight regime. When this gets to the Supreme Court simply outlawing the policy as violating the 4th Amendment without any suggestion it can continue as long as it's filmed it will have my wholehearted support. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because it is extremely local.Egeymi (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a local matter. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Clearly this one won't get posted (I didn't think it would, but decided to give it a shot anyway), but the issues of profiling go far beyond the "local matter" of the NYPD policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The objections are all off though. This has been a federal matter for a while. The one's calling this local have either not read or do not understand the law. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Just because a local law is being challenged in federal court does not mean it isn't anything other than a local issue. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
          • False. It sets a federal-district wide precedent, to which all locations in the federal district must adhere, and if challenged to the SC a final, national precedent. The NYC policy has been challenged locally before this, although our article doesn't mention it. This is the first federal case. E.g., one state judge decision not in our article: [39]. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
            • If this case gets to SCOTUS (possible, but not too likely) then it might be worth posting the ruling on, since there would indeed be a national precedent, but not the ruling from a single federal district within one state. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 13 August 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] Whitey Bulger convictionEdit

Article: Whitey Bulger (talk, history)
Blurb: Whitey Bulger is convicted of 11 murders and racketeering charges. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Mob boss Whitey Bulger is convicted of murder and racketeering after sixteen years on the run.
News source(s): LA Times, CBS

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major mafia figure with a highly publicized trial --– Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • support a decades long most wanted story in the US, with dozens of books written and one man basically running organized crime in all of New England with a huge amount of police and FBI corruption to boot. Biggest criminal story in the US since ABSCAM, Gotti, or the murder of Jimmy Hoffa. μηδείς (talk) 4:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • Support Significant figure within the America crime world. Significant conviction given the former protection Bulger received from the FBI (which he had infiltrated). Also given the length of time he was on the run and on the FBI's most wanted list. Alt blurb provided. --RA () 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per RA.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per RA. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has two "citation needed" tags in the lede, which need to be remedied. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Better update needed - two sentences in a very short trial section isn't really going to cut it given the amount of attention the trial has drawn. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
strong ioppose not in the news outside 1 country and intensly local issue.Lihaas (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Wow. Lihass I respect your aim to maintain a cosmopolitan outlook at ITN but this is a classic example of why our guidelines prohibit an oppose based on that reasoning. Leaving aside that your !vote violates the rules at the top of the page, this is only a local issue on the surface. First off, this was previously the TOP headline at the BBC. But looking at the substance, yes, Whitey Bulger is a Boston based mobster, just as Manchester United are a Manchester based football team. But Bulger had influence and effects well beyond Boston (and certainly commanded interest). He was convicted on federal charges, and was an FBI informant. One of his alleged murders took place in Oklahoma. He supported the IRA. He spent over a decade on the FBI's most wanted list and the reward for information from the FBI was the second largest ever (the first being Osama bin laden). He and his gang have been the subject of numerous bestselling books (certainly read outside Boston). He inspired a character in an Best Picture winning movie played by Jack Nicholson. There are upcoming big budget movies based on him. To describe this as a little parochial matter of interest to a small portion of the Northeast of the US is to look at the mere surface of this story.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've updated the article with info on the trial, which is now at the racketeering trial and conviction subsection. I would be hesitant to say he was convicted of murder, however, since he was in fact charged with racketeering. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted w/o mentioning the murders since he was not charged with murder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

RD: Prince Friso of Orange-NassauEdit

Article: Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Younger brother of King Willem-Alexander dies after over a year in coma. --LukeSurl t c 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, he meets the criteria for RD.Egeymi (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose under the current RD requirements he is neither a sitting dignitary nor ver important in any field. There is a discussion about the requiremets on talk, but unless they change he in no way qualifies. μηδείς (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • A senior member of a major royal house may fit under #1 or perhaps #3. Regardless, we don't need to follow the rules without question if there's a good case for improving the encyclopedia by ignoring them. --LukeSurl t c 16:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Because I like his name. It sounds fictional. And because we have an imbalance of US:non-US stories at the moment. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, also worthy of posting on ITN. Death of a member of a Royal Family is newsworthy. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Royal House and Royal Family are not the same thing. Friso was the brother of the King. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Friso was actually removed from the Royal House which you will see if you read his article. He was neither sitting, nor an heir to the throne, nor part of any international marriage alliance, nor of any importance beyond maybe his holdingsas a private businessman. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Pretty shitty of you to just copy and paste the same comment. The Dutch royal house is separate to the royal family, so no need to be a dick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Bet we would post if Prince Andrew carked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
              • We probably wouldn't if he had been removed from the line of succession, as this Prince was. Since Andrew is still in the line of succession(even if further down) that rationale doesn't apply. There may be other reasons to not post him, too. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. From reading the article it seems that though he lost his membership in the Royal House he did not lose his titles; he simply was no longer in the line of succession. That said, however, that does mean he is not "in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death", failing #1. I would think it would also mean he was not important in his field if he could not succeed to the throne (the Royal Family, if you call that a field), failing #2. I also don't see a wide international impact here, failing #3. I also think even if we removed the criteria as proposed that he still might not qualify. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think we should post the deaths of members of royal families just because they are royal. There are lots of royal families out there and many of them have lots of members. There is no indication that Prince Friso has a significant impact on the Netherlands, and - as has been noted - he renounced his rights to the succession. Neljack (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Indian aircraft carrierEdit

Article: INS Vikrant (Vikrant class) (talk, history)
Blurb: INS Vikrant, the first aircraft carrier to be built in India, is launched at Cochin Port. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​India launches a Vikrant-class aircraft carrier, the first aircraft carrier to be built in the country.
News source(s): [40]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The fifth country in the world to build an aircraft carrier. Formerip (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

it is NOT india's first aircraft carrier. and the page is not updated as the lead says it will be launched in 2018 (unless you mean the table with 3 words for the date, if so that's an insufficient update). See List of aircraft carriers in serviceLihaas (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you see the box above where it says "article needs updating"? 2018 is the date the ship will enter service, though, not a prospective launch date, as the article makes clear. Formerip (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ideally we would want an article on the INS Vikrant itself (INS Vikrant currently redirects to an article for a decommissioned ship). To clarify Lihaas' first point, INS Vikramaditya (a purchase rather than a new build) is currently undergoing sea trials, so we have to avoid the words "India's first aircraft carrier" without qualification. --LukeSurl t c 13:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are several stages for a warship before it is a fully-fledged vessel in a navy. Launch is one such milestone, however I would be more inclined to favour the commissioning. --LukeSurl t c 13:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated this as an industrial achievement, rather than a military achievement, hence the launch is the key event. Plus it's the bit that is traditionally seen as the "birth" of a ship, with the whole dignitary's-wife-wastes-good-champagne hoopla (assuming they do it that way in India). Formerip (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. Sounds reasonable. --LukeSurl t c 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Altblurb suggested which points more to an industrial rather than military angle. Support as per FormerIP, though I would still like an INS Vikrant article. --LukeSurl t c 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support we really need a new item... i dont think ive seen a new one in a week now. will go lenient on this since the actual commencement is far away. no need to reject items for something that will not come for 5 years. its still a notable achievement -- Ashish-g55 15:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when updated--a significant military development. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. INS Vikrant (Vikrant class) has been well updated. SpencerT♦C 18:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Attention required. It should be Cochin Shipyard, not Cochin port. My bad. Formerip (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    Done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose. We should post when it is commissioned and put in service. Merely launching the ship does not guarantee that. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It may depend on perspective but, like I said above, I see this as being about industry and economic development rather than in military terms. Today India formally marked a change from being a country that had never built an aircraft carrier to being one that had. When it subsequently sticks a radar antenna on top, installs the captain's jukebox and sticks the thing in its navy, I think that will be less significant. Formerip (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your views, but I don't see it in military terms so much as usability- anything can happen between now and the expected commissioning date to prevent its commissioning and use- in which case this landmark in industry means nothing. What you said, however, is why I didn't suggest pulling it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Unless this wasn't the day it was launched with the bottle of champagne, this is a fine ITN item. Very few nations have ever had an aircraft carrier. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Darfur clashesEdit

Article: War in Darfur (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over a hundred people are killed as tribal fighting breaks out in Darfur. (Post)
News source(s): The News Daily Nation

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Fighting has broken out between tribes in Darfur resulting in many deaths. Andise1 (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support-Immense death toll, needless to say it is uncommon to see this high a death toll outside of war zones. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • War_in_Darfur#2013 needs an update, and I wonder if a separate article might be a better update candidate. SpencerT♦C 18:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - While these conflicts are not uncommon in the region, ones that kill 100+ are rare and often have lasting consequences. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
With 2 supports? Theres plenty of other nom's with more consensus that don't get posted.Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Two supports and no objections. I can add that I support this as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
First of all, consensus is not determined by vote counting. Second the vote was 3-0 (nominator counts) at the time (after 24+ hours), now 4-0, which is consensus to post by any reasonable definition. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] László Csizsik-CsatáryEdit

