Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 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.

December 31Edit

[Posted] Latvia adopts the EuroEdit

Articles: Latvia and the euro (talk, history) and Euro (talk, history)
Blurb: Latvia (flag picured) becomes the 18th EU member state to adopt the Euro (Post)

Nominator's comments: Latvia adopts the Euro at midnight local time (22:00 UTC). Usually an important and notable event when a country adopts a new currency. --Bruzaholm (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose — This isn't really news. It's long been planned/scheduled. BBC quotes Latvian Finance Minister Andris Vilks as saying, "No one is going to change, because society and business want to see stability and predictability of conditions." [1] That sounds like a ho-hum.
The addition of Latvia (pop.: 2 million) won't significantly boost the Eurozone (332 million). If Poland (38 million) decides to adopt the Euro, that will be news. Even if Lithuania decided to join, putting all three (ex-Soviet) Baltic states in the Eurozone, that would be more significant, although Lithuania, too, has a small population (just under 3 million). Sca (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Any country that changes its currency is news. And per WP:BIAS.

Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? Nothing anti-Latvia here — Latvia's economic recovery has been widely praised. It's just that this won't make much difference to the Eurozone. Sca (talk)
  • Weak support, there are only 17 Euro countries, so the addition of even a small additional one seems significant. The fact that Lithuania is in some ways "going it alone", without the other Baltic states, seems to make it more of a news item. But when is the next one due? Or, in fact, is there another one? Sorry to see the Latvian lats disappear! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major financial and economic news, which isn't something we cover very often. Yes it's a small country, but I don't think that invalidates the story. Modest Genius talk 17:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Not convinced by the opposition so far. The eurozone is a pretty unique international economic experiment, and of great academic and political interest globally. Although we prominently featured the economic crises that shook the eurozone, it's been quite quiet on that front lately, so I don't think we're over-featuring eurozone topics either. I categorically disagree that yet another country, however small, giving up its national currency and joining the experiment is minor news on encyclopedic standards. --hydrox (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Only 17??? Wasn't that part of the problem behind the euro crisis — getting 17 sovereign states to agree? Imagine a football (soccer) team with 17 players on the field. Sca (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
... or imagine a chess set with only 75 pieces on the board?! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support it's entirely irrelevant that this has been long planned. This isn't "In The News (that nobody expected)", it's "In The News". We regularly (too often) post elections of non-entity countries which have been long planned, in fact we do so as a result of ITN/R. Expansion of the Eurozone is notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment, although the support is clear and unequivocal for the news item, can someone fill me in on which article(s) have been suitably updated? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support major financial news, the changing of a currency is a pretty big deal and most definitively newsworthy. The small size of the country does not, to me, make it not newsworthy. Snowolf How can I help? 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is not huge news, but it is encyclopedic, will be of interest to readers, and given the news is slow it won't be crowding other stories off ITN. μηδείς (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support so what Latvia's a small country? Currency change is rare and very newsworthy. --Երևանցի talk 21:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Update? I am not sure what sort of update is going to be possible for this. Unless there are riots there will probably be little actual news. Are the banks even open on the first? Can someone comment? μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Guess it's time to get outta the kitchen. Laimīgu Jauno gadu! Sca (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Es nevaru stāvēt siltuma, vai nu! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha! (Thank goodness for Bing.) Sca (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. This may be a minor population increase to the Eurozone, but it's massive news for Latvia. As for update, well there will need to be updates to many articles, although most will be small, the articles will be up to date. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't these regularly get posted? Abductive (reasoning) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Significant for both Latvia and the Eurozone, particularly given the Euro's recent travails. Neljack (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. There's minimal update but that's more or less it for the moment. Probably more updates will follow in the morning. --Tone 03:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

December 30Edit

[Posted] 47 killed in Congo attacksEdit

Article: December 2013 Kinshasha attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​47 people are killed after anti-government forces attempt to gain control of key buildings in Kinshasha, Democratic Republic of Congo (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First nomination in a long time so please forgive any errors. I have recently created this article after picking up this news earlier. Think it is long enough for an ITN spot. Someone can probably come up with a snappier blurb. --Dumelow (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak support it's been noted in the UK all day, large death toll, article needs a bit of refinement, but otherwise suitable material for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant not only for the death toll, but also for the attempt to seize control of the capital. Neljack (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Dramatic story with high death toll. The rebels aren't normally so active in the capital part of the country. Iselilja (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

December 29Edit

[Closed] Michael SchumacherEdit

Closing, consensus is to not post at this time. Can be reopened if circumstances change. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 30 December 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: Michael Schumacher (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Seven times Formula One world champion Michael Schumacher (pictured) is critically injured in a skiing accident. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
 --Mjroots (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed the altblurb, come on! In any case, wait. --Tone 22:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Altblurb was in case it happens overnight. Of course, it's not something I want to happen, but it is a possibility given news coverage. Mjroots (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose if he dies then probably a blurb, but otherwise, nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As of right now, there is nothing to discuss. Injuries aren't usually ITN material - I don't think we even posted Nelson Mandela's health issues. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Wait. A blurb would probably be warranted if he dies. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Definitely agree. Schumacher is next to only Ayrton Senna in F1 fame, and the most successful driver ever by a good margin on just about any measure (most Drivers' Championships, most wins, most podium finishes, most poles, most fastest laps, most laps led etc.). --hydrox (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too soon right now. I would support a blurb if he dies, though. ComputerJA () 23:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given. If he dies (hope not) then a blurb or RD listing may be warranted. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Premature This is a developing news story, the nomination is premature. We know very little of Schumacher's current condition; it could be just about anything from just a scare to something fatal. We only have a doctor's statement, but it's worrying that they were first reporting that the condition was not serious. Next emanation to the press is scheduled for Monday, so let's see again then. --hydrox (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope he gets better and we never have to post this -- Ashish-g55 07:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Guy goes skiing and ends up in the hospital. Not remotely worthy of ITN. Now, would the news be that a 7-times F1 world champion has died, then RD would of course be warranted, but that is not the news right now. Oppose. Snowolf How can I help? 07:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support, if only acting as Devil's Advocate: I actually couldn't care less whether this goes in or not, but I can think of three so-far-unmentioned arguments for considering putting it in. First, his life-threatening injury is actually much more 'newsworthy' than his death will be if he dies (which hopefully he won't), because learning about his injury comes as a bit of a shock to a lot of people (including me), whereas his death, if it happens, will be sad, but it will no longer be much of a shock and thus it will arguably be much less newsworthy than his injury. Bongwarrior's comparison with Nelson Mandela's illness is arguably misleading, because '95-year-old may die soon' is not shocking. Second, if Obama suddenly got critically injured I expect a lot of people would want this reported, and I doubt if there would be unanimity on waiting to see if he died. Obviously Obama is far more significant than Schumacher, but this raises the question as to who or what decides the threshold of significance for including a person's critical injury, and it might be interesting to know whether there are any guidelines on this - if somebody knows of them, it might be helpful to tell the rest of us. Third, many readers may well feel, rightly or wrongly, that there is something unseemly or ghoulish about what they may see as 'We're not interested unless he dies', and this arguably might damage Wikipedia through loss of reputation and/or goodwill. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - to those who say the nom was premature, initial reports were that he had "non life threatening" injuries. I only posted the nom after it was revealed that those injuries were "critical". I accept that consensus is that this won't get posted unless he dies, at which point we should re-examine the nom and decide on blurb or RD. Naturally, I sincerely hope that this won't be necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until he dies. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The item is already in Current Events (in effect Page 2 of ITN) for December 29, where it appears as:
Seven-time Formula One drivers' champion Michael Schumacher is reported to be in critical condition after brain surgery in Grenoble for a head injury suffered while skiing in the French Alps. (AP via ESPN)
In other words, you get to see it if you click on 'More Current Events'. It seems a bit odd to me that there is such near-unanimous agreement to keep it off ITN if it is deemed by our Admins to be worthy to appear in More Current Events, in effect page 2 of ITN. I wonder how many people writing here were aware that it was already on that 'page 2' (I wasn't). But I suspect I can't have been alone in being unaware, given the difference between the two blurbs, and the lack of any discussion of bringing the wordings into line. Does anybody think we should somehow have been told? Tlhslobus (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I've now asked a similar question here on the Current Events Talk Page (Could we somehow have been told that the Michael Schumacher story was already here?). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No, we knew it was already here, the portal is transcluded above. It's up to editors to add the day's current events there, and if they believe the events worthy of being included in the ITN section of the main page, nominate it. Nothing to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I guess I'm an awfully slow learner. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No. If he dies, I'd say yes, but I think now this nomination is a bit premature. Küñall (talk) 13:04, 30 December 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.

RD: Wojciech KilarEdit

Article: Wojciech Kilar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Highly decorated and highly regarded Polish pianist and composer. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Look at all his awards... clearly an influental person of noted importance. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-known film composer who composed scores for highly regarded films including The Pianist, Portrait of a Lady and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but see below (my Comment on not meeting 'Widely Regarded' and 'Very Important' requirements) regarding his awards for The Pianist and Dracula; I'm not aware of any awards for his score for Portrait of a Lady, so even assuming the film is highly regarded there's seemingly a shortage of objective evidence that his score is highly regarded. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - well known in his field.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. — Kpalion(talk) 21:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: His alleged notability appears to be much exagerated. He is allegedly a highly significant figure in the field of music, seemingly mainly film music, but I've never heard of him, despite watching the whole of the recent BBC4 series on the history of film music. He has a longish list of secondary awards as one might expect, but he has no Oscars, no Oscar nominations, no Baftas (one unsuccessful Bafta nomination), no award from any major film festival, no compensatory Lifetime Achievement Oscar for those unlucky enough not to win in any one year, and so on. The article itself tells us 'The vast majority of Wojciech Kilar's work remains undiscovered by the music public at large, despite...' Tlhslobus (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per espresso addict SeraV (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not a flicker of interest from the news media. One of his awards is a redirect to the BAFTA page but that type of award isn't mentioned on the page. Also, any awards given by the communist state system should be discounted as tainted by politics. Abductive (reasoning) 16:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • False assertion. Not just the BBC as shown above, but The Daily Telegraph, Los Angeles Times, The Australian covering this (with a two second glance). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I missed "any awards given by the communist state system should be discounted as tainted by politics", because of course no Western awards are given as a result of politics. Utter bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
      • But leaving aside the politics, there's still the problem that lots of Polish awards to a Polish composer is very weak evidence that the 'Widely Regarded' requirement of WP:RD is being met. For the most important actual and alleged non-Polish awards, User:Abductive is right, and there are actually many more problems with them - for details, see below (my Comment on not meeting 'Widely Regarded' and 'Very Important' requirements, and my Comment on not meeting Article Quality requirement) Tlhslobus (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Notable in his field. It is true there is not extensive media coverage, but there is enough in my opinion. Communist or not the awards were given by the legitimately recognized government of his nation at the time; this is not the forum to judge political systems. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support his awards are not limited to the Warsaw Pact or era. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • True, but the other actual and alleged awards are also problematic - for details, see my 2 Comments below Tlhslobus (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Update Needed "Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient" A one sentence notice that he is dead is not a sufficient update, given his being listed as recently dead means he is recently dead. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on not meeting 'Widely Regarded' and 'Very Important' requirements: (more on the reasons for opposing already given by me earlier). The relevant WP:RD criterion for his inclusion is supposed to be "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" (there is also an Article Quality criterion - see my next comment). I find it strange that we should be expected to see him as 'widely regarded' and 'very important' when, as already mentioned, he has no Oscars or Baftas, and he got no mention in BBC4's series on the history of film music, among other such problems. He was one of the few people not to get an Oscar Nomination for The Pianist (which got 7 nominations and 3 Oscars), although in fairness it did get him the French Cesar and an unsuccessful Bafta nomination. But if you look at the soundtrack details, you will find that Kilar is reported as composing one track lasting less than two minutes and everything else is by Chopin. There are also additional pieces by Beethoven and Bach mentioned in the Music section of our article on The Pianist, but no pieces by Kilar are mentioned. Yet this is what got him his seemingly most prestigious award (the Cesar) and is one of the movies mentioned by others in support of his nomination, which hardly suggests that he is a 'very important' figure in his field, but is entirely consistent with everything else I've said about him, and quite likely goes a long way to explaining why he didn't get an Oscar nomination. Then we have his actual and alleged awards for Dracula ('Perhaps his greatest success' according to our article, and another of the movies mentioned by others in support of his nomination). Once again the movie got into the Oscars, with 4 nominations and 3 wins, but he was not nominated. He shared his Ascap for this movie with 7 other composers/lyricists/publishers of 5 other movies (details here at IMDB), which once again hardly suggests that he is a 'very important' figure in his field, etc. We are twice told that Dracula also won him the prize for best score in a horror film. This sounded rather like scraping the bottom of the barrel, but it turns out that it isn't even true, as he was only an unsuccessful nominee (details here at IMDB). The 'widely regarded' requirement for WP:RD probably means that we should not give too much weight to all his Polish awards, and arguably also means that we should give considerable weight to the article's admission that 'The vast majority of Wojciech Kilar's work remains undiscovered by the music public at large' (which is unsurprising in the light of everything else we find about him). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on not meeting Article Quality requirement: (and further reasons for opposing, on top of those already given by me earlier). The article has a number of serious problems, so it does not seem to meet the Article Quality requirement of WP:RD. For instance it currently incorrectly tells us (here) that he won the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for The Pianist, on the basis of a dead link. There are several such dead links, including the external link to his official website in English, and most of the other links are in Polish and thus hard to check. It also gives him a Bafta nomination for an unspecified film (this is presumably actually the above-mentioned Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for The Pianist), and it fails to list his Cesar, arguably his most prestigious award (even though he seems to have composed less than 2 minutes of the soundtrack, as mentioned in my previous comment). And as already mentioned in my previous comment, we are twice told that Dracula also won him the prize for best score in a horror film, when he was actually an unsuccessful nominee. Given how many errors I have found so far by checking only a tiny fraction of the article, I suspect there may be many more. I have no plans to try to fix them myself - besides not wishing to do any more work on this, I'd hate to do fixes that might help get somebody so dubious into Recent Deaths. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason you are so invested in keeping two words off the main page? Just wondering. Winning an Oscar, while important, is not the be-all-end-all for getting onto ITN. Neither is being in any particular documentaries. If you define the field as just "music", yeah, probably he's not the most important guy(along with a lot of others that we have posted), but if you define it as Polish music, he clearly is important. There are also systemic bias issues to consider. Thanks for your posts, but I maintain my support. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your helpful reply, 331dot. In answer to your question, I wrote two longer and more detailed paragraphs because I got no reply to my earlier shorter and less detailed paragraph. I can't be expected to work out that I'm wrong if nobody bothers to answer the points I raise. However you have now answered them, for which thanks again. I don't know whether systemic bias by me played some part or not, but in any case it no longer matters whether it did, as I accept your point regarding Polish Music. So I now withdraw my opposition, though one or more people should make a reasonable attempt to address the Article Quality issues. But somebody other than me should do those fixes, partly because I've already said I don't want to do any more work on the matter, and partly because I'm not sure how much fixing, if any, ought to be done except for the easiest and most obvious fixes suggested by what I've written. But open-ended things like how much additional checking needs to be done, if any, are judgment calls which others are better qualified to judge than me. (Don't worry, I won't be raising any further objections on Quality as I know from experience that people like you and The Rambling Man can be trusted to do a far better job on that than I could).Tlhslobus (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment/Afterthought: I won't bother re-instating my opposition (even though arguably I should, but it's not worth the effort). But for the record, and for possible future reference, I now suspect that my concession of your claim that his 'field' was 'Polish music' was the sort of mistaken concession one tends to make when one is worn out and in a minority of one and one feels the argument is not worth the effort. Nowhere is his field described as 'Polish Music'. He was nominated as 'a Polish pianist and composer'. His biographical article describes him as 'a Polish classical and film music composer', and the phrase 'Polish Music' does not appear in the article except at the external link 'Kilar at the Polish Music Center'. It seems to me that accepting that his 'field' is 'Polish Music' with no supporting evidence logically also implies one of two things. Either we accept that Nebraska Music, Delaware Chemistry, Wyoming Painting, and Alabama Volleyball are 'fields', or we accept that a composer, chemist, painter or volleyball player from Finland or Norway or my own country (Ireland) is about 100 times more deserving of being included in Recent Deaths than one from the United States of America, due solely to the differences in population size. But, as already mentioned, I don't think the argument is worth the effort, so I won't be re-instating my opposition. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow, just wow. Honestly, this is going stale rather quickly, and perhaps instead of writing a pair of essays, that time could have been spent addressing the concerns the essays describe. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You might perhaps have been able to spend that time that way, The Rambling Man, but in practice (basically because, among other reasons, rightly or wrongly, it would have seemed like deliberately shooting myself in the foot) there was never a snowball's chance in Hell of me doing so before somebody showed me why I was mistaken, which 331dot has now done (see above). And it doesn't much matter that I didn't do the fixes myself, because, as was always obvious to me, the easy ones can fairly quickly be done by somebody else, and any harder ones were never going to be done by me anyway. And arguably the whole thing could have been avoided if somebody had answered me yesterday, but then maybe nobody would have discovered some of the quality issues that I did discover, in which case all's well that ends well, at least for now. But as you said, never mind. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Despite saying I didn't want to do any work on the article, the above criticism of me eventually stung me into doing something. I have now foolishly wasted a day's work on tidying it up. There's more that arguably needs doing, but somebody else can do it. Hopefully I've learnt my lesson and will never again be stupid enough to go anywhere near ITN. Indeed if I'd any sense I'd probably do something to get myself banned from Wikipedia for life, as the only way to permanently cure my stupid masochistic intermittent addiction to it. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Volgograd station bombingEdit

Article: 2013 Volgograd station bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bomber kills 15 and injures 50 in an attack on a railway station in Volgograd (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: (According to many sources: Another possible Sochi-related news thread, this time not all smiles and pretend waving.) Small stub started, needs expansion before posting. Significant terrorist action. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment There seems to be a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS going on here, by the media and by editors. There's no obvious connection to Sochi. Our article doesn't mention any connection. It's 700 km away!. The BBC source explicitly says "No group has yet claimed responsibility for the blast". Russia has many issues in its fringe territories, many not connected with the Olympics venue. However, this IS a big event. Can we just report it for what it is, not what some people think it might be? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Sochi isn't mentioned in the blurb or the article. It's mentioned by me because it's mentioned by many different news sources. The blurb is reporting it for what it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Terrorist attacks with many casualties are notable, especially in a country getting ready for the Olympics(which doesn't need to be in the blurb, but does make it notable). 331dot (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Medium-sized bomb attack that gets extra attention as it raises question about the Sotchi olympics security situation. Iselilja (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Volgograd main train station
Bombing site
  • Support — A specific link to Sochi isn't needed for this to cast a pall over the upcoming Winter Olympics — this, in the context of Putin's amnesties being widely seen as PR for said Olympics. (PS: Reuters, AP say "at least 14" while BBC, NYT say 15.) [2] [3] [4] [5] Sca (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this now be marked as posted? Sca (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
PPS: Pic of station available. Sca (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a set of images depicting the aftermath of the explosion at commons, see Category:2013 Volgograd station bombing. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The first one of those looks most usable. Sca (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I had posted this, but my edit got lost in the shuffle. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • BBC updates with 16, "officials say." [6] Sca (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Update. I made a bold move to include also the 30 December trolleybus attack (10 or 15 reported dead). Iselilja (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Two suicide bombings kill 31 people in Volgograd, Russia. Like this? Willing to update when I get some feedback. --Tone 11:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I'd make it "at least 31"... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Very well. Please check if you like the modification to the pic caption. --Tone 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
All good for me, I removed the spare space too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
There's an up-to-date photo of the bombing site, I think it's better (there are also some others at Commons). Brandmeistertalk 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It'd be better if it wasn't so vague. It doesn't really show anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed re alt. photo, which we looked at yesterday. At least the present pic. is identifiably railroadish. But would it be possible to change (Volgograd-1 railway station pictured) to something like (Rail station, site of first bombing, pictured)? Sca (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