Stale. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:32, 19 August 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: László Csizsik-Csatáry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Nazi war-crime suspect László Csizsik-Csatáry dies. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Death of an alleged Nazi war criminal for the RD ticker. Article is in pretty good shape too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Once the last two uncited parts of the article are referenced. Miyagawa (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per Miyagawa. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • How does he meet any of our criteria? SeraV (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    At the time of his death, he was included on the List of Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Miyagawa (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    How do we judge his importance in the overall scheme of things, though? The article isn't very clear about what he actually did. Isn't a list of war criminals from 70 years ago going to be focusing mainly on the criterion of being alive? Formerip (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that is quite enough, there was after all quite lot of nazi war criminals. How was he a special case amongst them beyond living longer. Therefore I Oppose SeraV (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose what in the world criterion does this meet? What field is he at the top of? μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, he might be at the top of the field of Nazi war criminals, although it is not at all clear. Formerip (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
More like at the bottom. Abductive (reasoning) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Please DO NOT mark as updated articles that plainly aren't. SEe RD requirements at the top right of the page if confused. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Please read the article next time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Death notices are based on a five-sentence, three source update of the death section, not on updates of the rest of the article. That can be changed, but it hasn't been yet. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral on RD, opposed to blurb. The name will be well known to those with a view on the 21st century attempts to track down surviving Nazis. But to die of natural causes at 98 is unremarkable, and I don't think the article goes into enough detail on his pre-2012 life to justify the additional exposure of a full blurb. —WFCFL wishlist 17:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A quote from the article: "Csatáry was a small fish. I could name 2,000 people responsible for worse crimes than he was." μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A relatively minor Nazi war criminal. SpencerT♦C 18:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose His only significance was living so long after WWII, had he died 10 years ago no one would have noticed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, how can we be sure he didn't? Formerip (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The reference to him being "a small fish" seems accurate. He can thus hardly be regarded as a very important figure in the field of war crimes. I also note that, while the blurb refers to him as a "suspected war criminal" (I would have thought that just being a suspect would make the notability case even weaker), the article refers to him as a "war criminal" on the basis of his 1948 conviction in absentia in Czechoslovakia. I am concerned that there is a NPOV issue with that (others have raised the issue before on the talk page without agreement being reached). Neljack (talk) 00:31, 13 August 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.

The International 2013Edit

Articles: The International (video gaming) (talk, history) and Dota 2 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Swedish esports team "Alliance" wins 1.43 million USD for winning The International 2013, an annual Dota 2 championship. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News

Nominator's comments: Biggest single-event prize awarded for an esport event hosted by a well known company, in a rapidly growing esport, which itself, is a rapidly growing area. -- (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Would need an article on the specific 2013 event, rather than just the over-arching The International (video gaming) article. --LukeSurl t c 16:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral The biggest Electronic sports ("esports") prize ever awarded, which should probably be mentioned in the blurb if this is posted. However, the Electronic sports article needs attention. --hydrox (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Maybe significant itself but how does this compare itself to MLG (the only esport event I ever heard of) other than prize money. Also I cannot see what is significant to this so called "sport" that struggles to get itself nominated, for example the two IPC athletics and swimming, and even if I would support the two, there are plenty of people who will press for an oppose. Even the nomination for the FIFA Club World Cup final was opposed last December and that is supposed to be the most significant event for any football clubs. Donnie Park (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for 2 reasons: the prize is shockingly large (unless the largest is not mot larger, I don't care too much if it is not the largest-since $1.4M seems much above the top prizes offered in most olympic sports for example); and esports are shockingly under-represented throughout the wiki AND on ITN. Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Currently we do not have an article update which would be considered sufficient for a more 'traditional' sporting events. The article offers no information on the actual games that occurred in the tournament (not even scorecards), and nothing about the competing teams apart from the teamnames exists on the wiki. The lack of this information is indicative of the fact that eSports aren't quite at this level of notabilty (yet). --LukeSurl t c 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

August 11Edit

Argentine mid-term elections, first roundEdit

Article: Argentine legislative election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Argentina held the first round of legislative elections to renew half the Chamber of Deputies and one third of the Senate. The final round will be held October 27. (Post)
News source(s): [41][42]
  • Nominated by (talk • give credit)
  • Updated by [[User: (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)| (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)]] ([[User talk: (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk: (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BArgentine+legislative+election%2C+2013%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Argentine+legislative+election%2C+2013&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit]) and [[User:[43]|[44]]] ([[User talk:[45]|talk]] • [{{fullurl:User talk:[46]|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BArgentine+legislative+election%2C+2013%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Argentine+legislative+election%2C+2013&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated}} give credit])

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A significant event in electoral politics; over 30 million voters are registered in Argentina, and turnout for this frst round was over 70%. -- (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Question. Would this be ITNR, or just the final round? I think in elections with runoffs we only post the final election. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • This was the first of two rounds, designed to keep very minor parties and ad hoc splinter groups - which in the past were often created solely to wedge the vote for larger parties - from influencing the final results (GOP efforts to draft Green Party candidates - sometimes even the homeless - in past House races is the closest U.S. analogy I can think of). This may not qualify for inclusion in the headline 'In the News' ticker, but I thought you might like to mention it in the 'Politics and Elections' section of the Current Events portal. (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe you can add it to the portal yourself without needing permission. Formerip (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Much obliged. (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose First-round elections are very rarely put up on ITN unless there's something extremely special about it, and I see nothing particularly special here. Best to try again when the second round happens. Redverton (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Please refer to my comment above where I mention that This may not qualify for inclusion in the headline 'In the News' ticker, but I thought you might like to mention it in the 'Politics and Elections' section of the Current Events portal. As it happens, these news have been in the Current Events Portal for a while now as suggested - so I think it's all been said already. Thanks. (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] PGA ChampionshipEdit

Articles: Jason Dufner (talk, history) and 2013 PGA Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, American Jason Dufner (pictured) wins the PGA Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​American golfer Jason Dufner (pictured) wins the PGA Championship.
News source(s): ESPN

Both articles updated

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.

Nominator's comments: This is an ITNR item that should be posted. --HotHat (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Rremove nationalisty, we don't post that for other such events like Tennis/Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. SpencerT♦C 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not true. We often post nationality, especially as it's more natural to say "American golfer Jason Dufner wins..." than to say "In golf, Jason Dufner wins..." -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment' - updating the PGA article is preferable to Dufner's page. In any case, I do not find the current update at eitehr page to be adequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Both articles have significant updates to them, and it has to include his nationality.HotHat (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Um, the blurb most certainly does not have to include his nationality. One option may be preferable to the other, but neither is required. Update is sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN/R and updated. Good work. 2013 PGA Championship should be the bold article. --LukeSurl t c 11:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted And, yes, the blurb doesn't need to mention nationality, but I generally believe the alternative blurb sounds more natural. I suppose "American" could still be omitted, but I don't think mentioning nationality is odd or unusual, particularly when the golfer is not particularly well-known. -- tariqabjotu 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment when posted, the article (Dufner) was packed with unreferenced claims, and an inadequate lead. Some of the rot has been deleted, but it's still in an appalling state. Why would anyone consider this article to be ready for main page inclusion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

New shark speciesEdit

Article: Carolina hammerhead (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new species of shark, the Carolina hammerhead, is discovered in South Carolina. (Post)
News source(s): Miami Herald

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A new species of a Shark has been found in South Carolina. Andise1 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Intereting but the article doesn't exist and mention on the main page would be useles to our readers. Do you plan to start it? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale, sorry. (June 2006) Would have been good. Abductive (reasoning) 16:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, firstly, there is no article at the moment - and also the point about the initial annoucement coming some seven years ago is quite significant. I think all that has happened recently is that the species has been named. Miyagawa (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

August 10Edit

Recent Deaths: Eydie GormeEdit

Article: Eydie Gorme (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News Washington Post People CBS News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: She was a notable singer who won both a Grammy award and an Emmy award. Andise1 (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Reading the news articles and her WP article, she seems to have been a popular singer, but there is nothing to indicate that she was a very important figure in her field. If anyone can provide evidence to the contrary I will, of course, reconsider. Neljack (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. She won one Grammy in 1967 for a solo performance and won another later as a duo with her husband. While she had a long career I'm not seeing how she was very important either. I also cannot find a mention of her winning an Emmy in the sources given or her article. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • In her singing partneship with Steve Lawrence: ""A prolific 93 albums, 12 Emmys, 2 Grammys and innumerable national tours.. ": People obit? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely more important in my life and had a longer, more diverse and more successful career than that recent dead non-entity from Glee, but we must do something to restore our standards here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    Can we stop bringing up what happened in the past and move on? Or at least bring it up more tactfully(in a way other than "dead non-entity")? 331dot (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would really find an essay "My Standards" by HiLo quite. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Nothing formal has changed since the posting of that recent, one-show-wonder from Glee. I will keep highlighting it's stupidity until something happens to prevent such postings in future. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That is unbelievably unhelpful. What exactly do you want - a rule that says "thou shall not post Glee actors?" or perhaps we should add "Don't post anything HiLo disagrees with or else be prepared to be reminded of it forever" to the rules? There is a time to express your disagreement with a post, and there is a time to drop the stick and move on. The latter is here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
While it's not an official policy, precedent obviously plays a part in what we post here. Until that Glee precedent is publicly ruled incorrect, and policies put in place to stop such errors ever being made again, it exists as a precedent, so of course we should post Eydie Gorme. Those saying to forget obviously want it to be forgotten, but haven't done anything to fix the problem. I have more principles. I'm not that kind of person. I have more principles. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if it was a precedent, which it is not, part of the reason it was posted was the unexpected nature of the death leading to widespread coverage. That obviously isn't the case here. Again, what policy "put in place to stop such errors" do you want exactly? Maybe you should propose something in an appropriate venue (such as talk page) if you feel so strongly about it instead of repeatedly bringing it up in other nominations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Referring to Cory Monteith as a "dead non-entity" and a "one-show-wonder" is crass and rude. Yes, the man died of a drug overdose, but that doesn't mean he should be denigrated. God forbid one of his family members stumbles upon this page. (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you don't like the truthful negatives, did you argue against the absolute nonsense positives written about him after his death. That thread was sickening in its dishonesty. And the death got posted. I believe in telling the truth. We could do with a lot more of that on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between 'telling the truth' and 'being needlessly crass'; you are doing the latter. One can tell the truth without doing that(which was really my main point) There is also a difference between truth and opinion; you are also giving the latter there. I'm not saying "forget" about it, I'm saying bring it up, if you must, in a manner with basic human decency and respect. You don't need to beat the dead horse to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I would also think that threatening to bring it up in perpetuity is essentially a WP:POINT issue. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
User:331dot, it's only WP:POINT if brought up *after* reform (or when reform is expressly ruled out). Because of the precedent created by the Glee nomination, reform to RD is clearly a long way off. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree; the first example listed on WP:POINT is somewhat close to what is going on here. (swap out a few words) A threat to bring up something in perpetuity until one gets their way, especially in a crass manner, is nothing but disruptive. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Allowing crap items to be posted, and refusing to do anything about it in perpetuity, is disruptive AND destructive. Oh, and we have no policies demanding something YOU define as basic human decency and respect. Showing false respect is, in fact, quite disrespectful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Repeatedly whining about a past nomination in other nominations is not "doing something". We, in fact, have a discussion on the talk page about the Death criteria and neither you nor Doktorbuk nor The Rambling Man have contributed, opting instead to bring up "that Glee guy" here [again] as if he has anything to do with this nomination. -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Saw that discussion. It's pointless. Wrong proposal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Then start the "correct" proposal. As Tariq said, complaining endlessly is not "doing something" and is borderline being purposely disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
What you call a "crap item" is called a worthy ITN item by others, per consensus. We actually do have a policy about basic decency and respect. Are you the sole arbiter of what is "pointless" on Wikipedia or not? You can either call it pointless and refuse to participate, or you can participate and work to get your point across. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That's quite a brief two word appraisal of the entire career of Eydie Gorme.Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose And I use the "Glee Precedent" as created by User:Tariqabjotu as my basis for wanting reform of RD and admin powers, too. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As implied by Thaddeus, something is only a precedent if we allow it to be; content here is posted by consensus. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Support A notable award-winning popular singer. Difficult when one half of a well-know duo dies (Steve Lawrence still alive, of course). Personally I'd have supported purely on the basis of Goffin and King's 1963 "I Want to Stay Here" (and that only reached number 28!) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing side discussion. SpencerT♦C 20:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support Duh! -- (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought "Duh", "Meh" and "Who" were quite reasonable reasons actually, if a little on the brief side. I see that you actually oppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: What? Was any part of that comment meant to be serious? -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Only the bits between "I" and "oppose". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok... but I haven't opposed this nomination. -- tariqabjotu 18:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no you haven't. You just appear to have. Now's your chance! But why do you think those one word reasons are "obnoxious"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
He was clearly just mocking the ITN/C instructions that say Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. He even made sure to edit in the exclamation point. -- tariqabjotu 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Probably not a coincidence, then. How ironic. And I always thought those were some of the most sincere reasons. Of course, they may still be useful...but apparently not when all used in rapid succession. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Martin Evans. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as Martin has made a good case. It's not quite the Glee guy (after all, it hasn't been posted within moments against criteria), but I've noted this passing has been main page on the BBC on my iPhone this morning and is still there some 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very minor figure in pop music history. (Sorry, Martin.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to tick all of the boxes for RD notability as an important figure in the field. Eight top 40 hits in the US (and four in the UK), member of the Songwriters Hall of Fame, and won an Emmy and two Grammys. Teemu08 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

10 August 2013 Baghdad bombingsEdit

Article: 10 August 2013 Baghdad bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 60 people are killed in a series of bombings and shootings in Iraq (Post)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Is anybody going to create this article?

  • This isn't the forum to request the creation of an article; I further suspect that the event would probably get added to an article about the ongoing conflict there. Given the ongoing status of the conflict and bombings there, I suspect this would not win consensus to get posted, as it is (unfortunately) not an unusual occurrence in Iraq. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia Paluweh volcano eruptionEdit

Article: Paluweh (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least six people are killed in Indonesia after Paluweh erupts. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian

Article needs updating

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support this source Wired will give enough for an update. Five dead in a pyroclastic flow. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see this as important enough for us to cover. The volcano has been erupting continuously for over a year; this was a spasm that happened to find a few people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Searching Google News I haven't been able to find anyone else killed globally by pyroclastic flows in the last decade. The prior reported eruptions of this volcano this decade have just been spewed ash, not pyroclastic flows. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That is the reason I said "I haven't been able to find" instead of there weren't. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I noticed the careful wording, although honestly I'd have gone with standard Google since Google News purges itself in regular intervals. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I used the date range function. Are you implying even then it is not a complete record? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The date range function will not pick up sites which have gone dead, naturally. I remember reading that most pages go offline within a year. My experience with Google's cache is that it goes down within a month. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Because this is an Indonesian news, added by I comefrom Indonesia, I like it! Indonesian language (Karena ini adalah berita Indonesia, ditambah lagi saya berasal dari Indonesia, maka saya menyukainya!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamanteo (talkcontribs) 07:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Note:This news can be see in Ini Nama Korban Tewas Letusan Gunung Rokatenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanamanteo (talkcontribs) 08:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Being from the nation where this news is occurring is not a reason to post this story to ITN, nor is "I like it". 331dot (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Really does, but I comefrom Indonesia...--Hanamanteo (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want to see this posted, updating the article with info from the eruption will help a lot. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Marginal support How common is the eruption of this volcano? I can see the death count being an issue (if you know what I mean) but it's a rare enough event to be notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Number of deaths is somewhat marginable, volcano has been erupting for the past several months according to the article. Certainly nowhere near the scale of the Merapi eruptions (which did make ITN). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Meh. -- (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose With only few deaths and 3000 evacuated (which really isn't that much), I don't see this as being that significant. Article quality is also rather poor. SeraV (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 9Edit

Boni Yayi dismisses entire cabinetEdit

Article: Boni Yayi (talk, history)
Blurb: Boni Yayi, president of Benin, fires his whole cabinet. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg APF

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This appears to be a notable and rare event. A president does not fire his whole cabinet that often. Andise1 (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support This is indeed a rare and significant event. Neljack (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. From what I see, we generally don't post cabinet changes, as cabinets typically serve at the President/PM's pleasure. Would be willing to reconsider if it is made clearer why this is significant. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment' - I believe 331dot's comment accurately assess previous decisions. Consensus can change, of course, but I would like to see an explanation as to the importance here above and beyond "its rare". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I would think its notable, btu per precedence it was not approved for South SUdan (and that was more notable as a first) so opposeLihaas (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rafael Quintero released from prisonEdit

Articles: Rafael Caro Quintero (talk, history) and Enrique Camarena (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Mexican druglord Rafael Caro Quintero is released from prison after his conviction for killing DEA agent Enrique Camarena was overturned after it was revealed that it was an improper trial. (Post)
News source(s): CBS News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: He was released from prison for having an improper trial. He originally was sentenced to forty years in jail for killing Enrique Camarena. Andise1 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think we should have debated posting the overturning of his conviction, and not just his release. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed this story as the blurb shows is tortured, esoteric and obscure. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose looks like a non-story. Certainly not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Big news in Mexico, but I don't see how this story has an impact across the world. ComputerJA () 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • From the blue box above: "Please don't... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I should have read that before posting. ComputerJA () 22:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the Mexican drug war is important enough generally for ITN and key events are ITN worthy. Certainly it gets a great deal of press in the US. However, as said above we probably should have posted the decision, not the actual release.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't really get the impression the OP was saying "This is not important because it only happened in Mexico. Rather, the implication seemed to be a worldwide impact would be more impressive. That being said, this sort of thing has happened before in reverse, where people have gotten off in America when they are wanted in other countries. The bottom line is it is a very recondite issue. The will be no general interest; just a very emotional response by those very closely related to and invested in the issue. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking, but I would have never been able to express it as well as you did. ComputerJA () 04:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 8Edit