December 28Edit

UFC 168Edit

Article: UFC 168 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Ultimate Fighting Championship, Chris Weidman (pictured) defeats Anderson Silva via technical knockout to retain the middleweight championship title and Ronda Rousey defeats Miesha Tate via submission to retain the women's bantamweight title. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In mixed martial arts, Chris Weidman (pictured) defeats Anderson Silva, breaking his leg, and Ronda Rousey defeats Miesha Tate via submission.
News source(s): Yahoo News USA Today

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was a notable fight to begin with, as two female fighters were "rematching", and an up and coming UFC fighter (Chris Weidman) was fighting against one of the greats (Anderson Silva). Also, this fight ended with Chris Weidman breaking Anderson Silva's leg, which is likely going to end Silva's career (according to some of the sources). Andise1 (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Conditional support I don't really have a great deal of knowledge when it comes to UFC or MMA, but this seems a notable enough event to go on ITN. Lol, wonder why they had an all-female "Rematch"... --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this sport, like some others, has several weight categories, I don't see a reason to pick this particular weight category. AFAIK, we don't post boxing championships and similar stuff either. Brandmeistertalk 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor oppose. This is certainly a difficult one. I would have had no trouble supporting the first bout they had back in the summer, considering that Silva (argueably one of the best—if not the best—of all time) lost via KO. Silva had the longest title-defenses and victory streaks overall in UFC history, so the event was pretty notable. This re-match happened because people couldn't believe Weidman put Silva to sleep, but it was not as notable as the first fight, IMO. There are many title fights in UFC and I don't think all of them should be posted. Perhaps if Georges St. Pierre comes back from his time off MMA and loses that would certainly make it to ITN. ComputerJA () 17:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This isn't even a sport, it's PPV programming. I don't see anything about UFC 168 that makes it any more suitable for ITN than UFCs 1–167, none of which we featured. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not the forum to debate whether or not it is a sport; only to debate the merits of posting this to ITN. Personally I would tend to agree- but many would not. 331dot (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • PPV programming featuring mixed martial arts, an actual sport. But I get what you mean. MMA isn't too big yet to have global organizations like the World Boxing Association, but I don't think that should be a reason for opposing this. ComputerJA () 23:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. 132,000 Google News results. If that isn't news, I don't know what is. Certainly a lot more than women's handball (9,230) or the rugby league world cup (4,340). –HTD 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • And if we posted content based on the number of Google News results...Somchai Sun (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
      • We actually post content with less Google News results. It's 50:50 on major news stories that aren't gossip. –HTD 17:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support made various front pages, and fact that fans watch on PPV rather than in one small venue is entirely irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment what makes UFC any different from the WWE that many editors find so distasteful? Is this a genuine contest or is it somewhat staged? Some quick Google searches seem to imply it's just a bit of showcase. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    UFC is not staged. In UFC, there are legitimate punches and kicks which do result in bleeding and blood. Also, the fact that Anderson Silva's leg is actually broken (why would they stage someone getting their leg broken?) confirms that UFC is not staged. UFC is also the largest mixed martial arts company in the world. Andise1 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The outcome was significant and MMA isn't going anywhere, we may as well deal with the fact that this is now a major sporting event. - OldManNeptune 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Good to see a martial art in ITN. That would provide a hook to interesting articles that wouldn't otherwise be seen. --Tóraí (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it makes it to the front page, I think Silva's leg break should be included in the blurb. One of the reasons why it got so much coverage was because of the gruesome injury suffered by "MMA's best fighter of all-time". ComputerJA () 23:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added it to the alt blurb. --Tóraí (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've proposed a shorter blurb so as give the sport (rather than the promoter) as being the field of activity. Started before you posted so no worries if you choose not to use it. --Tóraí (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Pretty sure that's not the leg break you're looking for...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC))
  • Comment some of the article is still written in future tense. Also, should the title of the article be italicised like the lead suggests, or even should the article be UFC 168: Weidman vs. Silva 2 as per the previous UFC? There also seems to be a vast swath of bold text midway down the page which seems unnecessary. If we can resolve these issues, I'd consider supporting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not ready - I would consider posting, but the article is in no condition to post. Most notably, there is zero description of the fight in the body of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Minor sport with little worldwide or media attention, primarily run as a TV event rather than a proper sporting contest. This is not even the biggest event in that sport - there are half a dozen of the UFC events every year, and this one didn't feature a heavyweight title fight either (which I assume is the most prestigious of the multiple titles, like in boxing). We don't post each boxing or wrestling event, and nor should we do so for MMA. Modest Genius talk 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] New Soyuz rocketEdit

Article: Soyuz-2-1v (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia's Soyuz-2-1v rocket makes its maiden flight, launching Aist 1 and two radar calibration satellites. (Post)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Maiden flight of a new rocket, which is ITNR. Article has had a basic update and I'll add more now. --W. D. Graham 18:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't think this counts as ITNR. Maiden launches of new "types" of rocket are ITNR. In this case, I think Soyuz is the type, and Soyuz-2-1v is an individual "model", if that's the right word. Formerip (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
    We included a US rocket (Minotaur V) which was a far less significant departure from its predecessor (different upper stage). The Soyuz-2-1v is essentially a Soyuz in name only. In any case, it is within the spirit of the ITNR entry since almost all new rockets are derivatives of existing ones. --W. D. Graham 19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the article: "It consists of a Soyuz-2.1b, with the booster rockets omitted, and the core stage re-engined with the NK-33 engine, originally built for the N1 programme.". Formerip (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it is badly worded and oversimplified - so I will change it - but that sentence describes replacing pretty much every part of the 2-1b except for the third stage (which becomes the second stage with the 2-1v since Russian stage designations count the boosters as stage 1). --W. D. Graham 21:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment/Query: Neither the blurb nor the article allows a layperson like me to understand whether this is significant or not, basically because there's no simple description of why this rocket is significantly better than its predecessor, assuming it is (obviously it's bound to be at least a minor improvement on its predecessor in some respects, but such mere minor improvements don't seem particularly newsworthy). If it really is a major improvement, and the blurb says so, and the article explains this clearly, then I might consider supporting it (if I haven't lost interest by then). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It qualifies for ITN (as long as it is updated) as it meets the criteria for WP:ITN/R. If you disagree with this, then you should take your argument there. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Ramblling Man, but don't worry, I have no plans to oppose this item or to argue against the ITN/R criteria. I don't really agree with them but I don't have time to argue against everything with which I half-disagree, especially when I don't care about the issue and reckon I have no chance of winning (and besides, as you know, I've already embarassed myself once today). However the item appeared to have a shortage of 'Supports' and I just said what fixes would be needed for me to consider giving it a 'Support' myself, fixes which at least in my foolish opinion would improve the article and the blurb, and without which I have no understanding of whether I should view the event as significant or not (like most readers of Wikipedia I feel no obligation to abandon my own judgment of what is significant just because of something written in the rulebook of Wikipedia or any other group). But since I'm not opposing the thing, and since it will have your support once you've fixed it, I see no reason why Tone can't post it once you've fixed it to your satisfaction, unless some other objector turns up. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Willing to post but I'd like to see some more feedback. The article is in a good shape and a new rocket is a significant development. --Tone 12:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment once I get both hands back (currently holding the baby), will tidy up article, then support, shouldn't be too long. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support although it would be just perfect if we could find a replacement for ref 3 which is dead, and doesn't have any archives at The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Article is adequate, and will presumably grow further. International interest seems clear, and I support posting at this point. Jusdafax 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted - Russia could use some good news, too. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

December 27Edit

Mohamad ChatahEdit

Article: Mohamad Chatah (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Lebanese finance minister Mohamad Chatah and five other people are killed by a car bomb. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article needs updating

 Thue (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Also former US-friendly US Ambassador. Withhold support until further significance shown. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - high ranking ministers death in cowardly bombing.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet We definitely need more information on this. It's not clear who did this, nor who the target actually was. (Five others died, and 71 injured.) That source lets a lot of people with axes to grind have their political moment in the sun, but it's really not that helpful. And I can't see what this guy's alleged US-friendliness has to do with anything. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is really kind of obvious. His being a US ambassador speaks to notability, and his US-friendliness suggests a motive that might explain the assassination, which would help justify posting. If, however, he was knocked off because he owed money for a gram of heroin, that would mitigate against posting. Or is your point maybe that any friend of the US simply deserves murdering? μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
We have no idea whether he was even the target. Even if he was, you logic is a mass of WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research, and obviously unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You said you couldn't see what his us-friendliness has to do with anything and I told you. The info was from the source, and synthesis is basically what we do here, we come to a consensus whether or not to post a listing based on various factors that are not provided for us as self-evident criteria. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending article expansion - after consideration of HiLo48's concerns; however, reading the CBS news story on the bombing I conclude the target was very likely Chatah, a critic of Syria, and the killing was political. His article is being worked on and is improving but is still thin at this posting. Jusdafax 00:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with a link to the bombing article. Jón - (Wanna talk?) 03:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Update needed listings whose update says no more than what would be in the blurb are unsatisfactory. We ideally need a three-paragraph article on the bombing itself, which I can support, or at least a paragraph on the bombing in another target article--and if that's all we have I oppose. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, if expanded --Երևանցի talk 05:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, the event is notable and the article has been updated and expanded with reliable sources.Egeymi (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The update requirement is three paragraphs for a new article, the target article here falls quite short of that now. μηδείς (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose linked article is weak stub. Consider RD for Chatah himself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support it has been two days without any new ITN item, and that one was an update. Abductive (reasoning) 00:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If we can't even get three small paragraphs on the bombing article it's unlikely the subject meets the notability requirement. μηδείς (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If by "the bombing article" you mean the one that's currently heading up ITN, perhaps it's time to think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Farooq Sheikh RDEdit

Article: Farooq Sheikh (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): HT Hindu TOI Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant actor in the Indian Cinema. Winner of National Film Award. Major coverage in all major Indian newspapers and Television news channels. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks notable, but article shows an arc from film to TV star, only one award--some sort of comment on his importance in the update would be useful. μηδείς (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

December 26Edit

December 25Edit

December 24Edit

[Posted] South Sudan bump (again)Edit

During ongoing fighting in South Sudan, a mass grave containing around 75 bodies is discovered.

Mass grave of at around 75 bodies discovered. BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Could support. You have a suggested blurp? μηδείς (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Blurb above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Unopposed I won't support this outright, since the current item is two days from the bottom of the ticker, and we might get more, even worse news in the meantime. Perhaps updating the blurb but leaving it in place instead of putting it to the top will be better? A south sudan unrest sticky might also be good. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. There appears to be three mass graves in total. We also have Salva Kiir claiming his forces have recaptured the key town of Bor.[7] Since we posted the story when the rebels first captured it, it makes sense to post it now as well, along with the unfortunate mass graves discovery. I think a blurb along these lines can work: Following the discovery of dozens of bodies in mass graves, the South Sudan army announces recapturing the key town of Bor. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This will be the third posting/bump about this direct subject in about a week. I propose, given this, that we sticky the subject. Sticky posts are designed for subjects which remain in the news so we don't have to keep bumping every little development. This seems to apply. --Jayron32 19:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
oppose blurb but support towns changing Hands. or just wait..Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh sweet irony. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Another useful comment piling up hereLihaas (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. Happy Christmas Lihaas. Please try to remember that this is English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support bump (with MohamedCJ's blurb), oppose sticky Stickies work best when they concern a matter which almost everyone will have some familiarity with. The Syrian Civil War is an example - it would be hard for anyone to have missed all the news about it. However, if a substantial number of readers may not have heard about the situation, then a blurb that provides some explanation is preferable. I think that, at the present time, the situation in South Sudan falls into the latter category. I'm not convinced that three posts/bumps require a sticky when a blurb would be better in explaining the matter to our readers, especially give that we are at what is usually a slow news time of year.
P.S. Merry Christmas everyone! (It's Christmas morning now here in New Zealand.) Neljack (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note, "dozens" isn't appropriate. The inspectors are saying "around 75" so we should keep it as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
comment bperhaps combing this with CAR as both are neighbours and instability continues.Lihaas (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is lagging the very quickly evolving events. One of the lead UN officials on the ground is stating that the death toll is in the thousands, with displaced populations up to the hundreds of thousands. (BBC) Aid professionals are beginning to mutter comparisons to Rwanda in the early 90s. - BanyanTree 19:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This is what I was alluding to above with my unopposed vote. 75 bodies being found doesn't mean they were just killed, or that is all there is. If we moved this to the top for the 75, would we move it to the top again for 2,000? I think updating, but not yet bumping is a reasonable solution, we can always bump later or sticky or whatever when the item is about to fall off the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
comment to add the new UNSC resultion would be notable. I came here to suggest that.
And the mention of the housands is on the article but the source explicitly says that there is no confirmation and this was a "likely" figure. So far, 500 seems universally recongised.Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sources for your claim? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
For what? The source is not mine/.
What the source is quoted as saying as this is likely thereis also explicit mention that there is no verifiability. Ive made zero claims, I just analyse the source for fact.
Where there is absolute certainty and no doubt is that all sources agree on at least 500 deaths.Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly newsworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
comment: blurb proposal Amidst fears of civil war, the UNSC agrees to send more UNMISS soldiers to South Sudan. Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a good blurb Lihaas.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Whatever blurb is chosen, I think we should make sure this doesn't fall off the board. A sticky might be best. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Lihaas marked this ready, I fixed his format. I support a shorter version of his blurb, the UN Security Council agrees to send more UNMISS soldiers to South Sudan. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Alan Turing posthumously pardonedEdit

Article: Alan Turing (talk, history)
Blurb: Alan Turing, the father of computer science, is granted a posthumous royal pardon in respect of his conviction for gross indecency. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Elizabeth II grants Alan Turing, the father of computer science, a posthumous royal prerogative of mercy.
News source(s): BBC The Indpendent, HM's warrant

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The founding father of modern computer science and the namesake of the Turing machine. Was convicted for gross indecency for having an affair with another man, committed suicide soon thereafter. His treatment was already apologized by then PM Gordon Brown in 2009, but the official posthumous Royal Pardon was only granted on this day, 24 December 2013. I added two blurbs, the latter of which explicitly mentions the "crime" for which he was pardoned. --hydrox (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support I'm sure there will be plenty of media coverage and reader interest, considering Turing's fame and the campaign there's been. It's interesting considering that the same government refused a pardon last year, on the basis that Turing was properly convicted of an offence under the law as it then stood. Neljack (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, and as the article points out there has since been a campaign to grant the pardon nevertheless, which now seems to have born fruit. The bill for the pardon was initiated by a LibDem life peer in the House of Lords, which I understand to be somewhat unusual as well. --hydrox (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, I wonder if there's a recent precedent for a royal pardon in respect of a crime that a person definitely committed and for which many other people remain convicted. Little to do with ITN status, but its all a bit meaningless. Formerip (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but oppose reference to the Queen, who probably has no idea who he is. Let's just say he got a Royal Pardon. Also the altblurb makes it sound like there is some particular sort of Royal Prerogative called "mercy for homosexuality". Formerip (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Why should the Queen not know who he is? (Genuine question.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Queen dropped from blurb, you're right. --hydrox (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Support this, and am taking the liberty of copying to the altblurb space. Formerip (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
As the nominator I fully endorse this blurb and I am setting it as the blurb nomination to ease discussion. --hydrox (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Inquiry on what basis are we assuming the Queen is a nitwit who doesn't know who Turing is? If a pardon is still formally the prerogative of the Queen then she should be mentioned as granting it. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether she knows about it or not, a royal pardon is automatically granted by the monarch, so naming her is redundant, I think. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the misleading impression given by the proposed blurb is that she has any real say in the matter. Formerip (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'd like to see his contribution to the war effort get into the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Notable pardon of a historical figure. The Queen should be mentioned in the blurb as the one granting the pardon; we're not talking about some garden variety criminal that she might not know. Even if she didn't know of him, I'm sure she still received information about him or other forms of advice. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The "royal pardon" already implies it was granted by the monarch. --hydrox (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think FormerIP's formulation was poor, but saying "royal" with a link to royal prerogative of mercy seems plenty to indicate the Queen's official involvement. Political matters are not actually decided by the monarch in a constitutional monarchy. The government just gives her a paper and politely asks/tells he to sign it, or something like that (don't lecture me on the details). It's also usually the monarch who officially appoints prime ministers, signs laws into effect (Royal Assent hasn't been refused in the UK since 1708), and other things we rarely credit monarchs for in ITN. We just say somebody won an election, formed a government, passed a law, and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
My formulation was excellent. But, that aside, yes. Formerip (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't recall posting even the highest-level posthumous recognition, a royal pardon for homosexuality seems waaaay below that bar. If that happened during Turing's lifetime, then probably yes, but now... Brandmeistertalk 01:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This will be at least the eighth time Turing will go on the main page in some guise. I am not opposed, but I do think we can be a bit less over ourselves tripping to do this. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Inquiry is there a direct link to the proclamation? I'd like to read something that isn't filtered through a hostile POV. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The nomination box says HM's warrant. Isn't that what you want? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I saw that too, but he did ask for a direct link, presumably to e.g. Buckingham Palace. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not a government or royal site but the official website of The Daily Telegraph displays page 2 at [8]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have opposed this on the simple basis that it has no practical impact on anything whatsoever, and is purely a symbolic gesture. However, there's clearly an appetite for posting so can we at least drop this "father of computer science" bit from the blurb? It screams of popular science coverage and is very difficult to defend on any rational analysis: he basically wrote two papers that have stood the test of time - on computable numbers and the halting problem. Both are important but essentially narrow, academic topics. Juxtapose this with his work actually building early machines where there are several instances (e.g. on the use of instruction decoding) where history has shown he backed the wrong horse. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem with dropping "father of computer science". Shorter, more objective blurb. Everyone's a winner. Formerip (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Afaik, this is an extremely unusual move in the UK. Few enough royal pardons are issued and for one to be for an "crime" where no-one argues the subject was wrongly convicted seems unprecedented. This will be of interest both to those who campaign for LBGT rights and those interested in computing/cryptography. Agree the blurb needs to be toned down. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It is unusual. NBC (citing The Independent) states it is only the third time since 1945 this power was used; [9] NBC also had a statement from The Queen herself, saying she was "Graciously pleased to extend Our Grace and Mercy unto the said Alan Mathison Turing and to grant him Our Free Pardon posthumously in respect of the said convictions". 331dot (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Who were the other two? HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
One of the sources in the nomination [10] says: "Since 1945, only three high-profile pardons have been granted in England and Wales under the Royal Prerogative: to Timothy Evans, Derek Bentley and Michael Shields." PrimeHunter (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb it reflects the documented act, opposition is based on the undocumented and presumably political assumption that the Queen either does not support or understand an act in her own name. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Piling on the support - highly significant decision and quite the landmark to place in history. And at Christmas too, everyone wins. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb I have restored the original (now alt) blurb, which reflects that this is an act QEII has voluntarily supported with a public decree, and is only the third such pardon since WWII--also support adding Turing is a war hero. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Has it ever occurred that QEII didn't "voluntarily support" an act the government asked her to? In the case of Royal Assent it apparently hasn't occurred since 1708. See also British monarchy#Constitutional role. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've posted this, not to let perfect be the enemy of good. I took out "gross indecency" because that's vague. He was plainly convicted of being a homosexual. The article linked to explains this quite nicely, that the act was mainly used to prosecute male homosexuals. Please continue discussing best wording, and especially the commendable suggestion that is war service be mentioned, as it is integral to why he was pardoned. Jehochman Talk 04:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • His "war service" WAS his early code breaking and computing work during WWII. Some have suggested that he and his colleagues won the war for Britain. His story has always suffered because the work was naturally top secret at the the time, and for a considerable period after the war. In fact, we can't be certain that we have the full story yet. And I'm not sure that "gross indecency" is actually vague. It's precisely the crime he was charged with. It's certainly not legally vague. But it would be unclear to readers without further explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Note, from BBC linked article: "His later life was overshadowed by his conviction for homosexual activity, a sentence we would now consider unjust and discriminatory and which has now been repealed," said Mr Grayling.
  • Presidential? I am not so much worried about the war service and homosexuality as I am the fact that we would never publish the fact that someone got a "presidential" pardon without saying it was an American presidential pardon, or mentioning the president. Publishing "royal" without the country or queen is the hight of jingoist bigotry. μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree this is a problem. I've added "by the British government". The pardon was initiated and appears to have been signed by Chris Grayling, looking at the Telegraph facsimile, so I'm not sure explicitly naming Elizabeth II is accurate. But it's not ideal, if anyone has any better ideas. Perhaps rephrase altogether as "Pioneering British computer scientist and code breaker..." to get the nationality in, the over-egged "father of computer science" out, and mention the code-breaking war service? Espresso Addict (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I like that idea, Espresso Addict. I don't think it's quite right to say that the "British Government" pardoned him - he was pardoned by the Queen, on the advice of the British Government. Formal royal documents are usually counter-signed by a government minister, and he better have got the Queen's signature (either on the document itself or by warrant under the Queen's sign-manual because otherwise the pardon will be invalid and he will have committed a criminal offence! Neljack (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Medeis complaining about jingoism on ITN? Loving the irony! Anyway, no need to mention the British government, he was British, his conviction was in a British court, so obviously the pardoning will be done by the British government. Makes more sense to say 'Alan Turing, the British father off (etc)' if we must have the nationality in there. Fgf10 (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I that's some sort of serious accusation, and not a baseless smear, some examples of my supposed jingoism would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I've gone with the revised formulation I mentioned; 'British father of computer science' reads badly to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Current blurb barely addresses Medeis' concerns (unless the inclusion of the word British makes it clear to all that either Queen Elizabeth the Second, David Cameron, Grayling, "the government" etc pardoned Turing) although I don't share them. However, it's too long. Can we refine it to something like "British computer scientist and code breaker Alan Turing, convicted for homosexual activity in 1952, is granted a posthumous royal pardon."? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that nobody's come along yet to insist that he was English. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh. I'm surprised that any admin would post "father of computer science", but perhaps we've become a red top all of a sudden. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oooh, what's occurin' Rambler! As if you'd ever shoot down another ITN contributor! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the festive period, but we're all acting like mad men. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure many of us have checked in just to get a short break from Wiki. I know I have! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Be careful. There are viperous creatures ready to snack on your humor.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
ain't got wings
It don't need wings, it has teeth... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed, but not by the addition of "convicted of gross indecency for homosexual activity in 1952", which is at least six words too long. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
It's better than that weird "in respect of" concoction. Abductive (reasoning) 04:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Wull, yeah. And a black widow bite is better than a rattlesnake bite. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

December 23Edit

[Posted to RD] RD:Mikhail KalashnikovEdit

Article: Mikhail Kalashnikov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Russian small arms designer Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of AK-47, dies at the age of 94. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, RIA Novosti
  • Support No brainer in my opinion. CaptRik (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Straight forward yes I think. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as clearly top of his field for his time. Although, now we have lasers, perhaps we should compare it to that? Nah, only facebooking. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and surprisingly "..also wrote poetry, dreaming of becoming a poet". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It would be mention him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely. Ruby 2010/2013 17:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I was thinking to nominate this for a full blurb as well, but let first to see some comments from the others on it. Kalashnikov was definitely one of the most prominent weapon designers and his invention AK-47 has been massively produced worldwide for decades. In the article's intro it's even mentioned that "more AK-rifles have been produced than all other rifles combined". Now that this received a swift support with convincing arguments, it's maybe worth considering for a full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, if you're supporting, we can RD it first, and then see if it meets the quality requirements of a full blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Definitely. Let it go first in RD and than see if we can post a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm more than happy to post to RD but lately, if I dare to express an opinion, I get bitched at for assessing a community consensus. Would post immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. This was marked as RD in the nomination header, so I posted there, presuming the supports were for that. If people generally say that a blurb is what they'd like, I can move this up to a full blurb too. SpencerT♦C 17:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb - very notable weapon designer, name known worldwise. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose full blurb. Although a name many will recognise, we're talking about the death of a ninety-four year old man, after a prolonged illness, who did his most significant work more than sixty years ago. This is not news that is going to make a difference in the world today. (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems the name of his inventions will long outlive him (even a nonogenerian) ... the very reason he deserves a blurb? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite. Not sure how many other people in the past century have had so many weapons built in his name, many millions of which are still in use today. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Support full blurb - very notable person. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Not quite at the very high threshold I require before supporting a blurb in obituary cases. Getting plenty of media coverage, but not leading the world news. Neljack (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - This is exactly the sort of death that RD was designed for. Very notable in his field and worthy of a listing, but blurb candidates should almost always be blindingly obvious (think Thatcher/Mandela). This falls far, far short of what we would usually require for a blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, what? --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Bong, I meant something a little less saucy. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Although the importance of Mr. Kalashnikov in his own field is clearly unquestionable (he is quite probably the world's most recognized firearm designer), this is exactly the type for which RD was established. His passing is important, but not world-shattering, like some of those names already mentioned that were rightfully posted as full blurbs. --hydrox (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Pussy Rioters releasedEdit

Article: Pussy Riot (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two members of Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina, are released from prison under an amnesty bill. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Following Mikhail Khodorkovsky's presidential pardon, Pussy Riot members Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina are released under an amnesty bill.

Alternative blurb 2 After the pardoning of businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, thousands of Russian prisoners are given amnesty, including two members of the rock band Pussy Riot''
News source(s): BBC, USA Today, Telegraph, Reuters
Article updated

Nominator's comments: All 3 articles updated. Fortunately, I didn't make such bets. Brandmeistertalk 11:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

.. tasty slice of pussy hat, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Two down one to go? Casper's looking shifty... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose publicity stunt to make everyone feel better about holding the W'Olympics in Sochi with all the anti-gay laws. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you opposing the nomination for political/human rights reasons? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No, opposing it as a publicity stunt, a little like when Second World War prisoners of war were given blankets just before the Red Cross visited, only to have them removed when the Red Cross had left. Wonder what'll happen as soon as eyes are off Sochi...? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Bump We already posted the release of the former Yukos oligarch. This is more or less part of the same story. We could just amend the existing blurb with "[...] and two members of Pussy Riot" and bump. --hydrox (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with bump rather than new blurb, but the amnesty apparently covers 25,000 people - wouldn't that be a better focus? Formerip (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
That sounds far more important, although BBC cites 20,000. --hydrox (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that bumping the blurb is more sensible. Russian President Vladimir Putin pardons thousands of prisoners, including businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky and two members of Pussy Riot. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Mohamed CJ's proposed bump and rewrite. A big story, but not an entirely new one. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Mohamed CJ's updated blurb hook, since this is essentially all part of the same PR move leading up to Sochi. Pussy Riot has gotten substantial news coverage over the course of their, well, situation, so their release should be posted, but there's no reason to have two separate blurbs. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but it should be mentioned that it is all done for Putin to get better relations before Sochi.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • .. yes, quite - is this a demonstration of democracy in action, or simply the PR machine of an individual benevolent despot? (.. or should we even care?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think most of us can agree that Putin is to be considered a joke....:)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Even the Pussy Rioter said she thought it was a publicity stunt. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
.. but the Wikipedia front page has to be seen to be politically impartial? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think analysis about the motive(s) behind the releases should be featured on the main page (since we don't have enough space to cover different POVs, including giving due weight to the PR stunt analysis). They definitely belong to the articles, perhaps including their lead. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for Mohamed CJ's combined blurb. For what it's worth, this is what German Wiki does (with pic of Tolokonnikova) in its version of ITN. [11] Sca (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm, wonder why that picture made it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • And a far moore sober picture at front page too... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb Thousands of Russian prisoners are released, including businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky and two members of Pussy Riot under an amnesty bill. Suggest this to remove focus from Putin and place on prisoners. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. I'd only remove the last four words, since Khodorkovsky was released before the bill, but I could be wrong. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you are right about that. Also, defendants in the badly-capitalised Bolotnaya square case are being released. Formerip (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather oppose bump. Khodorkovsky seems to be pardoned under a separate presidential decree, reportedly after secret German-Russian negotiations. On Dec 9 it was announced that the amnesty bill will not concern Khodorkovsky. Brandmeistertalk 17:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Putin signing two separate pieces of paper means we need to have two separate blurbs. Formerip (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added altblurb for possible bump without implying that both cases are interconnected (could be changed if it happens to be to the contrary). Brandmeistertalk 20:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Alt Blurb Over 20,000 Russian prisoners are pardoned and released under an amnesty bill, including Mikhail Khodorkovsky and two members of Pussy Riot. Support for any kind of blurb about this event. Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

  • comment the difficulty I see is we have no link to the general amnesty, just to the three individuals. I am not sure what article would be used. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • comment - Khodorkovsky was pardoned by the president personally, whereas the Pussy Riot members were among 25.000 prisoners released under a general amnesty issued by the Parliament as it celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Constitution. Saying that Khodorkovsky was included in the general amnesty is not correct. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Medeis's proposed blurb, subject to the amendment suggested by MohamedCJ. Reasons: (1) while we can probably all agree on what Putin's motives are here, there are NPOV issues with referring to them, at least absent a close examination of the sources showing that sources overwhelmingly agree that they are his motives (which I'm not sure they do); (2) the general amnesty is the more significant thing, so it should definitely be included along with the highest profile cases; (3) best not to refer to the amnesty bill, since it seems not all the releases are under it; (4) best not to refer to Putin, since many of them seem to be under legislation (the amnesty bill) rather than just by a unilateral act of President Putin, as a reference to him might suggest. Neljack (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment No, unlike the president's pardon of the businessman, Putin is, at least technically, not behind the general amnesty. Implying that is NPVO. And therefore the general amnesty should have its own blurb. The problem, though, is that there is not yet any specific article covering the general amnesty... Bruzaholm (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, the amnesty bill was passed by Duma, unlike Khodorkovsky's pardon which just coincided with the ongoing amnesty process that Duma sanctioned by the bill earlier on 17 December. Brandmeistertalk 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb2 This: After the pardoning of businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, thousands of Russian prisoners are given amnesty, including two members of Pussy Riot fixes the issue of not confusing the pardon and amnesty, and is shorter than the current altblurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, except add 'rock band' after 'Riot.' Sca (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Before "Pussy" would be better, but let's keep a lean blurb. We could instead lose "businessman". Formerip (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have added rock band and kept business man. Marked ready as well. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
(PS, obviously this is a bump of the Khodorovsky blurb.μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC))
  • Posted. I used Medeis' combined blurb with Khodorkovsky. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Now an unsigned note at Talk:Main_Page#Errors_in_In_the_news asserts that Pussy Riot is "not a rock band." Our entry identifies it as a "Russian feminist punk rock protest group." Perhaps the phrase "rock protest group" should be substituted for "rock band"? Sca (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Well... you decide. I'm sure St John of Holloway would be proud. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Punk band will make more sense, given their protest prayer video at youtube. μηδείς (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
.. and their article. Else how about Riot grrrl!? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, "group" seems to have the virtue of not identifying PR as a "band" or more specifically a "rock band" — so perhaps "protest group" would be sufficiently vague not to violate anyone's definition but accurate enough to make clear its raison dêtre and to at least imply music (of a sort) as its medium. Sca (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I think punk group is fine, since that's the way the press usually describes them. Protest group goes too far into being vague out of caution. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
... although Wikipedia insists on calling it punk rock, of course.. Martinevans123 (talk)
After viewing their youtube I would be inclined to call them a "protest artists"...if you saw it you would probably feel ashamed granting them such revered real estate as ITN other than the whole jail/pardon thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
We aren't here to judge stories in that manner, only to decide if something is in the news enough to be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment now the "Greenpeace Arctic 30" are being released as part of this stunt, the blurb should be updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 massive blurb, probably best to lose "the feminist punk rock protest group " as Pussy Riot is already linked, so we don't need to "interpret" their style, method, aim etc in the short ITN blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I also favor dropping that and leaving just Pussy Riot. Brandmeistertalk 00:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe "the members of the band Pussy Riot", but we can't assume our readers will have any idea what they are without some description, and links are not supposed to be obscure according to mos. If there's any complaint to be had on length it's the three-page description of patron saint Alan's sex crime. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Known as "Alan of the Rock", allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's time to update the picture with Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Khodorkovsky's face has been hanging there for some time already and isn't that recent. Brandmeistertalk 11:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like ITN got sexed up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

December 22Edit

[Posted] 2013 World Women's Handball ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2013 World Women's Handball Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In handball, the World Women's Championship concludes with Brazil defeating Serbia in the final. (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Brazil become the first South American country ever to win the World Championship title. Most of the handball stories were sharply opposed in the past just because the sport was played on a high level only in continental Europe, East Asia and some African countries, but this tournament showed that its popularity grows in the other parts of the world as well. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment loving the alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the inconvenient altblurb. I was engaged with updating the article and did not pay attention what remained in the box after copying its content from one of the previous nominations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries, was just a gentle tease, I know how easily copy-and-paste errors can occur. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - the handball blurb as it is the firs time a South American team wins. Dont know why the alt is in the same nomination. Strange.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've updated the article with more prose, especially the section on the final.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The top women's event of big international sport. We posted the men in 2013 [12] when Europe took the whole top-10. Not happy about "In handball" when the bold link also says Handball. Either omit "In handball" or remove "Handball" from the next link. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Handball is the most popular women's team sport in Europe.[13][14] Neljack (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support only weak because the "final" section seems referenced by only one (primary?) source. Can you find some further refs? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That's because at the time of updating the section it was less than an hour after the conclusion of the final and there were not so many articles documenting it. I'll try to find some more and bring them into the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • More refs added in the section on the final.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Abortion restrictions in SpainEdit

no support for posting. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 23 December 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.

[15] It seems that Spain is doing something that totally contrary to what the developed world (which does not include the Midwest in the US) has been moving to. Nergaal (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

oppose Catholic country no biggie (though with their homosexual laws its very confusing where they stand). Western or not, the Schism occurred a long time ago. (and for the record, the DEVELOPED USA has a strong debate on this. Its hardly universal in the west. (oxymoron I know))Lihaas (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose it was only made legal in 2010, no doubt it will change again if/when the current conservative administration is ousted by the left-wing parties. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. New government reversing the loosening of abortion laws by the last government, in a Catholic country. Purely a domestic law change. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think most of the key points are made above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's only a draft bill announced by the government - it hasn't been passed yet. Neljack (talk) 01:05, 23 December 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.

December 21Edit

[Posted] RD: David ColemanEdit

  • Yeah, I'll take a punt on this. A prominent, if not the prominent sports broadcaster in the UK since 1955, covering 11 Olympic Games and 6 World Cups for the BBC. An OBE, the first broadcaster in the world to receive the Olympic Order award. Iconic to us Brits, probably a zero to elsewhere but that's not relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, if only as the inspiration for the legendary Colemanballs! But, yes, a UK sport broadcasting icon. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support 4 RD Apparently, he was really famous here, and notable in the field of sports commentry. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD mostly per the comments above. It's a bit hard for me to imagine that I'd ever give support to a death of a sports comentator, but combining all the merits he's received during his life, including the fact that he was the first broadcaster to receive the Olympic Order award and that his name was used to coin a term widely applied in his profession, should be enough to support it. Importantly, I don't live in the UK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose no argument being made that this guy was at the top of his field or in any way influential. Would anyone know him if instead of his words being broadcast, they were in print instead? μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    .. that's the oddest "reason" for an oppose I've seen in some time. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Meaning you can't honestly say this guy would have been nominated if his commentary were solely in print, not broadcast? μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Um, I'm just voting on what he did, on what he was. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we'd pay more attention if he'd have published all his quotes via de dah dah dahs... or after you? Someone's been at the sauce again....
"If that had gone in, it would have been a goal." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Pat Summerall was posted to RD in April. Although you didn't overall support the nomination, you didn't exactly oppose it either. You talked about that guys achievements, which shows you did your research. You even criticized the support votes on that nom. Medeis, you must inform yourself before making blanket opposes like this. We can't all tell you why this guy deserves a spot on RD, you need to make an informed decision yourself. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? Educate myself on what? I read Coleman's article. He was knighted, nothing else of consequence, and we'd be constantly posting dead knights if that were significant. The burden of proof beyond the article lies on the nominator. There's no reason for anyone who's not heard this guy on a game to support the nom, a fact which is even admitted in the template. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, probably worth taking the advice given. He wasn't knighted, so please try again on that one (e.g. "educate yourself"). He also won the Olympic Order (as noted in the nomination), he is clearly all over the news all over the world. Thanks for your entertaining oppose though, very.... "insightful". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, probably the most famous sports reporter in the UK, international coverage [16] [17] [18] [19] Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - the most prominent sports broadcaster in the UK over several decades. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, national sport commentator. but an important one. But only for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 20:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • post-posting support. Absolutely the top of his field, which was United Kingdom sports broadcasting. We don't judge people on whether they would have been top of a different field, so whether he would have been known if he was a print journalist is exactly as relevant as whether he would have been known if he were an Israeli stage magician or Mexican politician. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing nonproductive speculation about possible future nominations. SpencerT♦C 20:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment John Madden better be making it to RD when he eventually carks it. (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm certain he will, especially with systemic bias in play, but what that has to do with an internationally recognised sports presenter whose career spanned nearly 60 years is beyond me. Perhaps you have something intelligent to add? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 20Edit

Thirty-five state storm causes heavy snow across North AmericaEdit

Article: 2013 North American cold wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least five dead as part of a 35 state storm system that causes heavy snow along with air and road traffic congestion (Post)
News source(s): "Severe weather causing holiday travel headaches - Video on". Retrieved 2013-12-23."From Snow to Tornadoes: Christmas Travel in Jeopardy for Millions". Fox News. 2013-12-19. Retrieved 2013-12-24."Storms in southern US kill 2 in Mississippi; thousands lose power, damage widespread". Fox News. Retrieved 2013-12-24.