Recent Deaths: Jack ClementEdit

Article: Jack Clement (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today ABC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: He was a country music hall of fame singer/producer. According to USA Today, he was a "country music legend." Andise1 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Looks like he probably meets the death criteria, but the article is seriously lacking in references. Neljack (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in pricniple - when I saw the death earlier today, I was too busy to nominate it or I would have. (Member of multiple Hall of Fames, Life Time Achievement award winner, etc.) However, the article is in poor shape and will need substantial work to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Lean towards support But one look at the article dismantling itself into a string of single-line asides suggests this won't go through quickly doktorb wordsdeeds 07:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality. At the very least a biographical article posted to ITN should have a decent lead which summarizes why this person is notable enough for ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment agree the article is so substandard as to make it difficult to judge his importance, but I lean opposed. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Who?-- (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
From above, "... add simple "support" or "oppose" notes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." Andise1 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Intentionally being obnoxious; see contributions. -- tariqabjotu 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - if the article was fully referenced. Which it isn't. Miyagawa (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Karen BlackEdit

Article: Karen Black (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: She was a notable actor who won two golden globes in her career. Andise1 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support was considering whether to waste my time nominating this myself. She's not only a double golden-globestress, she was grammy and oscar nominated. Her work is mostly far far to the horror/schlock B side of Brennan's though. Bottom line is posting her beats empty space. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't care if this is posted or not, but your "empty space" argument is no argument at all. The availability of space on the death ticker isn't one of the death criteria. If they are notable enough, they'll be posted. If they aren't, they won't. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I am of the opinion we place the bar too high when, of recent noms, for example, Brennan, Black and Admiral Woodward don't get posted. In effect we are saying we prefer empty space to their names. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The bar we go on is the Wikipedia:ITN/DC, which is the one area in which the criteria for ITN are spelled out. Also, the deaths of suitably notable individuals are a bit random; we usually have several names on the template.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Having no recent deaths doesn't actually lead to any empty space anyway. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (pending update of course) her role in Five Easy Pieces is probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, top actress of the 60s and 70s where she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films. Rather common sense RD here. Secret account 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pending support The article doesn't say much about her death yet, but I'm supporting this when it gets updated - a long career with recognition seems RDworthy to me. Beerest355 Talk 00:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose. I don't see how she meets the death criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not seeing the evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in the field of cinema. The news stories/obits don't seem to provide much evidence of her influence/impact. Seems like an important figure, but probably not a very important one. Will reconsider if further evidence of her importance is provided. Neljack (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per above and although she had long career, it does not mean she meets the criteria given that many influential figures with long career in their fields have not been posted.Egeymi (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Veteran character actor with a couple awards and nominations, but does not meet the death criteria as significant in her field. Not every Golden Globe winner is automatically qualified for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support 2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career seems just about good enough for RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm considering changing my !vote to neutral as Karen Black's death has gotten some reasonable coverage though looking at the page the update needs work. Most of the update is a quotation from her widower husband posted on facebook, which ought to be removed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it was one of the most read about stories on the BBC yesterday. --Somchai Sun (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names in the industry. Article is decent for an ITN RD nom. Article fails to note she had a role in the iconic movie Easy Rider. Jusdafax 19:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is improved. I'm switching from oppose to neutral. Still seems like a weak case but she may have seemed a very high profile actress at the height of her career. However, the update is still insufficient (so I'm naturally opposed on those grounds). I'm removing the part I referred to above, the quote by her husband posted on facebook, right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Seeing consensus then, I am marking as ready. Jusdafax 01:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm removing the ready tag. The article isn't updated.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  Done Re-marking as ready. Also: I've also expanded the main section a bit more and added a quotebox. Jusdafax 04:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question I am genuinely confused. Sandy Woodward commanded the forces on one side in a conflict that is in the 10 largest since WWII (at least those involving Western nations) and is regraded as important but not very important. Winning a science Nobel prize is not sufficient to be regarded as very important. However this case is supported with comments like:
  • "Award winning actress with a long list of films who worked with major names", not was a major name but worked with major names.
  • "2X Golden Globe winner and a fair career".
  • "Long career, combined with wide recognition for performing one role and two awards with other nominations, suggest she is important in her field", one role, two second tier awards and important so presumably not very important.
  • "probably one of the more iconic movie roles ever, ... she was either in the main cast or supporting cast of dozens of top films", one role and appeared in many major films - which could be said of loads of people.
I totally accept that these comments are sincere but not one of them suggests to me that she was very important. In fact many of those phrases could, with the addition of only here and there, be associated with an Oppose.
It seems to me that quite a lot of opinions are based, I am sure subconsciously, on whether the editor knows about the person or not. Hence media & sports people get an easier ride than, say, scientists.
I suppose that this amounts to a particular instance of systemic bias.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well with Black we are dealing with one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century, and it is (if its posted) the first recent death listing in nearly a month. In this exception, I wouldn't call this case of systemic bias, just that her notability proved to be too strong. Everything else, athletes/actors/scientists and so forth nominated for recent deaths has been shut down lately, (hell we shot down Donna Summer last year) not to mention it is almost impossible to post a media article or a sports related article unless its WP:ITN/R or the significance is too great to ignore. We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists and major politicians every so often in RD if it occurs, and there is rarely a day that in the news does not have any science articles there. It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down (and Rex Hunt was posted), but it happens, also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it, by that time the nomination got rather stale (I did support btw). Secret account 16:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      "one of the most iconic actresses of the second half of the 20th century" - Do you actually have any justification for that? None of the Support !votes said anything like that.
      "her notability proved to be too strong" - how is that reflected in there being 4.5 Supports, 1 Neutral and 3 Opposes?
      "We do post the deaths of Nobel Prize scientists" - every time one is nominated there seems to be an immediate comment that winning a Nobel priize does not automatically make someone sufficiently important to qualify.
      "It's unfortunate that Woodward was shot down ... also the condition an article is really important as well. Woodward article was a mess before he died, and it took days to fix it" - days as in less than 22 hours (proposed 5th 21:30, updated 6th 18:54).
      Also you have completely ignored my, implied, question of why this case is being considered when the Support comments say that she was not in the top tier, "worked with major names", "a fair career", etc. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Well I really don't want to be uncivil here (which I could easily), as I replied to your question in good faith and next thing I know is that I'm being attacked like I'm the villain despite supporting Woodward. Can you give me an example that Nobel Prize winners get "shot down" all the time? I been working in this area for several years and the only times a Nobel Prize winner was not posted was when the article wasn't updated and in poor shape, or the October 2012 era which we had such high standards of posting. Before October 2012, almost every death proposal that weren't a sitting head of state or some highly important figure like Steve Jobs and Robin Gibb (and yes well-updated Nobel Prize winners) was shot down quick. Also when it was nominated Woodward was a mess, thus some of the early oppose votes. I didn't ignore your question, you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth to make a point. Secret account 17:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I am sorry that you interpreted my comments & questions as an attack. However a number of the points that you made were factually incorrect (how long it took to sort out the Sandy Woodward article) or did not reflect the discussion above (her iconic status). Also you have repeated the comment about the Woodward article being a mess. After it was nominated it had two short paragraphs (three sentences) added and then seemed to be acceptable. That does not sound like a mess to me.
I'm sorry but I don't have time now to trawl through the archives but I am certain that at least one Nobel prize winner had had a comment about that not being a mark of sufficient notability but noone seems to object to a Golden Globe award (or even a nomination) in the same way. Possibly the Nobel prize winner may have been rejected for other reasons but that is not really relevant. Winning an acting award seems to confer notability but winning a Nobel doesn't.
I really don't see what you mean by "you ignored the other parts of those comments including the award winning mentions and so forth" In the list of, IMO, poor Supports I included one of the two that mentioned her winning a Golden Globe. That also said she had a "fair career".
I do not at all see how my comments can be regarded as make a point. The discussion was moving towards posting and I wanted to question if we were acting in a consistent manner.FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Donna Summer died in May 2012, but Recent deaths wasn't introduced until October 2012. -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 16:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Based on what reasoning? I don't see a consensus in the above discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok, and I do. What's your point? -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • You could assume good faith and explain the reasoning that led you to see a consensus. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
          • In what way did I not assume good faith? You and Muboshgu (opponents of the nomination, mind you) don't see consensus. I disagreed, obviously; that's why I posted. What's so complicated about that? -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Muboshgu asked a specific question, "Based on what reasoning?" asking how you had come to believe that there was a consensus to post and your response was just to say that you saw a consensus without giving any reasoning. To me that seemed you were ignoring his question. FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Muboshgu, there is no consensus above, even if we ignore that many of the Supports are half-hearted. FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't criticize Tariq's posting this, but it is clear the support is far from overwhelming. I voted support, but my wording sounds like a weak oppose. Black's work since the mid 70's has consisted of dozens of horror and B movies: Burnt Offerings, Killer Fish, Invaders from Mars, Plan 10 from Outer Space, Children of the Corn IV, House of 1000 Corpses.... there is no objective comparison which makes this superior to Eileen Brennan's work. Sandy Woodward may not have been the most important military man of the 20th century, but he was certainly more "important" than Ms. Black. I'll repeat that all three probably should have been posted (Woodward can still go up--you can make my vote there a support if it helps). The problem is not really in the nominations but in the way important is being used in judging them. See talk. μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I have no objection per se to Black being posted but I don't see a consensus, or even any very good aguments, that she was very important. I agree with your point that there is problem with the way that important (or very important) is being interpreted.
Counting dead bodies is a bit ghoulish but please excuse me. It seems odd to me that a bus crash that kills 20 people is important enoght to get several lines in ITN but the commander in a conflict that killed over 900 people is not important enough to get two words in ITN. Also I am pretty sure that in, say, 10 years time more people will read about Sandy Woodward than about most bus crashes.
"you can make my vote there a support if it helps" - Thanks but (pardon the pun) I think that boat has sailed!
FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • While I remain neutral on this, the current !vote count is 6-3 with one neutral (yes it's not a vote yadayadaya) so I think this was a reasonable consensus. The comparison with Sandy Woodward is pointless--he's a general and she's an actress so it's not a like to like comparison. Honestly famous generals don't seem to die that often so there isn't much agreed-upon criteria on what makes a General a worthy RD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