 --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm getting pretty tired already of the National Weather Service naming these storms and making a big deal out of ordinary weather events. I hope that I won't have to see every single one of them nominated here, week after week, year after year. Abductive (reasoning) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The National Weather Service does not name winter storms; that is done by The Weather Channel for their own purposes(and is picked up by some other outlets, but not all). In fact, the NWS has instructed its staff to not use TWC's names- please see Winter storm naming. 331dot (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see how this is any different than the usual first major storm of winter. Unless there's record snowfall/fatalities, then I will be opposed for this and similar events. SpencerT♦C 19:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Over 150 precipitation records and close to 100 snowfall records were broken across the northeastern, southeastern and south central United States. On December 6, 2013, a daily record snowfall of 0.1 inches (2 mm) was set in the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, breaking the old record of trace amounts of snow set in 1950. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This is getting wide coverage, but (as someone living in an affected area) effects are not catastrophic. I won't support or oppose this. 331dot (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale it's winter in the Northern Hemisphere. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

RSA SecurityEdit

Article: RSA Security (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show that RSA Security was paid $10 million by NSA to insert a backdoor into some of their products. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Leaks indicate that RSA Security took $10 million from the NSA to insert a backdoor in their products.
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is one of the biggest and most prestigious computer security companies in the world (parent company EMC Corporation has $22 billion in yearly revenue) being caught spying for the NSA. In theory a security company's loyalty is to its customers, but it seems that their loyalty was to NSA first. I assume that this will have consequences for not just RSA Security, but other US software and hardware manufacturers, who are already losing sales because of fears they will allow NSA to insert backdoors. Thue (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This doesn't even seem to be today's most talked-about Snowden leak ([20]). Formerip (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Both are notable enough to be posted. But personally I find the consequences of NSA paying to insert back doors in security products much more profound - of course the NSA has a list of spying targets. Thue (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. We should not post every bit of information that is chosen to be released by Snowden and/or his allies- which is being done in a manner meant to maximize publicity and artificially extend the attention he is given. A company cooperating with the NSA (likely out of wanting to help national security and not "loyalty to the NSA") doesn't even seem to be the most important bit of information released so far(although most pieces of information from the leaked info seem to be called "the most important"). 331dot (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • This is not some conspiracy to artificially maximize Snowden's attention. The NSA news items are genuinely news. Journalism takes time, you don't start with the complete result able to publish it all at once. And everything RSA Security sells is trust - RSA Security putting in a back door for the NSA is not just another company coordinating with the NSA by forwarding some data RSA Security incidentally accumulated, but a subversion of RSA Security's core product (and again, remember the $21 billion yearly revenue - this it big). Thue (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't call it a "conspiracy", which suggests a negative connotation that may not exist here, but it is a deliberate effort to maximize attention, led by the reporters Snowden gave his stolen/leaked information to. They aren't releasing information as they come across it, they are releasing what they think will generate the most attention. Since these sorts of stories get press all the time we might as well establish a Snowden ticker and get it over with, or add it to ITNR, or something. The leak or theft or whatever we call it of information happened and is over with; ITN shouldn't be a running play by play of what information Snowden and the reporters have and choose to release. 331dot (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, a ticker gives too much attention to non-stories and not enough attention to real ones. In this situation a sticky is just a type of desensitization by which an everpresent stimulus gradually becomes invisible. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree, but we seem to be heading in that direction anyway. 331dot (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
weak support while I agree with 331dot, this does put on a new perspective of the far reaching consequences. It is not just the spying but the transaction/agreement thereofLihaas (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with 331dot that these structured leaks are intended to maximise Snowden's notoriety, but like Lihaas, the financial transaction revealed here seems extremely significant. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support this is a government agency suborning outright fraud and theft. I have opposed many Snowden posts per EA, but agree this is extremely significant. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support security company sabotaging their own product, isn't that nice. SeraV (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support.. seems this story just won't go away. But if it's worthy of comment by Mr Obama, I think we ought to take note. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose' I am not convinced that this is a noteworthy development in Snowden's epic saga, but the fact that the huge majority of readers have not herd of the company is sufficient to put this down. Nergaal (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd heard of neither company until I saw this nomination. I would have been just as gratified to have learned about them, in this context, if I had read it on the front page. But how do we know who has heard of them and who has not? How can this matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strong oppose Obviously this will have tremendous implications to RSA Security, which is one of the world's largest IT security companies, but the implications of this outside the IT security field are minor. Sadly, most people are oblivious to this topic. --hydrox (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
One of our purposes is actually to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. This is very interesting piece of news that might interest many people, even if they are currently oblivious. SeraV (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Even more problems with the story, see below. --hydrox (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A security company basically being bribed by the NSA seems pretty significant news to me. The suggestions that we're in danger of turning into a Snowden ticker are ridiculous - most the nominations on this subject haven't been posted. And I'd be interested to know what the evidence is for the claim that the information is being artificially strung out, as opposed to it taking a long time to go through the huge amount of material that Snowden has got. Neljack (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's artificial because the leak happened 6 months ago and is over and done with; they haven't been releasing information as they come across it, they know what they have; they are picking and choosing what to release and when to do it- partially as leverage to keep anything from happening to Snowden and partially to maintain attention on this issue and pressure on governments. Given the volume of Snowden related nominations and the fact that many of them get at least some support, I don't think the danger of being a ticker is as "ridiculous" as it seems to you. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We've posted, what, one item on this in the last few months? Hardly a Snowden ticker. As for your claims about stringing it out, do you have any evidence for them, 331dot? There are 1.5 million documents; that's going to take a while to go through. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It is true that I have only my personal opinion- but they could release it all at once before leaking it out in the press.331dot (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This would be the third story on the Snowden leaks in five months, which is an awful lot. I can't think of any other news item that we've posted so many times without using a ticker. Teemu08 (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Formerip correctly notes, the real problem here is that this was not even the #1 NSA story of the day (nor #2, Obama's comments about the phone records). I did a cursory search of CNN, NBC News, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and CBC News and found information about these other stories but nothing about RSA. One of the purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and I see little evidence of that. I will be happy to strike my oppose if this changes, but for now, we should not accept it. Teemu08 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Arguing that there's more interest in Obama's comments on the NSA than the RSA revelation is like expecting our readers to be more interested in a speech on global warming than on the facts of a hurricane. Prominent coverage of the speech results from the simple fact the President has a press agent, while crimes themselves do not. If I wanted to read the president's speech, I'd get the full text at a newspaper site or look on youtube--we don't have that material. If I wanted objective comprehensive coverage of RSA I would come here. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This does not change the fact that the RSA part is not in the news. We cannot reasonably expect people to be looking for this if it is getting only a limited amount of coverage. Teemu08 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not our only purpose, as I said once already our other purpose is to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. That part really is perfect for this particular piece. You really shouldn't be fixating just that one purpose we have. SeraV (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not? There's only four of them. Teemu08 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked ready updated, and stable consensus in favor of posting. μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems to be big news among Wikipedians; less so among major news outlets. The update is also very short, if I assessed the update correctly. Iselilja (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A minority interest story that seems better suited for DYK. -Halo (talk) 08:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per | this BBC News article - RSA strongly deny the reports. Until the facts are clear and unambiguous I can't see how we can feature this on the main page. CaptRik (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, on closer inspection this whole story is based on Reuters report that cites two anonymous sources "close" to the alleged deal. This is actually not a Snowden leak; all he showed was that NSA created a backdoored PRNG and managed to slip it into an RSA product. The alleged $10m deal is a Reuters story, citing anonymous sources with no documents to show to back it up whatsoever, unlike the actual Snowden leak. --hydrox (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Follow up on that is that RSA might actually be using convoluted legalese to deny knowingly weakening its product, while neither denying nor acknowledging the deal. But as long as RSA maintains this stance and we don't have the actual NSA/RSA contract, this seems a bit too uncertain to be posted here. --hydrox (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per Neljack. Interesting, significant, worldwide impact. Jusdafax 12:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Articles: Prostitution in Canada (talk, history) and Prostitution law in Canada (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of Canada effectively legalises prostitution. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Supreme Court of Canada deems laws against prostitution to be unconstitutional.
News source(s): Al Jazeera BBC CBC

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: Pretty landmark case, I dont think any other country has nationally legalised it, so it would be a famous first. --Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. We can't have "effectively legalises" in the blurb. They either legalised it or they didn't. If it remains technically illegal but the law is now not enforceable, we might say "decriminalises". Formerip (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The Supreme Court struck down the prostitution laws, but gave the government one year to enact new legislation during which the laws will still be in effect. This is legalization of prostitution, but I think that is waht the nominator was refering to. --PlasmaTwa2 18:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a major Western country having its prostitution laws struck down as illegal is big news. This is currently on the front page of BBC, as well. --PlasmaTwa2 18:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do agree that we can not claim a court "effectively legalising" something. Full legalisation as I understand it would mean that any law criminalising prostitution and discretely advertising thereof would be voided, and prositute income made taxable, with promise that the government won't be changing that. This sounds more temporary and partial, am I right? --hydrox (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Question, is there a one year grace period before it is legal or not? Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There are no laws in Canada, specifically prohibiting the act of prostitution itself (i.e. transfer of money for sex). The Canadian province of Ontario attempted to introduce laws prohibiting prostitution (brothels, etc.), however, the Supreme Court of Canada, with this decision, has found that prostitution laws, such as the ones in Ontario, are unconstitutional. Thus, the court is upholding there should be no laws in Canada prohibiting prostitution. (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
So, what's different on the ground? Abductive (reasoning) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Today, nothing, as the decision is stayed for one year. But, if Parliament does nothing, then one year from now, brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and "communicating in public" with clients will all be legal. The government will obviously create new legislation within this time frame, so the actual impact is unknown. This remainds a landmark decision, however. Resolute 00:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support From what I see it's about three things: abolition of bans on brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public for purposes of prostitution. That actually means that the prostitution is now legal, btw by an unanimous ruling. Brandmeistertalk 18:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prostitution was already legal. This ruling struck down a ban against pimping/brothels. Brothels are already legal in other Western countries like Germany and the Netherlands, so nothing extraordinary per se; only that this was done by the court instead of lawmakers. Iselilja (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not in the news at all, perhaps trivia-worthy, but many countries have an "effective legal prostitution" scenario. This is nothing new. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Iselilja is correct that prostitution was already legal in Canada. Brandmeister correctly describes the three prohibitions the Court struck down. Having read the judgment, I do think it is a very significant ruling, which will have important implications not only for the regulation of prostitution but also for other areas of law (assisted suicide, a case on which is pending, has been mentioned in particular). Contra TRM, it most certainly is in the news.[21] Neljack (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Silly me, I should have Googled it. Oppose as not in the news, just in Google search. This has no genuine implications, life, and prostitution, will carry on regardless. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Voting twice? really? You should know much better than that as as admin than trying to cheat/game the system!
Sums up the ignorance of some editors then. Remember, we don't count votes, we assess arguments. I could bold oppose a thousand times, it makes no difference, the posting admin will assess consensus, not count votes. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I undid your second oppose bold "vote"Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
How helpful. That'll really make a difference to the consensus-assessing admin's task. Well done you! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Bullshit we dont count voted. I agree we shouldnt but there are hordes of incidents (and on close counts) where mere supports/opposes with barely a realted reason is conisidered. There is clear vote counting going on.
Clearly "sums upo the ignorance of some..."Lihaas (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Admins who count votes aren't assessing consensus correctly then. Please try to write in English. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb, despite the fact, European countries have no legislation against prostitution, but this is after years of the law developing in those countries. There have been no court cases in those European countries that upholds that prostitution should be legal. In Canada, having two separate branches of government - the legislative (those who introduce laws) and the judicial (the courts) - to both agree on a subject matter such as prostitution is significant. (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Additional news sources: Houston Chronicle, USA Today, Fox News, Reuters, Huffington Post, CNN (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. But the central questions are mainly the same, I think. Will it rise? Have I put enough butter in the bottom? What exactly do you plan to do with that eclair? Formerip (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry. Formerip (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
.. pass that essential protection, would you? ... [22] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unaware of major coverage, and thought this was already legal in Netherlands and Nevada. Very, very similar to Indian court decision we didn't just post. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - unusal happening,.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iselilja, The Rambling Man and Medeis. Prostitution under different conditions was legal in other western countries before this decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I also don't like the attempt in some of the comments above to induce importance because the legalisation was done by an unusual authority. Sorry, but it's not the main news here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] NK faxes SouthEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:33, 21 December 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: Korean Conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: North Korea warns South Korea by fax that it will attack without warning (Post)
News source(s): [23]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Apparent escalation in the conflict brought out by celebration of the anniversary of Kim Jung Il's death. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose All bark, no bite. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Putting it nicely, I don't think you'll get much support for this...(I'll abstain from any voting as this is an issue that's pretty close to my heart, however). It's hard to determine what to take seriously from NK considering what happened earlier this year. Anyway, lol, a fax. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, NK's credibility is super low. A fax is the icing on the cake. I remember that picture of KJU battle planning against the U.S. with a map showing Austin, Texas as a target. Seriously, Austin is a strategic target? Does he hate SXSW? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear godm, hes sabotaging out football programme. Get the 'skins instead!Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Had we known ahead of time, this would have gone nicely with the anniversary of the previous dear leader in On This Day. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose nice piece of trivia, but not newsworthy. Having said that, a well-formated nomination for a change, so well done, try again some time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Absurd as it may sound, such rhetoric by North Korea is too frequent to be news. See for other examples. Thue (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. More incessant saber-rattling that the North has yet to even appear to be acting on(no troop movements, etc.). They've also abrogated the armistice several times. Bark and no bite. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A little bit of sympathy might be called for here, given the guy's an orphan, and his uncle and girlfriend are recently deceased. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Tragic. All that comfort food he must be eating in the wake of his losses...(wait, girlfriend? Ri Sol-ju?) --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:32, 21 December 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] Mikhail Khodorkovsky pardonedEdit

Article: Mikhail Khodorkovsky (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian president Vladimir Putin pardons businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NBC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The pardon, announced only yesterday, is reported to have been already signed and effective immediately. --hydrox (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems to have been done ahead of the Olympics, in part at least, and might indicate an attempt to give a better human rights impression. Getting coverage in many outlets. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant and surprising news. Could we incorporate the amnesty bill the Duma has just passed into the blurb? I'd argue that's at least as significant. See: [24][25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neljack (talkcontribs) 12:23, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - But I think the blurb should state that it is a political move.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, if Pussy Riot are released that should be added to the blurb, agreed? Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

December 19Edit

[Closed] London Apollo TheatreEdit

Not going to happen, a local event with little significant impact outside the event. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC) -Re-closed by uninvolved editor. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 25 December 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: Apollo Theatre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 80 people are injured when the ceiling of the Apollo Theatre in London collapses during a performance of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Unusual event in modern theatre history --Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. While a tragedy, there were no fatalities, and this appears to be weather related and not a deliberate act. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose No deaths. The building is somewhat famous, but not to such an extent to warrant posting this on that account. Neljack (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mildly important story and has some international coverage, but - luckily - not massively serious. Black Kite (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A bit of old plaster work fell off a ceiling and injured a few people. In the grand scheme of things, not important news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose File under slow news day. Even if the performance brought the house down... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While this was a bit more serious than some of the above comments make out, it doesn't rise to the level of things like the factory collapse in India and it's not likely to have long term significance. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Discussion reopened Purely as a matter of form: you can't act independently on one hand and give your own opinion as part of the very same act, particularly when deciding in favor of your own opinion. (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Re-closing per WP:SNOW, still has no support and is still too minor a situation to post. TRM can certainly give his rationale for the closing. 331dot (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The nominator is a support and I have indicated my belief that the conversation should remain open. You can count that as two opposes to closure versus none against. I remind you that since you have also expressed an opinion you are similarly disenfranchised from the right to adjudicate. (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a close call, where someone's bias might play into it; it does not have the support to be posted, nor is there a convincing argument to ignore such opposes(still a minor incident with no deaths). There is no further reason to go through the motions. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks 331dot. The IP clearly does not understand the point. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
As opposed to a flagrant disregard for policy? You both know what the rule is, you both chose to ignore it. You didn't even give it 24 hours to allow all time zones to comment, you didn't allow further information to come to light, you decided you didn't like it and that was enough to run roughshod over policy and close an item. If it isn't going to be posted why the haste in closing it? I invite you to re-open this now or I will open up a dispute over this willful disregard for procedure. (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no such "24 hour" rule as well as being no such rule that many time zones must be given the chance to comment.(if I am mistaken please link to the appropriate page) If further information comes to light, the nomination can be re-opened, but so far you have not offered any additional information that would make this more noteworthy(such as large numbers of deaths, evidence of terrorism, etc.) or offered a convincing argument as to why the unanimous oppose comments should be ignored. I again suggest you review WP:SNOW; there is no need to go through the motions when it is clear this will not be posted. (It is also kind of stale right now and has fallen out of the news.) I cannot prevent you from doing what you feel is necessary; if you have the time to waste making a big issue out of this, then go ahead. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 24 December 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.

Sinaloa Cartel leader Gonzalo Inzunza Inzunza deadEdit

Articles: Gonzalo Inzunza Inzunza (talk, history) and Sinaloa Cartel (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Gonzalo Inzunza Inzunza is killed in a gunfight against Mexican Marines. (Post)
News source(s): Arizona Daily Star Los Angeles Times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: According to the article on the Sinaloa Cartel, "The United States Intelligence Community considers the Sinaloa Cartel "the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world" and in 2011, the Los Angeles Times called it "Mexico's most powerful organized crime group." The death of a high ranking member of one of Mexico's most powerful crime/drug organizations is pretty notable. Andise1 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Gunmen have apparently snatched his body, just like the Zetas did with Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano. [26] We can expect an incredible amount of news sources about this event now. ComputerJA () 03:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, per ComputerJa. I have removed the picture from the blurb because it is not free, and as such, it cannot be used on the main page. Küñall (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Comment. If this is going to be posted, it should be as a blurb, as it is this man's death that is notable and not he himself; RD is for the deaths of notable people, not notable deaths. I oppose posting this as a blurb because as ComputerJA states he was not the top leader of the cartel and presumably did what he did at other people's orders. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose since he was not in fact the leader of the cartel. Neljack (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
support RD notable player in a violent and long-lasting [civil] conflictLihaas (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[Updated] South Sudan update/bumpEdit

Article: 2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amidst fears of civil war, the SSLA captures Bor. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: To confirm the more vaugue blurb we have now (as an update), today Bor was captured and the violence is spreading. --Lihaas (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Normally I'd support, but this same story is already in ITN today. GoldenRing (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Its for./as an update/bump
BREAKING: UN compound stormed in Jonglei...this is recall the UN compounds in Srebrenica...Lihaas (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If we're starting to promote breaking news to ITN, perhaps you should nominate a sticky. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Umm, that's not the blurb nomination. Just that the current ones needs refinementLihaas (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I updated and bumped. Thue (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Is this story going to be blurbed and/or bumped with each new twist and turn it takes? It could go on for quite some time. (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
    • If it gets to that point, we'll just sticky it. We've done that before with protracted wars and conflicts that stay in the news for some time. --Jayron32 18:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Hence my suggestion above. We don't want day-in, day-out "bump the blurb" nominations. If a sticky is needed, let's discuss it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the update and bump, a city being taken by rebels is a bigger story than a failed coup. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • No more, please....!! this has become commonplace to the point of needing a sticker, and it doesn't seem to be prominently covered. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Gaia (spacecraft)Edit

Article: Gaia (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: ESA launches Gaia space observatory to compile a catalogue of astronomical objects. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable space launch, IMO. The article is good, the update says the launch was successful which is more or less all what can be said at this point. --Tone 10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Highly notable science news. --bender235 (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, notable objective. Brandmeistertalk 14:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major astronomy and spaceflight news, and a good article too. Modest Genius talk 14:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 18Edit

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Harold CampingEdit

SNOW close; no consensus to post. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 18 December 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: Harold Camping (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today New York Times CNN Fox News The Guardian Washington Post Reuters

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Harold Camping is the guy who claimed the world was going to end multiple times (Judgement Day, Doomsday, etc.) Andise1 (talk)
  • Question. Which of the death criteria does this person meet? 331dot (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
C'mon. He predicted the end of the world twice. That's hard enough to do once. And the only thing he got wrong each time was the date. Formerip (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
He predicted the end of the world thrice, actually, lol: 1987, 1994 and 2011. Küñall (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)True, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt...Lihaas (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose being notorious for one small stupid thing, like predicting the end of the world (or being a British gang), in no way puts you at the top of any field. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Fancy that, regurgitating noms you disagree with. I thought you didn't agree with that approach.... Sneaky. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The hell? I thought you two had called it quits? (and yes, we're all watching) --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, being sneakily called an asshole doesn't equate to quits. And all I did here was point out yet another example of hypocrisy in some of sneaky Medeis' voting. Yeah! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"You two"? What are you talking about Somchai Sun? I did not mention TRM, I did not respond to him here, I did not vote in the prior nomination, I did not address him there. Your indiscriminate implication that I am somehow responsible for TRM's obsessive behavior (which he aims at anyone who disagrees with him) is unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sneakier! Who's an a$$h0l3? And no, I disagree with plenty, but most of them don't sneak around other editor's talk pages calling me an asshole and then asking for the accusation to be deleted after reading. That's just you Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose doesn't meet the RD requirement in any way, shape or form. Just a big no, sorry. I found this guy rather amusing along with his sheeples. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose he doesn't meet any criteria we have. SeraV (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose fun nom, really not notable enough for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would only be notable enough if he had correctly predicted the end of the world, but then we wouldn't be here doing this! Neljack (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Either a fool, con man, or both. Not deserving attention here. Now, if the end of the world HAD happened... HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Snow Close I was going to suggest snow close in my first comment. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 18 December 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 tapirEdit

Article: Tapirus kabomani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new species of tapir, Tapirus kabomani, is discovered in the Amazon. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A species of tapir, Tapirus kabomani, the first new odd-toed ungulate in over 100 years, is discovered in the Amazon.
News source(s): Journal of Mammalogy, Guardian

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Reported to be the first tapir discovered since 1865 and the first Perissodactyla animal discovered in over 100 years. Btw, we posted olingito last time. Brandmeistertalk 17:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added "in the Amazon" to the blurb, assume there will be no objection. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support discovery of new large mammals is quite rare, shame we don't have a free image. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support new mammal found. notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I find it interesting that such large animals can still be found. Certainly important enough to post. SeraV (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It's a Tapir, better than a Scarab Beetle (wait - I supported that one too! Damn). --Somchai Sun (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked ready, added altblurb to note rarity of find. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to the article the first specimen of this species was discovered in 1914, and was suggested back then as a separate species. At very least, the blurb wording needs to reflect this. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and there were reports of gorillas before western science identified them. That is implicit in every species discovery. If it matters, the word discovered can be changed to identified. They amount to the same thing. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not a new species discovered/identified in the Amazon recently. It appears to have been known to western scientists as a possible distinct species ~100 years ago. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Rumors and speculations are not quite same as scientific description, for all intends and purposes this is new species now identified. SeraV (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. I'll go with identified instead of discovered, the reasoning above makes sense. --Tone 09:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
post-oppose hijacking "my" ITN ;(Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Given there's no nominater listed, you could always add yourself as the post-posting nominator. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That tapir couldn't wait any longer, has reportedly been known to local population before :) Brandmeistertalk 15:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