[Pulled] Lost Orson Welles film rediscoveredEdit

Article: Too Much Johnson (talk, history)
Blurb: Orson Welles' 1938 film Too Much Johnson is rediscovered after more than 40 years (Post)
Alternative blurb: Orson Welles' 1938 film Too Much Johnson, believed destroyed is discovered in Italy
News source(s): New York Times
Screen International

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very rare for a film as substantial as this from a major director to be rediscovered. Article looks in good shape, I'd suggest that the out of date tag can be removed. --yorkshiresky (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hmmm. The porn remake won't even need a new title. Support. Formerip (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for a variety of reasons. Newsworthy, article is updated reasonaby well, unusual event as the nom. points out, secondary links go to a variety of good quality articles, provides added value to the readership and variety to the ITN section. I'm fully aware that most of these reasons are not in the criteria guide before anyone points that out :) Pedro :  Chat  11:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support clearly newsworthy and the article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting and unusual story in the world of cinema/film history/Orson Welles. This film was lost, then found, then presumed destroyed, so yeah - I think very few people saw this coming. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Pedro. SeraV (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Pedro. Gamaliel (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pile on support. A rare event dealing with a historically notable film. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - the update could use some work. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready the third paragraph of the loss and recovery section is well updated. μηδείς (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree this is ready, good work on the update. Note to posting admin - to save you checking the image is not free so can't be used. Pedro :  Chat  16:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
There is, however, a PD of Welles himself. Teemu08 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yay! (support) μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, suggest we use that and loose Mugabee. Pedro :  Chat  16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per established importance of Welles' work. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Rosebud Awesome Wells. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. You all are aware that this film was never screened, never finished, and was an experimental piece meant to be played along with a stage show? It can hardly be said to be "substantial" or "historically notable". Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A lost work by Orson Welles is a lost work by Orson Welles. His pea commercial outtakes are classics. The issue here is that because we don't really expect lost works of great artists to be found we don't include that as a category. Instead we have WP:IAR. μηδείς (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I know. I'm not opposing posting, just trying to set the record straight. For instance, it was not a copy of the film that was discovered, it was the film. Abductive (reasoning) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the blurb is misleading. I was trying to figure out why this was in the news now, when the article clearly states the film was found in 2008. If the recent restoration announcement (buried way at the bottom of the article, and not visible in the opening section) is the newsworthy event, then the blurb should reflect that, not a discovery made 5 years ago. - dmmaus (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The canister was found in 2008, it's contents weren't discovered till recently. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the article, it was discovered in 2005, and was found to contain TMJ in 2008. The only news here is "film house announces the completion of a restoration", which probably wouldn't have been posted if that had been made evident from the beginning. I have reworded the blurb - it's now boring as hell, but accurate. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This would still have been posted in October when it is to be released. We can pull and repost or leave it up as still notable and still in the news. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Would it? I'm less that 100% sure about that. I think maybe we need to just quietly file this under "oops". Formerip (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulled At the very least, the story nominated here wasn't the story actually posted, and there is reason to believe this wouldn't have been supported had people known what actually happened recently. -- tariqabjotu 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Incredible! I am glad Tariq knows how people would have voted without giving them time to comment. I am not sure why we bothered to have the nomination in the first place given his prescience. Can Tariq let us know whether this will go back up automatically in October? Or will he post it for us in 2008? This is getting tiresome in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, he was only undoing himself. A pull in no way says the story can't be reposted now or later, just that Tariq was no longer confident in his own reading of consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Having given Tariq some grief myself over the Glee affair, he's quite correct to pull this in my opinion. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm yeah it seems blurb was misleading, I think pulling was correct choice. I don't think restoration in itself is some huge news, perhaps when this is shown in public. SeraV (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I support the pulling. Beerest355 Talk 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Not opposed to the pulling. 331dot (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Good call to pull. As Sera V says, perhaps when this opens. Jusdafax 20:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

August 7Edit

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Margaret PellegriniEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:31, 10 August 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: Margaret Pellegrini (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Hollywood Reporter

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: She was one of the last three surviving munchkins from the movie Wizard of OzAndise1 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose She's not a notable actress on her own.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - unless there is something more to this. Being a Munchkin alone is surely not enough. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She is notable for one role only, or at least the article only mentions her association with that role. Also agree with Johnsemlak. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, as already pointed out she really isn't notable enough for RD.--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Follow the Weak Oppose Road. Wizard Of Oz may very well have been a ground-breaking film, but a single role is not part-and-parcel notable for RD; compared to Judy Garland who had the leading role but was also in other movies at the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would probably support a full blurb when the last munchkin dies, like we did with Millvina Dean, the last Titanic survivor. Secret account 23:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other than one role (of which she was one of many scores of actors), what else did she do? Anything of note for the front page? RD was not supposed to be an open door for anybody doktorb wordsdeeds 07:12, 9 August 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.

[Closed] Fire Hits Kenya's Main AirportEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:29, 10 August 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: Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Fire hits Kenya's biggest airport. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A fire, hits one of East Africa's most vital gateways to travel.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, TVNZ

Article needs updating
 Lucky102 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Update needed three sentences on one reference doesn't make an update. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An apparently accidental fire now contained with no casualties is a news blip, not an ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral now, support if there is a significant update the amount of coverage in the article has actually decreased since earlier in the day when there was about 4-5 sentences supported by 2-3 references (based on memory). There would be a lot more coverage if this had happened at a European or North American airport (for example) but major fires at major international airports are rare and Kenya is under-represented here. I'll definitely support if there is a significant update to the article but at the moment I can't decide whether I'm a weak support or weak oppose, so I'll stay neutral for now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Accidental fire with no casualties. The disruption caused by the damage to the terminal is being managed. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose flights already back up and running within a day or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 August 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.

August 6Edit

[Posted] The Washington PostEdit

Articles: The Washington Post (talk, history) and Jeff Bezos (talk, history)
Blurb: Jeff Bezos to buy The Washington Post for $250 million in cash (Post)
News source(s): BBC, WaPo