US arrest/strip search of Indian consular officerEdit

Article: Devyani Khobragade incident (talk, history)
Blurb: India protests the arrest and strip-search of one of its consular officers by the United States amidst controversy. (Post)
News source(s): CNN NBC News BBC Times of India The HinduABC (Australia) Guardian Irish Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This seems to be developing into a diplomatic row; receiving wide coverage. Top story on BBC, other outlets. Will update later today. --331dot (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment most certainly not top story on BBC, not even on BBC News for Asia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It was when I saw it, that's all I know. Still being displayed at the top story at this moment: [27] 331dot (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Presumably you're viewing a local version of the BBC homepage dedicated to your location. It was never even on the BBC News homepage in the UK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand that- but I can only state what I am able to see. It was the top story in other outlets(CNN, NBC) for a little bit, and near the top if not the top in Indian outlets. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Changed article target to a stupid one deemed encyclopaedically notable because it is int eh news (duh!).
Thanks; I didn't realize it had been created. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose its a diplomatic spat with no repercussions. If there were declarations of persona non grata for ambassadors etc then id support. Mind you the arrival of Ahmedenijad to Lebaonon (with that dodgy border there) was not deemed ITN-worthyLihaas (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • How often are diplomatic officers of any kind arrested and strip-searched? 331dot (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
How often does the thumping in the nose of arch-enemies happen at their doorrstep? That is would Obama go to the N. Korea or Iran border overlooking those countries? Highly notable that would be. OR is Netanyahu did that at Iran (Heck he doesnt even do it to Syria/Lebanon)Lihaas (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
One world leader criticizing another(or another nation) is hardly unique. If this was just an arrest I probably would not have suggested it; but the strip search is what seems to really be riling people in India up. Some in India are calling for gay spouses/partners of US diplomats to be arrested(in keeping with the recent court ruling), as well as the action they have already taken. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
So you say "One world leader criticizing another" is hardly unique, yet the one person in india calling for partners to be arrested is notable? Please you know wthats even more political blabber.
Further, the incident in precedence was not 1 critcising another, as i pointed out it was the physical presence in a hostile zone amid warning of firing back if he did PHYSICALLY throw stones. Id be hardpressed to see any world leader take physical action against another by himself tjust ordering troops. Yet the physical presence in the hotspot is even more rare.Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we posted when Barack Obama stood on the DMZ in Korea and peered into the North. I'm not really here to debate past nominations, though. This incident, now, is a major news story involving two nations with large populations and is having repercussions. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I get that the strip-search has been commented on in the media, but I don't think we need it in the blurb. It almost feels like it could have "click for pictures!" in brackets after it. Overall, I'd say wait to see how/if the story develops. I think this is mainly in the news on account of what could happen rather than what has. Formerip (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The strip-search seems to be the main issue India is having(along with her being placed in the general population of the jail) but I don't necessarily object to removing it. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support India really isn't happy about this. India has been threatening USA with reprisals which makes this quite serious incident. SeraV (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
India isnt happy? Lots of nom's indicate non-hapiness.
Anyhoo, threats are just talk. As precedence here as indicated, when the talk is put to action, when the rubber meets the road, when push comes to shove then we post.Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the blurb should mention the arrest and the reprisals. This was a deliberate act by the US, and rather pointed, as the administration permitted this arrest on irregular documents but is otherwise freeing illegals and advocating free border crossing, amnesty, in-state tuition, and driver's licenses for illegals, etc. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
She's a diplomat, so I think the irregular documents in question are not hers. Formerip (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
She's a consul employee with consular privilege only when she is on consular business. She is accused of having falsified documents regarding an employee brought with her. The arrest would be standard, and the strip search given she was in a local jail. But the arrest was okayed by the Obama administration, which seems an odd priority, given the administration's stand on related issues. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose storm in a teacup. After all, we recently had Spain opening up diplomatic material from the UK coming from Gibraltar. Same shit, different day. Nothing will come of any of it, besides diplomatic apologies in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Opening up diplomatic bags is very different than personally violating another nation's diplomatic officials- namely due to the former not being reported to the same level as this, if at all. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Is this really in the news? I see the link from Lihaas below mentions "hundreds of protestors" across all of India. Big deal. Hundreds of protestors protest about hundreds of things in hundreds of countries every day. Besides Al Jazeera promoting a "conspiracy theory", is there any substance to any further action other than "oops, sorry"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Tha Al Jaz story seems like absolutely nothing. Basically, rather than throwing the nanny out of the country and losing their witness, the authorities have given her a special type of "witness visa" designed for exactly this sort of situation. Oh, and they didn't dismiss the case when India asked them to. Which, apparently, means there's a conspiracy. Listen carefully and you'll hear the sound of a story fizzling out. Formerip (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
support well, well, well...its now a parliamentary issue with more illegal dealings by the GOVERNMENT and hocus-pocus thee. There will be hell to pay, it seems.
Also marked ready. (Damn! my 5/6 blurbs are going...)Lihaas (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose If this really is going to be an international incident, let's actually wait until there's a strong sign of that (eg (hypothetical): if the Indian consulate closes its US office in response, or the US formally charges the person with any crimes). At the present state it is not ITN-worthy news as there is no strong evidence of long-term effects (it fails NEVENT). A snafu and one with some political ramifications, sure, but at the present time, a year from now, it will be just a blip and forgotten from the way the story is going. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, so far:
  • The diplomat involved has been charged.
  • The Indian government have moved her to a post with full diplomatic immunity.
  • The Indian government has removed some security protection from the US embassy.
There is a LOT of noise about this in the media just now - ie it is ITN. Any of that change your mind? GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. This is a storm in a teacup, as I said already. There's nothing in major news outlets, even Al Jazeera has had to resort to "conspiracy theories". No big deal, time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly - for an encyclopedia, this is noise, so far. I won't say that it will never be more notable but the trends are all towards a blip in diplomatic relations that we shouldn't be covering (Wikinews, on the other hand...). --MASEM (t) 18:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting you say that, then why do tinpot stories of x dies in bus/boat/plane accident get posted on ITN? Wha tis that big deal then?Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You people are free to have your opinions about this but claiming that there is nothing in major news outlets about this is just false, [28] [29], [30], [31], [32] SeraV (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, but many things are buried in the news that have little or no impact on anything or anyone outside the story itself. Sorry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
So you havent asked/answered then as to why those accidents are important with an impact and a legacy (as i keep saying, they ought not to be articles even)Lihaas (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes yes mr rambling but perhaps you should read news bit more throroughly before you start claiming nonsense in here. You know for future reference so I can take your claims seriously. SeraV (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
What nonsense? This is a minor story, barely noticed across the globe, a handful of protestors in a country of over a billion people indicates they're not bothered, this is a dead parrot of a story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and it is fair enough, I wasn't questioning that. I was referring to your claim that there is nothing in major newsoutlets about this particular story, and you dismissing my point with a snide remark wasn't particularly welcome either. SeraV (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You start a comment with "You people... " and expect respect? Not from where I'm from. Either way, it's irrelevant. This is a non-story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well theres are global media links that highlight it (even in uninvolved countries), so its hardly a @non stoy@snide remark Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again you make little sense. Shame is I'm sure you have something intelligent to say.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
We actually do block several minor accident stories, such as that recent New York commuter train issue, and I'm blanking on it but even when there's just one or two deaths we don't post the story. So we are careful, and not every one of these gets posted. This is the same this as a non-fatal accident. Widely covered but short-lived. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this moment. She was reportedly released on bond, so far no indication she'll be Helen of Troy (although she may have similar beauty). However, if she was strip-searched in the consul office, the US actions may consitute an invasion on Indian soil, as far as I know. Brandmeistertalk 16:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Reaction by India included digging up and tearing down the protection barrier built after 9/11 and revoking the embassy's passes. The agent was stripped searched as part of normal processing during her arrest. That the upset is mainly about the strip search and not the arrest itself is interesting. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Female Body Inspectors? :) Brandmeistertalk 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose the news is significant only in India (probably because 'may our diplomat always be in the right; but right or wrong, our diplomat' mixed with outrage over intrusive body searches) also the spat seems to be dying down (checked the current Indian English news tv cycle ndtv, times now, ibn (they are the Indian equivalent of cbs, fox and cnn respectively) - the diplomatic tussle news seems to be 3rd or 4th place, in US it is just a low variety news). So oppose on the basis of insignificant coverage outside India. However professionally I find the legal knots on consular immunity in private contracts very interesting (with added whiffs of conspiracy, entrapment and diplomatic retaliation). LegalEagle (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Ronnie BiggsEdit

Nominator comment. A loveable rogue, or a leading notable member of a gang who commited a violent and notorious robbery. Divided opinions in the UK and abroad. Article updated to reflect death and is in okay shape (no tags). Great Train Robbery article also pretty decent (and likely to be visitor's second click). Front page news on BBC. Proposing for RD only. Pedro :  Chat  08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Iconic and controversial figure, famous not just in Britain but also internationally. Notorious not only for the Great Train Robbery, but also for escaping from prison and living in Brazil as a fugitive for 36 years before voluntarily returning to Britain and being imprisoned. Remained in the news in recent times with debate over whether he should be granted compassionate release on health grounds (he eventually was, after earlier requests were rejected). Neljack (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, when artists, scientists, composers and other figures of lasting worth are regularly rejected from RD, I don't feel this thief was the sort of figure "worthy" of an RD blurb. Much as the BBC and other outlets are giving his death front page news, I don't think we should. He was an old man whose death had been expected for years and whose incompetence even in the event he was most famous for led to its most controversial aspect. Bob talk 09:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Note that there isn't really such a thing as a "RD blurb". I'm proposing for RD ticker only, not a blurb. Pedro :  Chat  09:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Whatever, my point is that we should not be giving this criminal any more publicity than he deserves - just because all the newspapers are headlining with it, I don't see why we should. Bob talk 11:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You answered your own question- because it is in the news and this is "in the news". We do not make judgements about what is good and bad. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he was only a "second class tea-boy". Not worthy of space on main page. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Whatever you think of what he did with his life, his death is undoubtedly in the news as he was an iconic, controversial figure in the UK and Brazil at least. His death has been expected for years, but that is irrelevant as RD's purpose is exactly for deaths that are in the news but not noteworthy other than for having happened. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Important in his field. The fact that it was crime is irrelevant; we don't just post people who did good things. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD His name and the Great Train Robbery has become famous even now 50 years on. Documentaries have been made about him, his life in exile and the robbery itself. I think it's perfect for RD. CaptRik (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, as demonstrated by the various international sources, Biggs was clearly notorious across the globe, his death is certainly in the major news outlets, and for just a handful of characters on the main page, just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. (.. looking forward to "Biggsy" already?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Biggs's involvement in the robbery was seemingly very minor and any notability was acquired from his time spent evading justice. I cannot see how Biggs meets the required criterion ('widely regarded as a very important figure in his field'). During the BBC News at 11:00, Biggs was only mentioned after reports on a fall in the British unemployment rate and proposed changes in benefits for migrants from the European Union, which suggests he is not as notable as implied above. (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Re "any notability was acquired from his time spent evading justice"; it is certainly notable in the field of crime that someone managed to do that, even if he was not the ringleader of the group in this infamous robbery. Re placement in the BBC broadcast, we consider more than just that(such as worldwide coverage, which this has), though the fact that he made it at all would suggest he is notable. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • He's currently top of GoogleNews, and second at BBC News (ironically, just above plastic banknotes). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He wasn't a leading member of the gang, merely a long-term fugitive. He died of old age. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Died of old age isn't grounds for opposition I'm afraid. Take a look at the RDs currently showing on the main page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
When did Ronnie Biggs receive an Oscar? Or anything else he'd earned except a long-overdue jailing? The man was a petty criminal who played a small part in a large and violent event. By 'died of old age' I mean that there is nothing sudden or unusual about his death to add to its noteworthiness. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
O'Toole didn't receive a real Oscar either. And yes, you weren't clear, but thanks for clearing it up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As was pointed out though, O'Toole did win the Academy Honorary Award, which is a sort of lifetime achievement. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Opposes pointing out that he was common-or-garden crook and not the brains behind the robbery totally miss the point. His notability isn't primarily as a thief but as a fugitive. In that field, it's probably fair to say that he was pretty successful and one of the most famous there's ever been. Formerip (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
'Famous' is not a criterion. Kevin McE (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Best known for being a part of a well-known robbery? That doesn't make him top of his field. As to FormerIP's comment above me, I don't think "being a fugitive" is a field. Besides, it says he went to Brazil, which didn't have an extradition treaty with Britain. So we're not talking about some skilled evasion of the law. He moved to a country that wouldn't extradite him. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
But what he did is pretty much unique in history. AFAICT, only a tiny number of people have escaped from a British prison and not been recaptured, and the others were all members of either the IRA or the KGB (i.e. they had considerable help). Formerip (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
But he was recaptured, which renders this argument invalid. Kevin McE (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is the name at the top of the entry. What is your point? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think his point is that this man is notable enough to be posted, which is also indicated by the worldwide coverage of his death. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
If this was posted so quickly, how come the READY german article is not posteD?!Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I would very much like to post the German article, but I "voted" on it and therefore have a conflict of interest. Thue (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
        • As someone who opposed posting it, I am willing to see you post it rather than have it languish in this instance. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Ditto, in fact postingit when you voted against it is al the more to your neutrality.Lihaas (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Post posting Oppose per Bob, i find it really odd indeed that we don't post certain musicians and such if they don't have enough exposure in main newsoutlets or if their pages aren't perfect, yet we think some thief is worthy of posting in our main page. I really don't think he meets any of our criteria either. SeraV (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • He meets #2(important in his field, crime/being a fugitive).331dot (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Important in his field' is a contention entirely unsupported by the facts. If his field (robbery) is considered to merit measurement of importance, then breaking into a pharmacy, stealing a car, a bungled bookie's break-in and failure to recruit a competent train driver is small beer. He was very much a foot-soldier in the notorious train robbery. Attempts to retrieve him from flight to countries with no extradition treaties gained him some tabloid/'and finally' notoriety, but he scores zero for importance. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

December 17Edit

[Posted] The AshesEdit

Article: 2013–14 Ashes series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cricket, Australia defeat England to regain the Ashes in the 2013–14 Ashes series. (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.

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • As this is ITN/R it will be posted, and I take it that the final tests conclusion will not be? If so, good.--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
NO, wait till; the series concludes to have teh final result. + the prose ont eh page is ORLihaas (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Lihaas, the Aussies have won, and they WANT to rub it in the Brits faces ASAP. :PPP --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Only the English (and perhaps Welsh), the Scots are probably enjoying this too... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting now What everybody cares about is who wins the Ashes, and that's what has just been decided. Sure England will be trying to save face in the last two tests, while Australia will be going for a clean sweep, but ultimately this is a dead rubber now. Neljack (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is big news NOW. The final result of the series will definitely be lesser news. It's ITN/R, this is the big news from the series, so it should be posted now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Aus trashed Eng and deservedly won the Ashes with two Tests to spare. There's no news in waiting for the final two Tests whatsoever. The news is that Australia regain the Ashes (although never the urn, hahahahaha). Post immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • TRM's pearls of wisdom bring tears to many overly patriotic Brits yes, post now. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's take a look at 2013–14 Ashes series... The lede doesn't even mention that Australia have won, and the three match reports contain not one reference between them. Stephen 23:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
So fix it. (And is that a Support post?) HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It's comment from an admin who would have posted it if it was in better shape. If it was a support, it would say 'Support' wouldn't it? Stephen 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the lead now contains the relevant information, but those match descriptions ARE a worry. An incredibly poor effort by the editors involved. I'll see what I can do. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added a basic reference to all match reports. CaptRik (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Did you see the abuse I copped, and am still copping, for firmly suggesting that writing that much content with no sourcing at all was simply not good enough? LOL) HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm open to suggestions on the blurb but it seems to be that regaining the Ashes is the storyline, and that has happened. The 3-0 series score seems unnecessary to mention for me.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would like to see a few more references in the article before posting. I'll see what I can do to add some more. SpencerT♦C 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 21:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] German chancellor Merkel, ministers inauguratedEdit

An Admin, an Admin! My Kingdom for an Admin! --consensus was for this to be posted as of inauguration time, Germany, a day and a half ago now. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Meerged to discussion that existsLihaas (talk) 16:04, 16 December 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: Third Merkel cabinet (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Germany, the third cabinet under chancellor Angela Merkel is inaugurated. (Post)
News source(s): (Deutsche Welle) (BBC News)

Nom. We did not post it when the coalition was agreed upon (rightfully so), but now's the time. I posted it under "December 17" because that is when the inauguration takes place. --bender235 (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support The formation of this coalition is non-predictable, and therefore news we haven't posted before. And Germany is the most important country in Europe, so obviously the government formation is notable. Thue (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant event in European politics (not just Germany). Also I'd like to suggest a picture of Angela Merkel if this is approved. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (as a German, I am biased on the importance of this). For the record, it should be taken care that the (possible) posting of this news item goes along with the actual event(s). Tomorrow, December 17, the Bundestag will start its session at 09:00 CET to elect a new chancellor (and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this is not going to be her). At 12:00, she is expected to take the oath of office, and will subsequently drive over to the president in order to be formally appointed. By 13:30, she is expected to be back at the Bundestag, where the ministers of her new cabinet are then sworn in. So, one could either run a blurp "Merkel re-elected chancellor" from something like 12:00, or (what I would prefer and what has been suggested above) "new government inaugurated", but this could only be posted some time later than 13:30. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:52, 16 December 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.
  • Ready se nomination below to which this was merged: "German parliament confirms Angel Merkel for new term" [33] [Credit Sca] 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Posting admin: please note that the blurb below is posted when you do post itLihaas (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted as part of the blurb from below. Stephen 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

December 16Edit

[Posted] Failed coup in South SudanEdit

Article: 2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​South Sudan announces an attempted coup in Juba amidst continued fighting and hundreds of casualties. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Clashes in South Sudan result in hundreds of casualties following a reported attempted coup.
News source(s): BBC, AFP, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: According to the analysis of the BBC, this is a "critical point" for South Sudan which is "facing its greatest challenge since becoming independent".[34] Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Damn! did you take it from my page? ;) I intended to create an article for this when I had time. Though I would add it should be called a failed mutiny rather than a coup as the latter is a much harsher word with repercussions. Not sure what repercussions this would have (okey there is the strong/key ethnic element). Anyhoo, rant over...article title? Perhaps 2013 South Sudanese mutiny attempt or 2013 SOuth Sudanese coup d'etat attempt (As in the the page for the Eritrean one)
btw support as a nitable incident and the first in the country setting possible pace for its future politics.
Further one could also add the element of the dismissal of Reik Machar earlier in the eyar that i nominated here for cabinet reshuffle but wasnt posted
Started 2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attemptLihaas (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A significant development is a new country that is still in a rather tense region. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd support this, but the article needs copyediting before we can post it. Formerip (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on BLP grounds. A failed coup attested only by the government? Isn't that what Jang Sung-taek was accused of? The sources cannot be trusted. Abductive (reasoning) 00:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually gunshots and explosive were reported by the media before Salva Kiir's announcement. I can't see how BLP is a concern here when we are following reliable sources. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my oppose, there seem to be hundreds dead. Abductive (reasoning) 03:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – per Neljack. This might be the beginning of a possible major development in the region. The article is in a very good shape too. ComputerJA () 11:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Put up as "South Sudan announces putting down a coup d'état attempt following overnight clashes in Juba." [Soffredo]   15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Fighting still ongoing, I rworded the blurb and marked readuyLihaas (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this attempt was a failure, how does it qualify as a "significant development"? And I don't think it should be posted on the basis that it "might be the beginning of a possible major development"; get back to me when the result is a major development. (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    This is a significant development. At least 66 are reported killed so far and 16,000 have fled their homes. This is the current situation in Juba (the capital): The airport has been closed, a night curfew has been imposed and gunfire is being heard, including from heavy weapons. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support an attempted coup in the US would have been posted before we even had an article. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I support this, but a coup(or even an attempted coup) in the US would be an entirely different animal than a coup in a country barely two years old and lacking nuclear weapons, a significant military, and large population. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. If the word "coup" is a problem we could use a different word, but there clearly was violence against the government causing a significant disruption in that nation. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per medeis reasoning. and the fact that it is a notable political event.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