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Historical media icon sold to new media baron for small change. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment We usually post such deals on the completion of the deal, which in this case does not sound like it is completed yet (BBC says "60 days"). --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not ready to oppose yet, but I don't see the significance here. A newspaper was sold- the Boston Globe was just sold a few days ago (also for a miniscule price) and we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The Boston Globe and associated papers, which were purchased for US$1.4B ($1,400,000,000.00) by the New York Times in 1993 were just sold for $70,000,000.00--far less than 5% of the original investment, about the value of their real estate holdings, if one accounts for inflation, with the NYT still holding $100,000,000.00 in pension liabilities.[47] This is much bigger, more notable, and sadder news. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Point taken, but such a well known newspaper being sold at such a loss would seem to be notable IMO. 331dot (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If posted, the two (Post and Globe) should go together mentioning they've been sold below asset vallue. Being as I almost always oppose business news, I'll not support the Post sale as an item by itself. A supportable blurb could be something like "In separate sales The Washington Post is sold to Amazon's Jeff Bezos and the Boston Globe to Red Socks owner John Henry at considerable losses." Or, perhaps, "In unrelated sales the Washington Post and the Boston Globe are sold at $US losses in the hundreds of millions." μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support only the Washington Post sale. An iconic newspaper being bought by a very notable individual. The Washington Post is much more notable than the Boston Globe.-- (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who is able to buy a major newspaper will probably be notable, so I don't think that aspect of the story gives it anything extra. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The blurb should explain who Jeff Bezos is, as he's not a global household name. --LukeSurl t c 09:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
We could write 'Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' though I'd be concerned this would mislead viewers into thinking Amazon bought the newspaper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
What about "Jeff Bezos, founder of, purchases the Washington Post for $250 million in cash." Having the reference to Amazon after his name and not before might reduce confusion. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with article updates and blurb that mentions Amazon. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose as nominated. The Boston Globe fire sale is the much bigger and still fresh story. The collapse of the industry may be worth covering, but one vanity purchase with no managerial or policy changes promised is not. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A very big story regarding what is effectively "new media" that has bought up the old media: the newspaper of record in the capital of the USA. I do believe it is a good idea to mention Amazon in the blurb. Suggest we leave the Boston Globe out of this, as the Post is, or perhaps was, in a class of its own. Iconic is not too strong a term for the Washington Post. Jusdafax 07:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
oppose per Medeis.Lihaas (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Ever since Watergate, the Washington Post has been a print-media beacon. In U.S. journalism, only The New York Times has had more clout. Sale of the Post far outweighs that of the Boston Globe in significance — and the buyer being a cyber-mogul of sorts may be significant as well.
PS: It's listed today in German Wiki's version of ITN, In den Nachrichten. Sca (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand opposition based on the fact that the Boston Globe is a bigger story here. Anybody remotely familiar with the US media landscape will understand that the Washington Post is second only to the NY Times as a mainstream broadsheet. The Boston Globe isn't even in teh top 5.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the case if you are part of the nattering class--the Times, Post, and Wall Street Journal are bought outside their areas for political, cultural, and financial reasons. But the Globe is/was a top-rate paper which the Times itself bought for $1.1 Billion. As papers and not, say , flagships of a certain political party, they are quite comparable. The WaPo has 47 Pulitzers since 1936, The BoGlo 22 since 1967. On your reasoning there should be a lot more support for a combined posting. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't heard the word nattering since Spiro Agnew was vice president! Sca (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Medeis I think you've answered the question of why the WaPo is more notable than the Globe--it is one of the few papers in the US to have a truly national profile.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Sale of one of the world's most influential newspapers to one of the best known entrepreneurs. -Zanhe (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

This story is updated so I'll mark it ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: George DukeEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:18, 10 August 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 Duke (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today Reuters

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: USA Today refers to George Duke as a "jazz icon" and "a pioneer in the funk and R&B genres." Andise1 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, but this man is not "worldwide known" enough to justify an inclusion at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that a candidate be worldwide known; the only requirement is that it meet one of the three criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose a good working musician but no awards, or major hits and only one album with its own article, on which his trio is listed second. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not important enough for the front page doktorb wordsdeeds 07:13, 9 August 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.

Spanish sex offenderEdit

Article: Daniel Galvan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​After an initial pardon and ensuing protests in Morocco, convicted child rapist Daniel Galvan is re-arrested in Spain. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Sydney Morning Herald, The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN

Nominator's comments: Sems to be in the news and with large scale protests, including the sacking of the national prison chief. Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. There is no article to evaluate, nor is the scale of this person's alleged crimes given(one victim, a hundred, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am closing this under the bold policy of WP:BLP. It can be reopened if we get an article with sources to support otherwise defamatory claims. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Way too premature. Nominations are made here all the time without associated articles, and he is a convicted child rapist, as nearly every source on this story corroborates. Oppose if you feel there's an issue. -- tariqabjotu 03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he was apparently convicted and then pardoned, and the pardon was withdrawn(part of the reason this hit the international news, I think). Still need an article but I could potentially support this. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone want to help creating 2013 Moroccan protests?Lihaas (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This really should be closed if we are not going to have an article on which to pin the accusations. He's not notable, and this violates WP:EVENT. μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have created a stub on Galvan atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
And now also on the protests. Take it or leave it.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Turkish trialEdit

Article: Ergenekon (trials) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 200 Ergenekon members, including former Army chief Ilker Basbug, are convicted for attempting to overthrow the Turkish government, amid clashes. (Post)

Nominator's comments: Large scale convictions for an alleged coup attempt in a large country is notable, IMO. I know there is an article for this but I cant find it. Can someone add it here? Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Support if updated. Also, can you provide some sources ? --Երևանցի talk 06:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support only if article gets significantly worked on. It's currently in poor shape and very much outdated, and doesn't even mention the recent convictions yet. The event is quite notable though and definitely has had international news coverage (e.g. top news item on German "Der Spiegel" online edition yesterday). Fut.Perf. 11:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems a serious political attack on the Turkish military, hitherto guardian of secular republic. Here's a source for the Spiegel article in English translation:
Sca (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I oppose to the blurb in this form, since none, except the Turkish government and the judges, thinks that all these 200 people were really part of a plot (people who speak German can read for example here). Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that this would make the story more significant, not less. Formerip (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I was not clear: the story is very significant, is the form of the blurb which is wrong. According to the news that I read (Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, NZZ) the existence of Ergenekon is real, but the government used the plot as an excuse to get rid of opponents who had nothing to do with it, manipulating evidences. So, we cannot write "Over 200 Ergenekon members", since the large majority of them were not part of the plot. Alex2006 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
How about "convicted on charges of..." as a form of phrasing? --LukeSurl t c 11:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No. The point is that according to most of the press (at least here in Europe) many of them are not members of the plot at all. Maybe "Over 200 alleged Ergenekon members..." could be a solution. BTW, IMHO a putsch attempt which involves directly so many people would be suicidal. Alex2006 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 5Edit

The AshesEdit

Article: 2013 Ashes Series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Test cricket, England secure an insurmountable lead in their series against Australia to retain the Ashes. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