December 15Edit

[Posted to RD] Joan FontaineEdit

Article: Joan Fontaine (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Acclaimed actress Joan Fontaine dies at the age of 96. (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Blurb optional; RD most certainly. — Wyliepedia 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Came here to nominate this myself. Jón - (Wanna talk?) 02:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but not blurb; oscar winner but not in many top actress lists. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. – Connormah (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, when referencing improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. The article has few [citation needed] tags and few unreferenced paragraphs. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. She is notable. Egeymi (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pile on support for RD per Medeis and Mohamed. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 12:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Peter O'TooleEdit

Article: Peter O'Toole (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Acclaimed actor Peter O'Toole dies at the age of 81. (Post)
News source(s): BBC (developing)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Personally I believe a blurb is warranted, but certainly RD at the minimum. --MASEM (t) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for RD, when the orange tag is addressed. --Tone 18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Was coming here to nominate this myself. Seems like a no-brainer to me. A much loved and respected actor, who was the most-nominated actor never to win an Academy Award outright. - JuneGloom Talk 18:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Important in his field, but not to the level of a blurb. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per 331dot. The sourcing issues need fixing first though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Many sources are using the words "film legend", and he had a pretty acclaimed career (the IMDB says he was "Nominated for 8 Oscars. Another 33 wins & 29 nominations.") Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Yes, he is a legend. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 18:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Support immediate RD. The orange refimprove notice dates to February 2012 and is mostly moot at this point (see February 2012 referencing & article-state), except for the Personal life section. Will start clean-up and see if I can find referencing for at least some of those one-line mentions. Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Eight-time Academy Award nominee, but zero time Academy Award winner. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Not to fight too hard on the blurb, but the Academy gave him a rare Honorary award in 2003 because of his number of nominations but always missing the win due to another stellar performance by another actor that year; he remains the most-nominated actor for the Oscars. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but that's why I see him as worthy of RD. For a blurb, he falls short of the "Thatcher/Mandela" threshold as I see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, also support quick RD posting too, a nice idea to post RDs as long as they meet the min update criteria and then push to blurb maybe a few hours later once more serious editorial concerns have been addressed. O'Toole was a legend, an actor of extreme notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. To the people that think he is not up to the level of a blurb; which actor would you support for one? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone who had won 8 Academy Awards instead of just being nominated, to start. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Cary Grant never won an Oscar. Charlie Chaplin never won an Oscar. Marilyn Monroe never won an Oscar. James Dean never won an Oscar. (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
We are not talking about Hitchcock, Grant, Chaplin, or Monroe. Many of them won many awards or had other recognition(Hitchcock got A KBE) 331dot (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and O'Toole was offered a knighthood in 1987, but turned it down. He also received many other awards. The point is that Oscars are not the be all and end all of notability. (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Really? It's pretty obvious that O'Toole won many awards. IMDB reports 33. Also, he turned down a knighthood offer in the 80s. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
No one said they were the be all end all- but not winning the top award in his field even once is a factor. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Time to stop digging yourself further 331dot! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb? I am a huge fan of O'Toole's (who isn't) so a blurb won't bother me in the least, but this is not an unexpected death, and "dies of old age" is really meant just for RD. Will have to watch Lion in Winter tonite. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Not wishing to draw an immediate parallel, but there has been a recent posting of "died of old age" that received a full blurb. So "died of old age" isn't really a means to reject a blurb it would appear. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Part of the discussion for RD was that it saved space on blurbs when the mode of death itself wasn't notable. That being said, there is tension with the person's importance, which is a reason for the full blurb. After reading [ this list, I think he does make the cut, so I
  • Support RD ticket. Not a blurb, what is the point of a blurb that says he died of old age? Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) oppose blurb relation to "who else would be posted" is irrelevant. Other blurb supports indicate ILIKEIT. His legend status id dubious objectively. LOA was the lone lead. That said RD is pretty obvious and per Abductive, that needs extraordinary circumstancesLihaas (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD - I won't weep if this goes to full blurb, but comparing O'Toole's death to Mandela's (apples and oranges in any case) doesn't work. Mandela was an international icon and triumphed over injustice and persecution to change a nation's racial policies. O'Toole was an actor, one with a quite distinguished career, but not at the same level of global importance. Jusdafax 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Who compared him to Mandela? There was a suggestion that "dies of old age" precludes a blurb, but that clearly isn't true. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, one of the all-time great actors. Secret account 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support, and would not oppose a blurb. A significant figure in British cinema. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The comparison to be made is among actors, of whom O'Toole (Becket, Lion in Winter, Lawrence of Arabia, 8 Oscar nominations) was near the top of those still alive. His competitors are who? Connery, Hopkins, DeNiro, Pacino, Hackman, Nicholson, Duvall, Redford, Hurt, Caine, Neeson, Irons, Pitt, DiCaprio, Clooney. O'Toole sits easily at the top of that list. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurp. The RD spot is sufficient: This is exactly what it's for, notifying the reader of the death of a highly significant person. Medeis, one can indeed take the Mandela case as an example: Mandela's death and its aftermath was extensively covered in all kinds of media, which upon the announcement often jumped in what I would call "expanded breaking news mode": Special features, program changes, studio experts etc. to rewind Mandela's life and achievements. A whole bunch of world leaders convened at Mandela's memorial service, and South Africa had ten days of state mourning. This is why in that case a blurp was justified. Obviously, O'Toole plays in a different league.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. It's pretty obvious there's a consensus for RD, and I can imagine no serious objection, so I've gone ahead and posted it there. Debate is still open on the blurb, but one of the world's greatest actors seems an obvious one there as well. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb A very important actor, but didn't quite have the level of international impact I'd require for a blurb (few actors would). Neljack (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just added a note in the title that the item has been posted. I'm not happy with the orange tags in the article, nevertheless. --Tone 20:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of 20 votes I count six opposed to a blurb, from 7-9 in support of a blurb (depending on how you count), and the rest unopposed to a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I count 11 (10 at the time you posted) in favour of RD, 8 in favour of a blurb, and two neutral or unclear. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Will you two PLEASE stop counting votes. We're not supposed to do that here. It's the quality of argument alone that counts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Vote counting is perfectly appropriate for whether something goes up as RD or Blurb. Of course support votes should not be counted as opposing a blurb unles they say oppose blurb--you'll have to bring that up with someone besides me, though. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Absolute rubbish. If someone cannot come up with a decent reason for their opinion, it doesn't count for anything here, no matter what the purpose is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
So which vote above are you saying is rubbish, so we can fix the count? In case you haven't been told this recently, HiLO, you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ignore HiLo. He's stirring the pot as per usual. The consensus should be for RD. The support for a blurb should be near-universal to get posted as a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Umm nio. Ignore the rest. hes perfectly right in saying tht we dont vote count and use the quality of agruments. He said nothing about RD/Blurb.Lihaas (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Lihaas (again, this is odd...?!) Well that's an interesting take on things. RD has already been posted, so that's irrelevant. Where is this "near-universal" support required for a blurb? Surely it's down to admins to gauge comments on their merits rather than simply count pluses and minuses? Or did I miss that bit at admin school? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Lihaas, unless you think HiLo just goes around saying "that's rubbish" without referring to anything at all, or unless you can't keep in context two comments at a time, it's obvious he's responding to the three statements above him which were counting votes for and against a blurb. Upgrading to a full blurb is always possible. This was all discussed at length in the RfC that established RD in the first place, and bfore RD both these actors recently passed would have gotten full blurbs. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Please assume good faith, Medeis, and be careful not to be patronising to others ('unless you can't keep in context two comments at a time'). This is not obvious: 'Ignore HiLo' does mean to ignore HiLo, which is how Lihaas interpreted it. I believe WaltCip intended to write 'Ignore, HiLo', which, on the other hand, is unambiguous and correct. (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, but agree it shouldn't have been done with an unresolved orange tag. I think there are only a handful of people in history whose acting careers would merit a blurb, and they are all dead. Formerip (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Chile electionEdit

Article: Chilean general election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Michelle Bachelet is elected as president of Chile for a second non-consecutive term. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Was nominated last time but it went to a 2nd round. --Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is not updated, otherwise, this is ITNR. Also, it's about time we change the picture in the box since Mandela is currently the last item. --Tone 18:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Voting is probs still going on
btw- Bangla dude has a pic on his page.(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)).
I have updated the article with partial results. It's pretty clear now Bachelet is the President-elect of Chile. Support this item. Btw, use this pic to illustrate: File:Michelle Bachelet foto campaña.jpg. Evelyn Matthei has just acknowledged her defeat. Küñall (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The article seems ready to go, may some admin please post it? :-P --Küñall (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I am missing some decent prose update, at the moment it's just the table. Then, ready to post. --Tone 08:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Its been updated with prose and results and as ITNR it is good to go.Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!, damn chinese and damn new species! ;)(Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 14Edit

[Posted] German governmentEdit

Article: German federal election, 2013#Government formation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A CDU-CSU and SPD grand coalition will take office under Chancellor Angela Merkel on 17 December.. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Germany, a third cabinet under chancellor Angela Merkel is inaugurated with a grand coalition following the election.
News source(s): Al Jaz

Nominator's comments: Not sure if we posted the election and under what terms the blurb went up, but the agreement of a grand coalition is important + we posted aus/can/uk more than once. --Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Wait until it happens. --W. D. Graham 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As stated on the ITNR page, we generally do not post inaugurations or swearings-in. We already posted the election and debated posting the coalition agreement. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot. We already posted the results from the election, so there is no reason to post the constitution of the new government coalition. Some may argue that the country has never seen more dramatic post-election period which ended in a coalition between the two "political rivals", but the political climate during this period did not receive much popularity in the media and was not followed with unpleasant events to consider this an end of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
So why do the anglo countries get a pass in mul;tiple mentions (Aus went up thrice)...flagrnt systemic bias?Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't witnessed that news related to one single election have been posted in multiple blurbs, but I'd oppose as well any news related to a peaceful constitution of a coalition following election that was already mentioned on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
But we did when the election happened. UK was posted when the coalition was done and the previous australian one was posted (before Abbptt) multiple times (with whatshername aftert Rudd)Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If no appelz and orangez going on then I see no problem with this going up...taking into consideration your points Lihaas...*hic* Somchai Sun (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
We're speaken here nein Deutsch, (i.e., Not zee Tscherman!)L)ihaas, uND Somchai. Pleasen to speaken yust dee Englsky wit dee porper splngk and ! punkshnuation...^)? Medeis
  • Comment I don't think the section is well structured and updated. The first sentence for instance says "Amongst coalition possibilities, many SPD insiders do not want to work with The Left." Other examples: "Issues for the SPD in coalition would entail a national minimum wage and conflicts over dual citizenship, which the SPD supports but CDU fears would cost them votes"; "The Greens are "open" to coalition talks with the CDU/CSU". Iselilja (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
To expand on my comment. I still think the article in question needs updating and improvement. More about the agreement and we should also include a list of new cabinet members. Also, the article isn't linked to in the current blurb. Maybe start a new article about the new cabinet? Iselilja (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — On Nov. 27, when negotiations between the SPD and Merkel's CDU/CSU ended with leadership agreement to form a "grand coalition," I and several others argued strongly in favor of posting, but were told by skeptics to wait until it happens — i.e., until the SPD membership approved the agreement. Well, IT'S HAPPENED , [38] boys & girls, and it's high time for the results of the Sept. 22 election to be posted in ITN, sofort, unverzüglich! (With apologies to Günter Schabowski.) Sca (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the election and the coalition are two separate news items, one of the quirks of the multiparty "system". μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is not an inauguration, it is the formation of a government - quite a different thing. The results of the election were known, but not who would govern the country - which is surely the most important thing. Let my give an analogy for Americans who may not be used to parliamentary systems: imagine if the the US Presidential election resulted in a tie in the electoral college. We would surely (and rightly) post that. But would anyone seriously argue that we should not post the election by the House of Representatives of the new President. Well, this is like that: the election has not produced a clear result and then the legislature is choosing the government (through parties with a majority in it negotiating an agreement to form a government). Neljack (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support to post when the date comes. The formation of a new government is significant here. --Jayron32 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought the government had already been formed, and the votes in the parties were just making it official. (Someone as a party leader doesn't agree to those sorts of things unless they already think their party will accept them.) The blurb seems to focus more on the beginning of the government itself(essentially an inauguration); if the formalization and acceptance of the coalition agreement is what's notable, then the blurb should focus on that. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope, the vote to form the government happened on December 14, when this was nominated. --Jayron32 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
A first — Merkel to name Ursula von der Leyen as Germany's first woman defense minister. [39] Sca (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the first female defense minister needs to be mentioned in the blurb, but it should be in the updated article; along with named of the other members of the new cabinet. (We might well hold this post off to 17 Dec) Iselilja (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well no the government had not been formed, because the SPD's agreement was conditional on it being approved by the party membership. No doubt the leadership were confident of getting approval, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion - the rank and file are often more radical than the leadership. Neljack (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is more support above and an article at Third Merkel cabinet. Plus its ITNR so no qualms posting asapLihaas (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the convoluted path of this discussion. It seems the topic now is represented by Third Merkel cabinet, and the discussion above is closed with just three comments. Do I understand correctly that this means it will be posted Dec. 17? Sca (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Its ITNR so the election has to be posted, but regardless its got support and an update. The only issue seems to be when to post and I think 12:30 tomorrow (that is in 19 hours) itll be good to go.Lihaas (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the party chiefs — Merkel (CDU), Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) and Horst Seehofer (CSU) — signed a formal, 185-page "grand coalition" agreement on Monday, Dec. 16, in Berlin. [40]. Why wait? Sca (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Because the new government has not taken office yet. Let's wait until tomorrow afternoon, when Angela Merkel will be re-elected and the members of her new cabinet will have been formally appointed. In order to determine the moment when to post at the earliest, one would need to watch the news. By the way, there is an article about the Third Merkel cabinet, which might be displayed at the blurp rather than the one about the election.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
We post the results of election without them being sworn in...Also even if the election article is not bolded I think it's imperative to have it in there as we did'nt post the result (we could have 2 bolded articles).Lihaas (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Lihaas, the result of the election was posted, on 24 September. Therefore, I'd think that if indeed consensus would be to post the formation of the new government, Third Merkel cabinet should be the bolded article.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Getting contradictory messages here...Per th ebaove noto posted...although ITNTALK seems to show that it wasLihaas (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"German parliament confirms Angel Merkel for new term" [41] [42] — Not news yet? Agreement to form a new "grand coalition" government was reached nearly a month ago. The ex-journalist in me is appalled (if amused) at how long it's taken to get this noteworthy event into doughty old ITN. (Could there possibly be an anti-German bias lurking somewhere on English Wikipedia?) Sca (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's highly doubtful there is any bias. There seem to be a very limited number of admins watching this page, so attention is often irregular and lacking. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's wait 'til Mrs. Merkel retires from politics someday, then run an ITN blurb about how she was chancellor for a third term. ZZZzzz. Sca (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have 4 out of six blurbs! Woo hoo! Vision indeed...!!!
Knock of Chile with Uruguay and Ill havge nearly all!Lihaas (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Chang'e 3 landsEdit

Articles: Chang'e 3 (talk, history) and Yutu (rover) (talk, history)
Blurb: Chang'e 3, carrying the Yutu rover, becomes the first spacecraft to land on the Moon since 1976. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News TelegraphBloomberg Business Week

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: Hugely notable, ITNR, there was also a consensus to post twice when we discussed posting the launch. --W. D. Graham 13:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - First landing on the moon in nearly 4 decades is notable in my book. Clearly of international interest. Jusdafax 14:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Was coming to nominate myself. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Incredibly historic event—WP should certainly have it on the homepage!Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Needs some updates, then ready to post (we've already reached a consensus about it when the mission launched). --Tone 15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - first moon landing for a looooong time.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, consensus seems to be that a major space first for a country is ITN-worthy. Can it wait until the Jade Rabbit actually rolls onto the surface in a couple hours? Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Historic event. CaptRik (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready both articles are updated, and support is overwhelming. No reason to wait for further developments, since readers are looking for this now. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
update is there, but BOTH articles have the same thing. Let's debold ONE of them and merge teh section to the bolded article.Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This isn't really the place to hold a merger discussion, but I beg to disagree; Yutu is about the rover specifically, while Chang'e 3 is the mission as a whole and the base station - compare the precedent with Mars Science Laboratory and Curiosity (rover). They are similar at the moment because the rover has not yet detatched from the rest of the probe, this is expected to happen in the next few hours. --W. D. Graham 20:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with WDGrahm and support posting blurb as is now. Jusdafax 20:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting.--Tone 20:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's in there. Give me five minutes and I'll clarify it. --W. D. Graham 21:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I've added a detailed description of the last mission and corrected a typo in its launch date - it had been incorrectly listed as occurring in 1975. --W. D. Graham 22:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

First noble gas molecule discovered in spaceEdit

Articles: Crab Nebula (talk, history) and Argon hydride (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first noble gas molecule in space, Argon hydride (36ArH+), is discovered in the Crab Nebula. (Post)
News source(s): Official report in Science Magazine Sci-News Full version of the report Guardian Express Universe Today Red Orbit Xinhua NY Times Economic Times (India) UPI

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I was not sure what exactly to name the new article which is why I did not create one. If anyone has a good idea for a title for the new article, please feel free to create the article with a good title. Andise1 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Q. What longstanding principle of physics was overturned by this discovery? A. None. Q. Was there a hypothesis that led the discoverers to look for noble gas molecules in supernova remnants? A. No, there were some odd emission lines, and they came up with candidate molecules to explain them. Q. What lasting impact will this have on astronomy? A. None given by the sources, and likely none whatsoever. Don't believe the hype. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. Neljack (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose because this doesn't seem to be getting coverage in mainstream media(just science outlets). If it did, I would support as molecules with noble elements have not been seen outside of a laboratory, and certainly not in space up til now. People are certainly entitled to believe something like this is not important or just "hype", or that we should only post earth-shattering discoveries covered in the media, but that doesn't change the fact this hasn't been seen before. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing this in enough other news sources to now support this. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a very interesting scientific first. And if we seriously need to violate a law of physics to qualify for ITN now (I can just see the headlines--CNN: "Wikipedia Bans News that Doesn't Violate Laws of Nature")--we can just shut down ITN and go home. μηδείς (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to see a link to the 'Noble gas' article. Tempted to support this but the blurb needs tweaking. The other issues, like a new article, complicate this one a bit. Abductive's objections are noted but this is a somewhat interesting "first" in my view. Jusdafax 12:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is a story of interest to me personally , but I really don't feel it's a big enough story for the front page. CaptRik (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • DYK I think the opposition is wrong, but this would not be a bad item for WP:DYK. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there are bigger scientific news stories out there than this. Thue (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Such as? 331dot (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • [43] and [44] for example, from a quick troll of and . Thue (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I await their nomination to consider their merits; but that says little about this story, which seems to be getting much wider coverage than those. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • News media are generally amateurs wrt science. The nominated article is clearly not very important science, no matter how widely covered. Thue (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is "In the news", not a science journal. We deal in what is widely covered. 331dot (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support*, for reasons opposite to the opening comment, eg. Q. What longstanding principle of chemistry was overturned by this discovery? A. The long, LONG, LONG standing belief that noble gases do not and cannot form chemical compounds with other elements, due to their full outer shells (of electrons). As with all responsible breaking science, the wording of the article is cautious and of course awaits supporting evidence from others. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not what the Noble gas compound article says. No, us humans have made all these molecules in the lab. Not only that, but that article cites a 1968 source that says that noble gas compounds have been detected by spectroscopic means. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