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: ITNR sport event, though we could discuss whether we want to post now or at the conclusion of the series. --LukeSurl t c 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Far WP:TOSOON wait until 25 August, when the result of the whole series is known, the Blurb can then be either "In test cricket, England win the 2013 Ashes series against Australia by 4-0|3-1|2-1|2-0" or " In test cricket, England and Australia draw the 2013 Ashes series as holders England retain the Ashes." LGA talkedits 09:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • post now. We did the same for the last series. I don't think it can be argued that the retention of he ashes is not the single most notable result in the series, even if the final result is also notable.-- (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A retention is as good as a win, so it's good enough for me. I assume we're not going to get an easy ride because of the inherent USA-bias and dodgy admins but a man can hope...... doktorb wordsdeeds 10:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think precedent has been to post at the conclusion of the series, just in case of the extremely unlikely event that this is somehow reversed or cancelled. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    The result cannot be reversed or cancelled. The British have won the Ashes. What's not determined is the final score.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Things can always be reversed or cancelled, unless the league decides to stop playing. The last stage of the Tour de France is always run even though 99% of the time the winner is not in doubt, because it is still part of the race and needs to be completed to win- the potential winner could crash or have a freak accident to prevent them from winning. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    In this case it can't be, while they are not lost we can't win them. Sill we should wait till the concussion of the series.LGA talkedits 11:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no league to talk of here. There are two more matches to play, and England lead 2 - 0. Australia winning back the Ashes is literally impossible at this point. --LukeSurl t c 19:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes for clarity if the last 2 matches are cancelled or if Australia win them England will retain the Ashes. This is different from the Tour de France since in that case, no one has won the Tour until they actually win it no matter the lead. A better example in racing is perhaps Formula 1. There comes a point where it is mathematical impossible for anyone else to win the world championship (or constructors), this often isn't the last race of the season. However when it happens it's still the time the world championship (or constructor's) is won, which is distinct from say when Schumacher was dominating and was widely expected to win but hadn't actually won yet. (Of course when it comes to the World Championship you generally need to win it outright rather then just retaining it.) Of course it's generally possible for any result to be reversed or overturned in most sports, but this is different an can usually happen at any time, even long after the tournament or whatever is finished. We don't avoid mentioning the Tour results simple because the winner may lose their results years later due to doping, nor do we avoid mentioning the NRL (presuming we still have consensus to post this) winner simply because they could one day lose the premiership over salary cap breaches. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, "mathematically impossible" unless there were to be a fatal crash in one of the remaining races. I'm not sure what would happen in that case. But I agree your example is a better one. Cricket is not quite so prone to such dramatic twists. I suppose one team might still be disqualified for some reason and the series never complete. But that does seem somewhat unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • post now. "England retain the Ashes" is the result, everything else is unimportant. DW meter (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
wait Aus can still tie, fgranted England have retained it. Nevertheless, precedence is to post after sports tournaments ends.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hilarious. Evne though someone above had already said "post now. We did the same for the last series.", the precedent is somehow to do the opposite? Wow. If Australia tie, which in itself is a pretty long shot, literally nobody would care. Not even the Australians. DW meter (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support/post later Could be posted as the final outcome is now mostly irrelevant, news-wise. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's Test cricket, not test cricket. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Amended. --LukeSurl t c 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait It is incorrect to say England is leading the series (more like crystal balling) as if the next 2 games are won by Australia they will tie it. England will keep Ashes by default however this particular series would still be tie... i would wait till we know which one it is. Even if we posted it earlier last time, i see no reason to follow an incorrect precedence. -- Ashish-g55 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • "England retain Ashes" has been the headline. Unlike pretty much any other case in any other sport, in this case a draw is effectively as good as a win for England. Test cricket is weird. --LukeSurl t c 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess ill be ok with it if we dont say anything that suggests england won this series or is leading the series etc... as we need to wait for series outcome. just stick to the urn -- Ashish-g55 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting now The most important result that will come out of this series has now occurred. England has retained The Ashes. Those who don't understand can check out that article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support now. The newsworthy item is that England have retained the Ashes, whether that is 2-2 or 4-0 is irrelevant because even in the latter case England will also have retained the Ashes, not won them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait And post the final results of the series along with England retaining the Ashes. CaptRik (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Why? Without a reason, that's just a vote. [And there's a BIG discussion on about voting rather than discussing here.) And votes must be ignored by the closer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair point, I voted to wait as the result of the Ashes is not yet clear. England have retained them by the fact that they are guaranteed a draw but they can still win them outright. Comparison with another sport - I'm sure we don't post the winner of the Premier League as soon as it's mathematically finished, we post at the end of the season. With the same logic, we should post this at the end of the series. CaptRik (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No, that's wrong. The result of The Ashes is completely clear, now. England has retained them. Comparisons with other sports are pointless. The Ashes is a unique competition between two countries which never change. Nobody "retains" the Premier League cup, or whatever they win, in the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
RE EPL we would post the Premier League winner after the clinched it, not necessarily after the end if the season.-- (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait by default. The optimum time to post was two and a bit days ago. The second best time to post is the evening of the end of the final test, and we can get that done pretty quickly. And regardless of that, how do we succinctly explain in a blurb to the wider readership that England have The Ashes in the bag despite the fact that the series could end 2-2? —WFCFL wishlist 00:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there's really a problem for the wider readership. We don't have to report the score in teh blurb--merely state that England have retained the Ashes. The details of the fact that a draw is enough for England can be left to the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I agree with WFC's assessment of the situation. --LukeSurl t c 09:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting now As a cricket fan, I can assure you that retaining (or winning) the Ashes is what people care about - the precise result of the series is less important. Even if the Aussies manage to draw the series they will still regard it as a failure - they were here to recapture the Ashes. Neljack (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the point is the Oz can't gain the Ashes back. A win in the series would be a bonus, but the retention of the trophy is the fundamental note here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wake up call This nomination has had plenty of posts, but has been sitting seemingly unnoticed for two and a half days. Will anyone make a decision? Or will we wait until it's too late be posted? HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Go back to sleep call Surely, the appropriate time will be when that ridiculously tiny trophy is held aloft by the victorious captain. Anything else just isn't cricket, old chap. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You have every right to have and to express that opinion here. Although that reason doesn't cut it for me. The Ashes is more of a concept than that silly old urn. And England has retained them. But what concerns more me is the failure of process here. Why was this thread allowed to sit idle for so long? HiLo48 (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
For many people the silly old urn is what it's all about, i.e. the full series. The urn isn't a crystal ball, is it? That said, the current plot-spoiler blurb can't be denied as true. When was it decided that Chris Froome had won this year's Tour de France? I suppose in that case he could have easily died before reaching the finish line. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't understand how The Ashes works. Froome could have done something to cause him to not win the TDF at any moment up until the very end, but England has already retained the Ashes. It cannot lose them in this series. And that's what's sad about this thread. Too many posts based on ignorance. A closing Admin MUST understand how it works, and ignore posts like that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my pathetic stupidity. I had thought they all played on bicyles. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged the nomination as needing attention. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but why did our process fail (yet again) here? (ITN is dying.)HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, it's because we're ignorant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hilo I don't think it's necessarily ignorance. It seems to me (not only based on this discussion but on the discussion for the last Ashes) that there's a disagreement even among editors familiar with cricket over when exactly to post the Ashes result (when it's retained/lost, or when a definitive series result is clinched, or even after all 5 tests). It's probably something that should be resolved later on at the ITNR talk page. Of course, there's also the lack of an update....--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it's ignorance alright. I can accept discussion about when to post, but there can be no disagreement that this is a very different situation from someone leading near the end of the TDF. That involves someone not knowing how The Ashes works (while thinking they do). Given that it's already been explained several times in this very thread, That's ignorance. Fortunately, as many wise people have pointed out, ignorance can be cured. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Only one person objected along the lines. That objection, based on a bit of misunderstanding, is not what's holding this up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Before anyone accuses me of being uncivil here, I must point out that I have used the word "ignorance" here to simply mean not knowing something (and in this case, acting as if they were certain they did.) It's a fact, not abuse. Posts here based on ignorance (and there are several) must be be ignored. It's a basic concept. (Oh, and I did not use the term "pathetic stupidity" anywhere to describe anyone. Implying that I did is blatant misrepresentation.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know what "admin attention" is needed: the article has a very poor update (just a couple sentences in the lead). I also don't understand how one can feel the ITN process has "broken down" here; as always, items can be marked as [Ready] if they are ready (which this is not). -- tariqabjotu 23:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
What kind of update would you expect to find? That third paragraph in the lead says pretty much all that needs to be said and all that can be said, without going into a detailed explanation of why drawing the third Test meant that England had retained The Ashes. That would be inappropriate. We don't go into details of the rules of a sport when describing a particular instance of that sport. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps something about the series itself? The article provides very little prose about the matches; almost the entire article could have been written before the series began. -- tariqabjotu 00:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. There's usually enough cricket obsessives around to fill articles like that full of all sorts of trivial nonsense. Dunno where they are this time round. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If you look at the 2010-11 Ashes Series article, there's a prose summary for each test. I'd be reasonable to expect that for this article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That would be nice, and I don't understand why it isn't happening, but that doesn't change the fact the England has retained The Ashes, and the article says so as clearly and completely as it should. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact is a prose summary of the actual match (or test match for cricket) is pretty much the absolute standard for sporting events at ITN. The Super Bowl or the Champions League are not posted until the update is made despite the notability of these events--there's no reason to not hold the Ashes to the same standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
If only I could be cured. My observations were questions of most appropriate timing, not of fact. So sorry if you feel have been so "blatantly misrepresented". (They should probably give up on the series now, shouldn't they. Has no-one told them?) But apparently I was only acting. Or thinking, alas. Just off now to add some trivial nonsense... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You clearly still don't understand The Ashes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for explaining everything there. Hardly worth my while watching the Oval match then. Do you think Bells' 105 will be enough? What happens if the goalie gets a burst tyre? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
All good cricket is worth watching,but England has already retained The Ashes. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an ITNR item This WILL be posted. The only matter under discussion is when, not if. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It might be argued that, since the weather played such a decisive role in forcing at least a draw, this Ashes series result should be seen as less significant than in other years. That question can only really be answered by considering the quality of play in the remaining matchea. Of course, England could still win the series 4-0, or 3-1, couldn't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You could argue that, but you would be wrong. And I know the players and true fans won't see it that way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support waiting - They may have technically won now. But they haven't lifted the trophy. Miyagawa (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Nobody lifts the trophy. There is no trophy. The Ashes stay in a special cabinet at Lord's. Please read that article. Sadly, this thread is chock full of misapprehensions. So many posts based on falsehoods. (Is that nicer than saying people are ignorant, even though it means the same thing?) HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Much nicer, thank you. p.s. when does the team celebrate its victory? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
What victory? There have been victories in two Test Matches, which I'm sure led to small celebrations, but no victory in the series. Again, that question doesn't fit The Ashes, which England has retained. HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't retention regarded as a victory? p.p.s. when will England celebrate retention? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (there is no trophy?)
  • Oppose until updated at least: Other than a discussion of the squads, and the lead, the article has not been updated or expanded sufficiently. There should really be at least a few sentences of prose on each match – at the moment there are just bullet-pointed lists of comments. It doesn't need to reach same level of prose as 2010–11 Ashes series, but should really be expanded before posting. Regarding whether it is posted now or once the series is over, that's really moot while the article needs an update. - Shudde talk 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, England have now won the Ashes, pending an update, this should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet another wrong post. England already held The Ashes, so they couldn't win them. If every wrong post here was struck out, this thread would be half the size. I don't care when it's posted, but I do care about getting things right. When most of the Not yet posts (and this one) are based on falsehoods, DESPITE considerable efforts at education by me and others, plus pointers to the relevant article, I really do worry about the comprehension of other editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Biogenesis baseball scandalEdit

Article: Biogenesis baseball scandal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Thirteen Major League Baseball players are suspended for using performance enhancing drugs, as a result of the Biogenesis baseball scandal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Major League Baseball announces the suspension of 13 players, pending appeal, for using performance enhancing drugs.
News source(s): CBS Sports The Guardian; BBC News; Le Monde, The Australian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: CBS News headline: "Biogenesis scandal ranks among MLB's biggest in history." Andise1 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Drug scandal in a sport with a history of drug use. Besides which, the right time to post would be if the appeal fails. If we were to post now and the appeal were to succeed, we would be duty-bound to post that as well. —WFCFL wishlist 23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually baseball never had a player, especially a star like Alex Rodriguez being suspended such a long period of time (two years in this case) because of a drug/doping scandal. This is easily the biggest doping scandal to hit sports in general since Lance Armstrong which we posted, and probably rank among the top five ever. This has widespread implications in multiple sports, and should end the "doping era" in baseball. Support Secret account 23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, good suggestion. Although it's a sports item, an area where I think the bar should be held a little higher (along with most other entertainment-related noms), I think this easily meets that bar and will have a more meaningful impact than many of the routine sports items that we usually post. This is a huge deal for a sport that is several orders of magnitude more significant as an entity than swimming, for example, another currently-nommed sports item (and I'm not hating on swimming; that one should and probably will be posted). AP called it "baseball's most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal." --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • My opening remark was intended to be facetious (apologies if it didn't come across that way), although in my defence it was a fair comment. But A-Rod hasn't even stopped playing yet: this surely only meets the bar if he is actually suspended? Otherwise we have a handful of players who have pleaded guilty to doping missing less than a third of a season. Significant, but hardly earth-shattering. In cycling and athletics you generally get one or two years, yet the problem is still widespread, so I don't accept the premise that this will mark the end of drugs in baseball. And to reiterate, if this is posted and A-Rod suspension is overturned on appeal, we would surely then need to post that. It simply doesn't make sense to go now. —WFCFL wishlist 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's an internal league matter. Far worse, the comissioner is making what are essentially criminal allegations, without any of the protections of the actual criminal system, or liability for other parties like coaches and owners who would be subject to conspiracy charges were these real criminal proceedings. Imagine trading houses that knew of their traders' activities demanding they stop trading and forfeit their salaries while the brokers kept their profits. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the top headline story on NBC and, and near the top on BBC's news page. Also covered in other countries. This being "an internal league matter" is irrelevant to its status as a news story. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not "top of the news", and we have a policy called WP:BLP. These people are being accused of essentially criminal activity by a private organization. We shouldn't touch this unless there's a court verdict. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My point was that this is a large story receiving a lot of coverage. Again, it is not illegal to use a PED so a court trial is unlikely unless A-Rod or the others lie under oath, but a private organization can discipline its members as it sees fit and as unfairly as it wants to. If we need to wait until A-Rod's appeal (I believe he is only one appealling) is exhausted to avoid a double post, okay, but this isn't yet a criminal matter. Not even sure if he is under investigation by the criminal justice system. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question having a bit of a issue in getting to the bottom of this; some background .... Am I correct in the following, MLB paid for information from a informer from a now defunct company to provide them with details of who this company supplied. Last month Ryan Braun took what amounted to a plea bargain, today it has been announced that 12 others have also taken a similar plea deal and one other Alex Rodriguez was suspend for 211 games, that suspension was it's self suspend pending the outcome of an "appeal". Now to the question, I cant find anything which indicates there has been an interdependent hearing on this; if that is the case this would be a the same as a 100m sprinter being charged with taking a performance enhancing drug, as we would never post that until all legal avenues have been exhausted why would we consider this one . LGA talkedits 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
We have no independent documentation on any of this. If you read Braun's article, there is plenty of ESPN speculation. (ESPN is a TV sports network, not a branch of The United Nations.) He's not exactly taken a plea, but stopped fighting his 50 game suspension, and had an extra 15 game's suspension added on, which would be illegal for a US criminal court to do. Likewise there have been reports that Alex Rodriquez was threatened with a lifetime ban [48], and that he has gotten a longer suspension (211 games) because he didn't cooperate with the commission, which apparently saw him as an easy-to-go-after whipping boy [49]. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't illegal to use a PED(criminally, at least), though it is illegal to lie under oath about doing so. This isn't a legal matter(yet, at least), just a personnel issue. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course there are no criminal penalties because there are no criminal charges or protections of the criminal court, just untestable allegations which amount to defamation per se by the league. Most people assume there is some sort of demonstrated or admitted criminality here, but there is nothing other than the bosses deciding an arbitrary number of employees will lose an arbitrary amount of pay, while the managers and owners who were aware of the alleged activity face no sanctions. As in Braun's case, they have shown that if you don't accept these penalties without appeal you will face worse. Compare this to the Cumberland Farms case where the convenience chain settled [50] for having regularly accused cashiers of stealing from the till and forcing them to sign confessions to avoid criminal prosecution. [51] Supports for this nomination because it is "in the news" show our WP:BLP oversight function here is fatally flawed. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is currently the biggest new item in profession sports and involves some of the biggest names (and even formerly-possible hall-of-famers) in baseball. It is also rare in North American sports for there to be such a huge crackdown on players using perfomance enhancing drugs. This has been in the news for several weeks, and will no doubt be in the news for some time as it continues to unfold. --PlasmaTwa2 08:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait We need to wait on this, in the same way we did on the Silvio Berlusconi and Bradley Manning cases until the FULL process has been completed (i.e. when all the appeals have been completed). From what I can see up to now MLB has been acting as both prosecutor and judge, and as now that Alex Rodriguez's has announced he will appeal posting risks the requirement for us to post a correction later. LGA talkedits 09:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As a private organization, MLB can discipline its members as it sees fit (in keeping with any labor contract provisions and the law). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A minor internal incident in a minority interest/one-nation sport doktorb wordsdeeds 10:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Objections relating to an event dealing with only one country are not valid; and MLB operates in two countries (Canada), has players from many different countries, and is seen around the world. As I linked to above, foreign media has covered this (including France, where baseball is not that popular). 331dot (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
"One nation"? Which nation? Japan, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic? –HTD 18:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Ignore the armchair lawyers, their arguments are irrelevant, if not completely uninformed. This is worthy of posting now because the announcement made the news all the way to the UK, even though we don't give a shit about the sport, precisely because it's a very newsworthy sporting scandal in of itself. DW meter (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Largest scandal to hit Major League Baseball since the Black Sox in 1919, and seems to be in the news on a wide scale. Ks0stm (TCGE) 12:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor comment: If used, "Biogenesis" should be capitalized. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is a major league story (pardon the pun) Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. On my scandal scale, this is on par with Ben Johnson. And honestly, if we posted Lance Armstrong, this merits inclusion as well. The story here is the announcement of suspensions, but I would note that some are pending appeal. Resolute 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • As a note, reading a Reuters story on it, it appears that only one player is planning to appeal. The rest have accepted their suspensions. Resolute 16:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A serious scandal, worthy of the front page. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the suspensions are a joke really (not even a 6 month suspension?). However, considering that baseball is likely even more notorious about drugs than cycling, it it noteworthy that their governamental bodies decided to DO something. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Steroids in baseball? Next you'll tell me that there's gambling in this casino. Gamaliel (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would liek to see a more substantial article/update before posting. It is a little light at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Suspensions in a sport are most certainly not worthy of being on ITN.--Giants27(T|C) 21:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    Even if it's one of the longest suspensions ever handed out by MLB for any issue? (the media called it "the most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal" in 1919) 331dot (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment we have extremely uninformed comments above. There is no governmental body here. There is a commission of owners who are covering their own arses by punishing their employees, but not themselves or their coaches or managers. There is no criminal admission of guilt in accepting a 50-game suspension. If one doesn't "accept" such a suspension one faces retaliatory action for appealing, anywhere from 65 to 211 games as in the case of Braun who appealed, and Rodriguez who wouldn't settle. This "scandal" involves players attending a clinic the nature of which the owners and coaches were well aware while it was happening. Calling this the greatest scandal since the Black Socks is simply absurd, looking at the cocaine scandals of the 1980's. But those happened long, long ago in a nation far, far away. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have an opinion about whether the event is significant enough for posting but, if so, the article needs work first. Formerip (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Secret and Resolute. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - biggest doping scandal in several years. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A massive drug ban, and also the ruling affects players from four different countries and implicates a player from a fifth.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with those who have said that we should not post this until the full process has occurred. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Baseball news being reported in my country is exceedingly uncommon. (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] RD:Admiral Sir Sandy WoodwardEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:15, 10 August 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: Sandy Woodward (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, Washington Post, The Province,

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Commanded the task force that recaptured the Falklands. This included the largest naval battles for a long time, possibly since WWII. Most military people never actually fight in a war (certainly over the period 1946-2001) so to be the commander of a successful significant campaign puts him clearly at the top of his field (even though I am sure we all wish his skills had never needed to be proven this way). --FerdinandFrog (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Grenada has 30 times the population of the Falklands, MacArthur's invasion of Korea falls during the period mentioned and is considered brilliant, not to mention the size involved, the first Gulf War, concluded in 30 days, is ignored, the target article has a whole three sentences on the Falklands era.... μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Question I'm not really sure what point(s) you are trying to make. AFAIUI in neither of the the invasion of Grenada nor the landing at Inchon was there a naval opposition, certainly not one of any note so there cannot have been any naval battles. The first Gulf War took place entirely on land so I am sure that th