December 13Edit

December 12Edit

[Posted]: Jang Song-thaekEdit

Article: Jang Song-thaek (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Senior North Korean government official Jang Sung-taek is executed, having been accused of counter-revolutionary activities. (Post)
Alternative blurb: North Korean media announce the execution of senior government official Jang Sung-taek.
News source(s): Al Jaz NK News BBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: That North Korean dude who was dismissed (the uncle of the Dear Leader, or whatever hes called) was executed shortly after the dismissal. Pretty high ranking dude to be executed in a short time.S ome strange stuff going on there. I think its notable for RD for sure, possibly a full blurb.
Please indicate if support is for blurb or RD Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support blurb - notable enough for inclusion. And quite interesting/funny that a man who has helped to create this system falls victim too it himself.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The execution of the second-most powerful men in the country. Thue (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD Seems to fall under WP:ITND#1, and it's definitely in the news, but in the end he was "just" the vice-chairman National Defence Commission. Speculations that this was actually "the second in command" position within the Pyongyang government are, well, speculations. Promotion to blurb would require clearer evidence of the person's significance (i.e. I oppose blurb). --hydrox (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) ed: After reading WFC's comment below, I no longer oppose posting the blurb.
  • Support blurb I suspect the RD will get lost as "never heard of him". A significant and chilling move from the leader of the universe. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb I think it's one major development for North Korean issues and shows the insanity of their leader. It must be shown. Japanesehelper (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Speculation that, contrary to all the evidence, he was some sort of minor dogsbody is, well, speculation. Very clearly a singularly important figure within the NK administration and an extremely dramatic and newsworthy death. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I added a blurb. I'm not sure that the "Toryism" template on the "Counter-revolutionary" article is quite right for the front page, though. Formerip (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Not a "minor dogsbody" of course, but there are also other figures in Pyongyang ousiders deem "important" in addition to Kim and the now executed Jang. Article on O Kuk-ryol, who co-held the same position as the late Jang, also cites sources naming him second in power from the Supreme Leader, while Kim Yong-chun, who too co-held Jang's position, is obviously not a nobody either. Meanwhile, the "official" version would be that Kim Yong-nam holds a nominally superior position to any of these other figures, but outsider sources actually consider him less of a "big player". Do all them also warrant a blurb if executed? --hydrox (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
      • My guess would be quite possibly. Formerip (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well they wouldn't be the first. Kim has been executed before ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. The execution of such a highly-ranked person in NK is notable enough to be a blurb. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready updated [45] and supported for full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb only (oppose RD) – very surprising turn of events in the context of a family dynasty, doubly so given how influential Sung-taek was in the transition from Kim Jong-il's reign to cementing Kim Jong-un's. On my opposition to RD, surely a prerequisite for posting under RD is that the person meets the standard death criteria? This person would have no serious prospect of being posted had he had a heart attack a fortnight ago. Under my reading rules that out criteria 1 and 2, as previous notability is independent from current circumstances. To argue #3 you would need to demonstrate that this has changed the national or international status quo. Consensus to post trumps those criteria, but if it is not obvious why someone is being posted, a blurb is absolutely necessary to explain the context of the posting. —WFCFL wishlist 01:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Side comment Shouldn't the posted name reflect the current article title? Redirects are cheap, but they're not free, and this would be high-traffic. Are there ENGVAR issues that I'm not aware of? —WFCFL wishlist 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair point on explaining context to readers. --hydrox (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a comment about the blurb: rather than presenting the news as an absolute fact, it might be better to explicitly attribute the execution announcement to North Korean media or something, as many of the news sources seem to be doing. Just because North Korea says something happened doesn't mean it actually happened: last year, the very same news agency reported the discovery of a unicorn lair in Pyongyang. I would guess that it's probable that he has been executed, but it's at least possible that he has not. I'm not at all saying that this shouldn't be posted, but grain of salt and all that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
To be slightly more accurate, Western media reported that North Korean media reported the discovery of a unicorn lair in Pyongyang. Formerip (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support & Comment on Blurb: I say a better blurb might be "North Korean media announce the execution of senior government official Jang Song Thaek." I'd remove the 'counter-revolutionary' - it's not really necessary. Article needs updating. Colipon+(Talk) 05:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could we include the fact that North Korean media now deleted all reference to Jang Sung-taek's existence [46]? Because I think it is this Damnatio memoriae attempt (Orwellian memory hole comes to mind) that makes this death/execution so notable. --bender235 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • It is kinda interesting, but blurbs have a limited length, so I say no. Also, I assume damnatio memoriae is just par for the course for North Korea, so not that extraordinary in context. Thue (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • attention by an admin, who should use her discretion in choosing a blurb is needed. There's no need to postpone this further. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb. Consensus is clearly in favour of a blurb, but no obvious consensus in favour of "counter-revolutionary" which of course can be added if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
wow! 50% of the ITN is deaths in blurb format (and 50% is my nom, is it a record? ;))Lihaas (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
No, we've had 100%, I think, around the time of Margaret Thatcher's shuffling-off. But well done all the same. Formerip (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

M23 agreementEdit

Article: M23_rebellion#Agreement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The government of Congo DR and the M23 movement sign an accord in Nairobi. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jaz

Nominator's comments: A solid agreement is signed ending the conflict (for now anyways), this is the stuff we usually wait for in outcome.
A lot happenedin the world around us today Lihaas (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Solid support for this. This is a long-running conflict that has filtered through into international affairs in all sorts of ways and very good news if it is coming to an end. GoldenRing (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per GoldenRing and nom. Neljack (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd be inclined to support but the update is one sentence way down in the body of the article. Jusdafax 12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because we posted the end of this conflict a month ago and we don't need to chronicle each step towards relative normality that comes after. Formerip (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FormerIP. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

December 11Edit

Homosexual activity in IndiaEdit

Article: LGBT rights in India (talk, history)
Blurb: ​India's supreme court declares Homosexual sex illegal. (Post)
News source(s): CNN BBC

Nominator's comments: LGBT rights in India has been updated. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Need a proper nomination
But oppose as its nothing news. It was illegal 150 years ago and this is just an upholding of the statute. Overturned a regional court ruling, so it it not even redeclaring illegality across the country as most of the country never legalised it in the first place.
Theres only one known instance of marriage...and i dont even even the know the official status of it. Clearly its not recognised, but merely some off-sect religious show piece.Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
That claim is disingenuous bordering on the obtuse. The 150 year old British statue was declared invalid 4 years ago by the Delhi high court since when Indians have enjoyed full sexual rights, backed by a court ruling. Those rights are now being taken from them in a time in which sexual rights is a top political issue across the globe. The fact that this is news, is of course made obvious by the prominent feature of the piece in world wide media. As for your second statement I have no idea what you are talking about as the ruling has nothing to do with marriage, but is about sexual relations, which I can inform you do frequently take place out of wedlock in most of the world. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, AGF first. Theres the jurisidcion space (which i quried on the page). The ruling has not yielded any difference in India (please point to one instance of chane?), neither is this an issue anywhere in Induia (or outside western dominion).
And as you say it is frequently taking palce anywhere, so what does this do? In the few years since if was "legalised" there has been nothing in that direction, and there will be nothing in this direction.Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Not real easy to AGF with this level of argumentation. Since 2009 Indians have had a courts word that they had aconstitutional right to have private consensual sex with eachother regardless of the sex of their partner. They don't have that any longer. That is a change. A homosexual person is now liable for prosecution and punishment. Yesterday they weren't. That is a change. I haven't a clue as to what you mean by "no change in that direction".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be a rather run of the mill ruling. The Supreme Court did not come out of nowhere and create a law outlawing homosexual sex. According to CNN: "On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the penal code was constitutionally [emphasis mine] valid. It was up to parliament, the court said, to decide whether or not to keep the law in the statute books." Courts normally rule on constitutional mandates, not abstract morality without regard to the constitution. There's no indication the court would even consider overturning a repeal of this law. The ball is in the legislature's court. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This nom isn't displaying in the top nav box... Someone fixed it, thank you. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was their Supreme Court overturning a lower court ruling that it was not illegal, thus reinforcing the status quo. The BBC's headline "India top court reinstates gay sex ban" says it all. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not really a news of global attention. Also, SC has simply said that HC calling section 377 as unconstitutional is wrong. SC has simply asked to get HC's thought straight (pun) and has also shown that its through a legislature that such clause can be revoked. Also, even with the precedent of Delhi HC of 2009 of "legalising" homosexuality, homosexuality was still a crime. Only that the case did not have much stand in lower courts which would heed to HC's decision. It could very well have been challenged at another HC or in front of a daring judge. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you!Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this doesn't quite amount to making homosexual acts illegal, which I'd have supported posting. In the US, overturning a lower court ruling does not establish precedent. Is the ruling a dismissal with prejudice against further cases? μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised if that's not the case in the US. In most Common Law countries, the ratio decidendi of any supreme court decision creates a binding precedent for all lower courts, and I'm pretty sure that's how it will be in India. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Dharmadhyaksha, who finally persuaded me with his comments. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
commonwealth solidaroity...birds of a feather...
and to boot...labour are out!vLihaas (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Awful news that is Lihaas. Somchai Sun (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I make no judgement calls. i just draw the parallelLihaas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The two are not comparable. The Australian High Court struck down a gay marriage law as unconstitutionally conflicting with the federal law that controls marriage. It means that gay marriage can only be permitted in Australia by a federal law, which is likely to happen in time. Homosexual acts between consenting adults are legal throughout Australia and this has not changed. The issue before the High Court was a technical one about conflicting laws from different levels of government; the case had nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of gay marriage. EdChem (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The other ruling also called on the legislature to make a decision. Technically it made no judgement calls, just saying teh change# was invalid in reinstating and taht the government should be concerete in maiking the change. What this useless regime has been inept at doingLihaas (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The status quo argument is fallacious, though I suspect it reflects a general cognitive bias in humans. There is no reason to regard a decision to maintain the status quo as less significant than a decision to change it. They are two sides of the same coin. But for the decision to change the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual where the status quo is maintained. Equally, but for the decision to maintain the status quo, things would have been quite different (in the counterfactual when the status quo is changed). The impact of the decision is the same either way. We certainly do post items that just involve the status quo being maintained - we don't, for instance, refuse to post the re-election of Barack Obama because it just maintains the status quo of him being President. That's even true of court cases - we posted the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare. I'm sure that if Bowers v. Hardwick, which involved exactly the same scenario of a lower court striking down a law against gay sex and then the Supreme Court upholding it on appeal, was decided today we would post it. India is a country of more than a billion people, far more than the United States, yet we post fewer stories from it. If we are serious about combating systemic bias, we need to post stories like this that get widespread media attention not just in India but internationally too. Neljack (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would oppose posting Bowers or a similar US story too, the location is irrelevant to me. Posting re-elections (such as Obama) is not done on the basis of any particular individual being re-elected, but on the event itself(the election). While certainly not representative of the whole, the one Indian to post here opposes this too. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Neljack that maintaining status quo or going the other way round are equals. But, i guess i did not stress much in my initial opinion, that what is important is the gravity of news. The billion count of Indians doesn't matter. If that was the parameter we would have to have a separate China-India news section. Although, i would suggest that the nomination remain open. If the protests or other activities gain more strength, we can reconsider this topic, with some other blurb. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Whatever way you look at it, sex between men was allowed in India and now its not. How can that not be considered significant news? It's all very well individual users saying they would oppose a similar story from the US (as if!), but not long ago we posted a blurb about a SCOTUS ruling which was something to so with the interstate recognition of pension rights for a tiny number of gay couples. It doesn't stack up. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasnt, and nothing has changed on the ground either in Delhi#s regional court or by this. What could create change is marriage and thats not touched either wayLihaas (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Supreme court (unfortunately) took a black letter approach and 'upheld' the law, IMO if the court had overturned the penal code (like the High Court) then legally speaking it would be highly significant (a judicial review of 150 year old section of the penal code, which in India is quite rare), but court 'upholding' the law seems to be insignificant (atleast from a legal standpoint). LegalEagle (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

December 10Edit

[Posted] Uruguay: Marijuana legalizationEdit

Article: Legality of cannabis in Uruguay (talk, history)
Blurb: Uruguay becomes the first country in the world to legalize the growth, sale, and use of marijuana. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Uruguay becomes the first country in the world to legalize the growth, sale, and use of cannabis
News source(s): Reuters BBC

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article is slightly updated but more info is needed. ComputerJA () 02:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Other than pot heads and civil libertarians, this is kinda a "meh" story for me. Not sure there's a widespread interest in this one way or the other. Cannabis laws in many countries are either unenforced or liberal enough to be "essentially legal" (see Legality of cannabis by country, especially places like Iran and Netherlands). Good for Uruguay, a positive move in the right direction, but this really isn't a big deal, news-wise. --Jayron32 02:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Jayron32, I would have thought this would be an obvious support on your approach of following the news sources, given the widespread coverage it's getting.[47] Neljack (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point Jayron32, although I have to differ on your comment regarding its importance in the news. The content of this event is crucial, considering that Uruguay is a Latin American country and drug-related violence has been on the rise this year. If this legalization "works" in reducing violence, it is likely that other countries might follow a similar path, especially those torn by the drug war (Mexico and Colombia, for example). Thanks for your input anyhow. Regards, ComputerJA () 04:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, are there any more steps before this becomes law? Signing by the President? And when does it take effect? Any chance it will be overturned by a court? Abductive (reasoning) 03:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the bill was proposed by the President, I don't think he need concern us. As for a court overturning it, I doubt any of us are qualified to opine on Uruguayan constitutional law. Presumably it is possible, but it's hard to see that this could be argued to violate any constitutional rights and that possibility would exist with any bill. I don't think we usually refrain from posting them based on the speculative possibility that they might be struck down (we posted Obamacare when it was passed, for instance, notwithstanding the potential for it be struck down as unconstitutional - as it very nearly was). Neljack (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would like to know when it will be signed into law, and when it takes effect. Abductive (reasoning) 04:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems from the Constitution of Uruguay that if the President has no objection to a bill he must "immediately" promulgate it (Article 143). If he does have objections (which clearly isn't the case here), he must exercise his power of veto within 10 days of receiving the bill (Article 137).[48] As for when it will take effect, this article says that the drug control agency will have 120 days to draft regulations on marijuana and suggests that the law could take effect by mid-2014.[49] Neljack (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a world first and a human rights issue. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm pro-legalization and all, but a human rights issue? Let's not get TOO carried away. It is still just weed. --Jayron32 03:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. When criminalization leads to the arrests and incarceration of thousands of people, not to mention jobs lost and lives ruined due to those arrests, and to the violence associated with such arrests, and to the robberies and extortion of dealers and users, then yes, it is a human rights issue. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
        • A fair point. Well explained. --Jayron32 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
On that note , what did Guatemala's Molina react to this? Hes the #1 advocate of [rightfully]b legalizing even other drugs.Lihaas (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - a major development on an important and highly controversial issue. -Zanhe (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Interesting first that is getting lots of international media attention. Is being watched closely by other Latin American countries to see if it will be effective in weakening the power of the drug gangs. Neljack (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Oh yeah! Megalize larijuana! --Երևանցի talk 04:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Update Needed this will go up as soon as it's updated. It isn't. μηδείς (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support If this works in reducing violence other countries might follow with similar legislation. SeraV (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Major first and news worldwide. Somebody update. Jusdafax 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready – Article is sufficiently updated, I believe. I may have more time tomorrow for more details. ComputerJA () 06:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering about is whether the blurb should use "cannabis" instead of "marijuana". I note that our article is titled Cannabis (drug), with Marijuana being a redirect. Here in New Zealand both terms are in common usage - marijuana perhaps being a bit more common - and I believe the same is true in the United States. But I understand "marijuana" is less common in Britain ("hashish" is often used instead, from what I've read), so perhaps we should opt for "cannabis" per WP:ENGVAR. Neljack (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb that I've just added based on Neljack's above comment. My reasoning is that the bolded article uses "cannabis" and so the blurb should to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted alt blurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
No objection to posting, but you could have taken the precaution of changing your username first... Formerip (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support by the way. News sources are certainly carrying this from the look of it, and the article is in decent shape. --Jayron32 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What about North Korea? It's been completely legal (and even recommended as a healthier alternative to tobacco) for some time there. PWNGWN (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Indeed. Marijuana prohibition isn't something that started in the murky mists of prehistory. It was legal in every country up until a certain point. And, as pointed out, in North Korea still. Blurb is inaccurate. (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • According to Legality of cannabis by country, the status in North Korea is unknown, perhaps owing to the country's extremely closed society and difficulty in getting information out. --Jayron32 15:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Cannabis is not considered a drug in North Korea. [50] The fact that the whole chain of cultivation, sell, and consumption went from illegal to legal in Uruguay makes it a first time event, I think. ComputerJA () 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I was about to write about bhang, until I realized that it has been legal throughout the modern and ancient history in India, so it was probably never actually legalized (one simply does not legalize something that was never illegal to start with). --hydrox (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Its not legal most of the yearLihaas (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] War crimes executionEdit

Article: Abdul Quader Molla (talk, history)
Blurb: Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abdul Quader Molla is executed for war crimes during the Bangladeshi War of Independence. (Post)
News source(s): AL JAZ

Article updated

 --Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support after update Even if his conviction was posted before (which I don't remember), this seems to be notable in its own right. Brandmeistertalk 16:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support after update - definitly internationally interesting story.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems this wasnt posted
Yep, we just have to wait abother 2-odd hours for the news toaffirm he is not immortal.Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support upon update. Resolution of a war crimes case is notable. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready this is updated and unopposed, head of J-e-I is obviously notable. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready? Really? The bolded article is still written in the present tense, with some paragraphs implying he is still alive, as his execution has been stayed for another 6 or so hours. Also, the first link in the proposed blurb is a disambiguation page, to 5 different Jamaat-e-Islamis. Stephen 22:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Medeis is trigger-happy here, calm down please. The article needs work, the lead is too much and not in keeping with WP:LEAD, and Stephen makes a number of points. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this an actual oppose, a wait, or just another opportunity for you to demonstrate a lack of maturity? I ask because sincere oppose votes aren't normally begun with the mention of another editor. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Try reading it properly, thanks. You marked the article "ready" when it clearly was not. Try to remain calm. ("Please delete this after reading"). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is significant, particularly given the potential to cause unrest and the international concern about the fairness of the trials. Though it's not true that this is the first execution for war crimes - various Nazi leaders were executed for war crimes, among other things, at the Nuremberg Trials. Neljack (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting and has international implications. Article reasonably well-written with work continuing, and is updated. Jusdafax 05:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose His execution has been suspended for now anyway. I'll support this when and if he is actually executed. SeraV (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
comment seems we will wait till at least tomorrowLihaas (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Support pending update. Law was changed after 2013 Shahbag protests and rarely do we see hangings (at least in recent decades) for warcrimes in democracies, but the article needs to be updated a bit. Lot of media coverage which seems to satisfy the derivative test of significance. LegalEagle (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope Lihaas doesn't mind but I reopened this, according to Al Jazeera [51] he was executed today. SeraV (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
No probs at all...dodgy ref that was before then. Marked ready.Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready again, given the only remaining oppose is a pointy artifact. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted by the asshole. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
And here I thought it was past your bedtime. μηδείς (talk) 5:35 pm, Today (UTC−5)
You'll never know. When you have a baby, you don't have a bedtime. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Will you two stop? youre starting to make me look goodLihaas (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Lihaas, you certainly work hard to improve Wikipedia, rather than just sneak around the chat boards. You do look good in that respect! "Please delete this after reading"... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
wow! what smart asses to carry out an execution the day before Friday prayers...anyways, we could update the blurb to add the violence[52]Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

New record low temperatureEdit

Article: List of weather records (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Satellite analaysis by NASA reveals a new low temperature of -93.2 C recorded in 2010 at the East Antarctic Plateau. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​NASA announce a new, remotely measured low temperature of -93.2 C recorded in 2010 at the East Antarctic Plateau.
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Coldest temperature ever recorded, I think it's significance is clear --yorkshiresky (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support when generally accepted. Lowest temperature recorded on Earth is a very big deal and an important record. The discovery has also received a wide media coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very important record + global coverage. I added links to the blurb, mainly the updated article Lowest temperature recorded on Earth. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article suggests that the temperature is a preliminary one which is highly likely to be refined to an even lower value. In fact, this article has the temperature at -94.7C. It also happened three and a half years ago, is that worth noting? And a minor point, it may be a "world record" but it won't be a "Guinness World Record" as it was calculated by satellite, not experienced by a thermometer. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps the blurb should say that it was indeed measured remotely, not at ground level, to avoid possible inaccuracy. I've changed the altblurb. Brandmeistertalk 12:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose as moot apparently this temperature was recorded in 2012.# [UNSIGNED]
Meanwhile the article is missing many cites and poorly organised.Lihaas (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
That guy Scambos specifically says: "I'd caution Guinness not to take this result and put it in their world record book just yet". Brandmeistertalk 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Getting coverage, and something most people would be interested in learning about, I think. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Feeble support The information has only been published, so the fact the observation was made in 2012 (wasn't it 2010?) is irrelevant. μηδείς (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support not a commonly posted topic -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this was not peer-reviewed. Just a talk at a convention. Also, not really measured and probably not calibrated on the ground. Abductive (reasoning) 03:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want to oppose because it isn't peer-reviewed, that is your prerogative, but the news coverage was quite open about the fact that this was a satellite analysis and not actual measurements. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It makes the source worse than primary. I would oppose this displacing the Vostok base record in the article on lowest temperatures. I don't want to look there, but I suppose I must now. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive and TRM. Neljack (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

December 9Edit

RIA NovostiEdit

Article: RIA Novosti (talk, history)
Blurb: ​One of the largest news agencies in Russia RIA Novosti becomes defunct. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russian President Vladimir Putin abolishes the state-owned news agencies RIA Novosti and Voice of Russia to create Russia Today.
News source(s): BBC, The Moscow Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Operated from 1941. Btw, we have a quite vast Category:Images from RIA Novosti, now it's time to bid the agency farewell. Brandmeistertalk 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Could you post a news source in the nomination template? That would help establish that this is indeed "in the news" and is in the posting instructions above. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Getting lots of international media attention.[53][54][55][56] Appears to be part of Putin's attempt to increase his control over the media. I suggest that the blurb should reflect that radio broadcaster Voice of Russia is also being closed and that a new state-owned media agency called "Russia Today" is being created. Neljack (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggesting such a blurb as a starting point, though I welcome a shorter one if someone can create one. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks 331dot - that looks good. My only caveat is that I haven't seen anything saying that it will be smaller. In fact, I would have thought it would be larger given that two organisations are being merged. But perhaps you've seen something in an article I haven't read? Neljack (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I removed "the smaller" from the blurb; I think I put that because some articles referenced being more efficient and affects on employees(such as layoffs) but it wasn't clearly said. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Neljack (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok with altblurb and possible slight tweaks to it. The abolition process will take some time, perhaps that's why RIAN's website is still functioning. Brandmeistertalk 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems like the agency is being rebranded and re-organised, which may technically entail its abolition, but I don't see any reason why this is a very significant event in the context that government agencies everywhere get restructured all the time. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle as notable in Russian politics, once a blurb is sorted out. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
comment/procedural RT was not created now, its been around for awhile. Clearly I made the same mistake as the page's hat note, that should be clarified when posted.
Article is rather poor at the moment (though min. update I agree is met)Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • According to the articles this RT is distinct from the currently existing one. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The alternative blurb looks more complete to me, but should be reworded to reflect it in a simpler way that the two agencies are merged into a new one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree but I am reading what seems to be contradictory information on that point; some articles talk about this as a restructuring/merge and some also state that the two prior agencies were "abolished" and a new one created(which is technically different than a restructuring). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with 331dot. While there were some references to a "merger", there were also statements that appeared to indicate that it was not really a merger. My impression after reading various sources is that probably it's effectively a merger, but it may not formally be one. Neljack (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The editor in chief Svetlana Mironyuk conducted an official farewell meeting with the RIA staff: [57]. From what I see, Russia Today will not be in continuous succession to RIA, but merely an agency to fill the empty spot and publish "the right information", so to speak. Brandmeistertalk 08:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A very important message by Mr. Putin blatantly revealing his intention to control the media, but not globally significant event. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement that an event be "globally significant", just that it receive wide media coverage(typically worldwide) which this has. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • In what way? 331dot (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I keep asking for reasons but apparently when the vote count is done this is never considred..v.Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this would be huge news in any other country, and it has been covered as such. I am not sure how the fact that it's only russia disqualifies the nom. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Article: American Airlines Group (talk, history)
Blurb: American Airlines and US Airways merge to form American Airlines Group, the world's largest airline. (Post)

Article updated
  • Here is the prior discussion on this merger when it was announced, where consensus seems to have been to wait until it occurred before posting, which it has. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose important to stockholders and middle managers, otherwise a third-page, below-the-fold business item. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Getting lots of coverage,[58] not just in the US but also internationally, which is not surprising given that it creates the world's largest airline and is big even by corporate M & A standards. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The item is getting lots of coverage...on the back pages of business sections, not front pages or even front pages of business sections. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion from web sources. I suspect it will be on quite a few front pages of business sections. And sports events that we post often are only in the sport section, not the front page of the newspaper. Neljack (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Medeis I had to look hard to find it "in the news", the nomination lacked a source. This is trivial in the big scheme of things, just wait for the biggest bankruptcy in the world I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis. The merger is also not something that was totally unexpected as American Airlines announced bankruptcy two years ago and the plans for this merger were discussed earlier this year. I also find the statement "world's largest airline" blown up in the blurb because all of the media deliver some kind of a canard with no supporting evidence on what merits the new airline will be the largest in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I do tend to lean oppose on this due to the lack of prominent news coverage (per Medeis and TRM) but in the nomination for its announcement most seemed to want to wait until it occurred to post it; now that it's occurred we won't post it? 331dot (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You are correct there was a prior discussion, but I think wait is often a polite way of saying oppose. I was opposed in full. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Not really. There are many people who will note that something should be posted on a later date, hence why they ask to "wait". As for this particular case, though, it seems that the discussion was more inclined toward general opposition, so we probably shouldn't be deciding based on it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I do understand (and in no way meant to suggest otherwise re your oppose; apologies), just kind of pointing it out, I guess. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Not at all, I was not offended, and think you did indeed make a relevant and valid point. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
We usually post announcements as they unfold information that one could have not anticipated from earlier. Future dates that are known from earlier are only matter of technicalities unless it's a very important event of wide interest. Another notable exception to this rule are some legislations or regulations who may be worth posting both at the time of their signing and the date when they are expected to come into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Field goalEdit

WP:SNOW – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 9 December 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.

Matt Prater of the Denver Broncos scores an NFL-record 64-yard field goal. - (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - sorry but a record in a national hockey league is in my opinion not ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You should hide that statement. There are no field goals in hockey.
Anyhoo, its no a record field goal. there was about 67 yards in a high school game in washington a couple of years ago. so on that grounds oppose, but a record i would support as in the posting we did for sachin i blieve.Lihaas (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, speedy close please. Nice idea, but it's hardly "in the news" outside the NFL, and rugby union players kick this distance all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed Don Clarke once kicked a 85-yard dropped goal. Now that's impressive! Neljack (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. ITN is not for documenting sports records. Further, the game was in Denver(which would make the ball travel farther). 331dot (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose/close, Cool, but not for ITN. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. No chance.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support actually, if we list sports at all, this is quite a bit more relevant encyclopedically than the utterly banal ITN/R "X beats Y" pablum we usually post. How long ago was the previous record set? μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It was set in 1970(in New Orleans) and tied in 1998 and 2011(both also in Denver) and tied again last year(in Green Bay). 331dot (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Funniest support I've ever seen at ITN, remarkable and almost made me change my mind. Oops, no, perhaps not. I don't suppose many US readers are aware that rugby union "kickers" do this sort of distance every week. Big dog deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we started posting minor sporting records like this, we'd end up with too much sport on here. Neljack (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SNOW. It's an amusing news indeed but unfortunately of very low value to go on the main page. I wonder if we have to consider next time when a quarterback grabs the ball and runs over the whole field to score a touchdown.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:46, 9 December 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.

Thailand updateEdit

Just called a new election as a result of the protests, thats a pretty big step, IMO. Though the protests are still ongoing its a massive culmination. (oxymoronic, i klnow, but you know what i mean (i hope)). Thai general election, 2014Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Are these commentaries intended to be nominations? Please use the ITN template like everyone else, add sources, and type carefully so people can understand what you're trying to achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Lihaas, please stop posting poorly formed ejaculations. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, Lihaas is proposing an update to the blurb rather than a new blurb. As such, I don't think he is required to comply with all the formalities for an nomination. Certainly updates have often been proposed like this, without being formatted as a formal nomination, and I don't recall there being objections to them on that basis. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, there seems to be (a) a requirement for a source and (b) a blurb so (c) please improve the quality of the nomination (and the quality of the English used to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support updating the blurb and bumping to the top The calling of new elections as a result of the protests is of obvious significance. Neljack (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose post when elections are done, per ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the protesters go home(unlikely) and wait to post the actual election per TRM. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 8Edit

Continued Ukraine protestsEdit

Article: Euromaidan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During the Sunday of the third week in a row of mass protests hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government for refusing a deal on closer ties with the European Union. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​During the third week of mass protests in Ukraine protesters topple a Lenin statue.
Alternative blurb 2 During the third week of mass protests in Ukraine clashes between protesters and police intensify.

News source(s): BBC News BBC News BBC News
  • Comment. Not opposed to bumping the story, but that blurb is about four times as long as it needs to be. Formerip (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. These were posted once already; is there some specific reason to post them again? (casualties, arrests, etc.) 331dot (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The protests today are the largest yet, per BBC and an AP wire report. Both sources speak of several 100,000s of people. The demonstrators seem to have topled and destroyed a statue of Lenin, a strong symbol of the Soviet era. The protesters also seem to have given the government 48 hours to resign. I have no opinion whether these warrant re-posting right now, but would definitely support posting if the government resigns. --hydrox (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment on Comments: I have no experience with "Candidating" for "In the news" so forgive me my errors please. For instance I could not get the | altblurb 2 = During the continued Euromaidan protests hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government into the template.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion — Seems to me this — "Protesters fell Lenin statue, tell Ukraine's president 'you're next'" — would make a good hook for an updated blurb. [59] (IMO, it's high time for Old Baldy to go ... he's been dead for 90 years, and the state he founded has been dead for more than 20 years.) Sca (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
If its a matter of 48 hours, wait. either way we should hav something worthy of an update to ITN.Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Inquiry: Altblurb 2 can someone comment on how a second altblurb is listed? I know I have seen it done recently. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
IIRC someone used a hack where they specified the third blurb with <br> in altblurb=. If there is a serious need for specifying more than two blurbs, it can be added of course. --hydrox (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I was asking on behalf of Yulia, per above. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks μηδείς! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment BBC reports that the police are breaking up the protests. The situation seems to be in flux. --hydrox (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Continuing story — Dec. 11 — "Ukraine protests: outrage as police attack Kiev barricades" (Includes video of police attack.) However, "Police Pull Out of Kiev Square After Move on Demonstrators" [60] Sca (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Every aspect of action/reaction is in the news, but thats notable enough to update here. More notable is the Thai protests which yielded somethingLihaas (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly you meant to say "that's not"? Sca (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this seems to be growing and is top of the news this morning. The nomination is unclear. Which article has been updated? μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope I fixed that + I made 2nd alt. blur that I consider the best one yet (it is NPOV and true).
  • Dec. 12 — "Ukraine protesters defy police, leaders reject talks with president" [61] Sca (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Today they did talk to the president.... BBCYulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd vote support again. The PM has also implied the EU agreement will be signed. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose even if he acceded to the EU agreement per the precedent that Thailand resulted in something and wasn't posted.Lihaas (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

CAR update/bumpEdit

Djotodia has now admitted he has no control over the country (or only parts) and there is thus talk of the UN using its executive mandate that was used in kosovo and east timor to run the countryLihaas (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Exoplanet with largest orbitEdit

Article: HD 106906 b (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers at the University of Arizona announce the discovery of HD 106906 b, an exoplanet with the most distant orbit around a single star. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​An exoplanet, HD 106906 b, is discovered with the most distant orbit around a single star, farther than thought possible.
Alternative blurb III: ​test
News source(s): CBS News, Russia Today, UK Intl Business Times Daily Mail Christian Science Monitor Times of India

Article updated
  • Support DARTHBOTTO talkcont 10:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like an important discovery. -- King of ♠ 11:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be a notable discovery, and getting enough coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although it's an interesting story, there doesn't appear to be anything extremely newsworthy about it. Exoplanets are discovered regularly and biggest orbit doesn't seem to be particularly important as a record, in itself. It seems like a challenging discovery for people working in the field, but ITN isn't meant to be a current awareness bulletin for astronomers. Searching Google news, this doesn't seems like it's even the biggest talking point to do with exoplanets this week (the Hubble telescope discovered water on some a few days ago, which has generated broader coverage). I think whether something gets covered by the science section of BBC news is a good indication of how important it is, and this hadn't been, yet. Formerip (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It is being covered in the UK, though. What is notable here aside from the orbital distance is that no one can figure out how it got there, making it very unusual. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mention the BBC because it is British, but because I know it has good science journalists who will have some sort of clue when scrutinising a press release, and will sort the wheat from the chaff. And, yes, I understand why it is interesting, but interesting things are discovered all the time in scientific research and they are not always epoch-making or ITN-worthy. Planet formation is a developing area of study, so it not surprising (or unusual, I suspect) that new discoveries will throw up new challenges. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
You certainly must rely on whatever sources you wish for whatever reason (as we all do, no problem there) but IMO this appears in enough sources around the world (Googling I even saw a Czech story) to justify an appearance. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This appears to be a significant story resulting in a discovery which was previously unknown and lays down an important milestone in further research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
support/comment no need to mention UAz as its too long and the important bit is just the dis covery...ldetails can go on the page.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That's a pretty arbitrary and meaningless record, which will inevitably be beaten as exoplanet surveys go on for longer (thus giving a longer baseline for orbit discovery). Better to stick to genuinely scientifically interesting exoplanet discoveries. Modest Genius talk 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • What is "scientifically interesting" is a matter of opinion; the worldwide media would seem to disagree with you. Most records will inevitably be beaten,(WP:CRYSTAL) that hasn't stopped us from posting them before. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm giving my own opinion. That's true of most !votes on this page. I do consider myself qualified to assess the significance of astronomical discoveries. My point was also that the record will doubtless be passed soon i.e. within a few years. Modest Genius talk 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the discovery upends current theories on planet and star formation, so it's not just a bare fact, but an outlier in our knowledge of the universe. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
"Upends" does not appear to be correct. We are not talking about settled science here, but about models that are at a stage of revision and debate. This discovery just provides a new talking-point. Furthermore, unless you know something that none of the sources are reporting, no-one has yet come up with a proper proposal as to what effect it might have on current models. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I am reporting what I have read from the sources; "This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see" [62]; and am not prepared to offer my OR on the subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it seems fascinating. It's just not a major news story.Formerip (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready well updated, strong support. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The planet isn't mentioned in the link on "most distant orbit around a single star". The link should only be in the blurb if the planet is there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius and Formerip. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - ITN has run blurbs like this before: not huge headlines, but in the news withan advance in human knowledge of goodly scientific note. This article is decently written and evokes a sense of wonder, due to the very great distance it is from it's sun. From what I understand, this record will not be surpassed soon. The comment about the planet not being on the list appears correct, and that should be fixed prior to posting. Jusdafax 20:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel competnt to make that change. I have left a message with the nominator, and will with DarthBotto. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arbitrary. Also, most supports seem to be "seems like an important discovery" while opposers seem to present good suggestions as to why this is purely arbitrary and of no widespread interest. Not ready, as assessing quality of opinion rather than pure vote-counting is what's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hello, this is the original creator of the article in question. I should point out that that blurb should be changed, as the planet of DT Virginis has the greatest orbit still. I would suggest there being a mention of the ratio in mass differentiation between the two parts of the binary star, which accounts for the possibility of the orbit being maintained. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I can fix the blurb, but the planted still needs to be added to the chart. I am hoping someone more certain of the issue will add it to List_of_exoplanet_extremes#Orbit_characteristics. μηδείς (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I have updated the list, so we should be good to go now! DARTHBOTTO talkcont 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Remarked Ready the blurb issue of the secondary link has been taken care of, the article is well updated, and there's still strong consensus in favor of the posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Created more better/less verbose blurb. (Sotrry a better word for that is slipping me)Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a god altblurb, an even better might be:
Altblurb2 "Astronomers at the University of Arizona discover HD 106906 b, an exoplanet with the most distant orbit around a single star" as it uses the active voice, not the passive. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Seriously, with content like "As it turned out, whovians found it a lot alike the home-planet of the Doctor himself – Gallifrey", and comments above regarding what the news "seems" to be about, this isn't suitable for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I have removed the Dr. Who passage. The news sources given state why this has been reported in worldwide media. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I had the same concern when I saw that. The blurb should specify why it is significant, per article's lead. Otherwise it's indeed a "so what?", as was noted above. Brandmeistertalk 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Then how about:
If Nebular hypothesis (a featured article) had a section saying how far it was thought possible then we could link it on thought possible. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support that blurb (with possible small alterations). Brandmeistertalk 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I support that blurb, and have overwritten it in the altblurb field in the template. This is red ta go. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I guess it wouldn't be ITN if we didn't post stupid cruft from time to time. However, the planet isn't further from the star than it had been thought possible for a star to be, it is that appears to be a mis-match and the structure of the planet and the size of its orbit. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you try explaining your objection clearly, FIP, rather than wasting everybody's time calling names? We can adjust the blurb, you know. Or was this just venting? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I can be clearer. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Proposing a new or modified blurb might work, I'd assume. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'd go for removing the words "farther than thought possible" from the blurb. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, isn't the point of your objection (now that I think about it) more that this is an unexpected distance for a super-Jupiter? I'd be totally in favor of saying "super-Jupiter planet" insted of just "planet". μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 7Edit

[Posted] Bali PackageEdit

Article: Bali Package (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The WTO agrees to the Bali Package. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The WTO Ministerial Conference adopts measures facilitating trade with the Bali Package
News source(s): Al Jazeera

Article updated

 --Lihaas (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong support if updated. This is a major international development. --hydrox (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support major international event.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggest the blurb is expanded to explain what this actually means and its significance if this is to be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem at least at this hour is that there is no clear information in the press about the full effects of the agreement. --hydrox (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Then while it looks very positive, it should be held from main page until we come to an understanding on the best way of blurbing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Definitely agree (that's why I wrote "if updated" in my !vote.) At current state, the article is way premature for the main page; we basically have just the first comments from a few parties and short summary of the negotiations. There should also be sourced information about the actual content of the agreement, like practical effects on future customs and tariffs. --hydrox (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support After so long of the WTO failing to reach agreements, this is highly significant. The potential benefits have been estimated at US$1 trillion. Agree with TRM about the blurb, which should in particular make clear that the agreement deals with trade facilitation rather than reducing tariffs. Neljack (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvement - As Hydrox notes, the article is just getting started. Jusdafax 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wouldn't a hint on what the Bali Package is be necessary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • See my comment an hour-and-a-half ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • It's complicated. What I understand is that the Package includes several decisions (oa on Cotton), but most commentators focus on one of them (Agreement on Trade Facilitation) and seem to equivalage the package with that. I have tried to clarify. The Agreement on Trade Facilitation is "just" concluded and enters into force after 2/3 of the countries has ratified it (and then only for those who ratified); while the others might have effect earlier (or even immediate)… I have added an alt blurb that is correct and gives a bit more information….L.tak (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
        • It's a little better but it still remains inaccessible to most people.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
          • I'd have to agree…. The dilemma is: the only way to really understand what was decided is to dive into the agreement texts which is original research… The news items are of very little use, as they at the moment don't seem to care about detailed content, entry into effect and full consequences… It's for that reason that I not casting a support or oppose vote here…. L.tak (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb2 The WTO unanimously adopts the "Bali Package", aimed at liberalizing world trade μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Medeis' proposed blurb; notable international agreement. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Should that blurb be used, I'd suggest to modify that blurb to "aimed at liberalizing word trade". The largest part will require over 100 ratifications, so it certainly isn't a done deal yet… L.tak (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Medeis' proposed blurb, but I am concerned that the first sentence in the article has a {{citation needed}} on it. When/how it will go into effect is not mentioned in the article yet. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with L.tak, I was actually considering adding "aimed at" myself, so I will add the phrase. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
tAG removed. (and reworded)Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready the article has several well formed paragraphs, plenty of sources and no tags. Support is strong. I bring to the attention of any posting admins the support for the second altblurb immediately above in the discussion section. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is much improved, and I endorse posting per my conditional support. Jusdafax 03:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

December 6Edit

North American cold waveEdit

Article: 2013 North American cold wave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Record snowfall blasts the United States killing eleven and leaving hundreds of thousands without power (Post)
News source(s): "U.S. Daily Precipitation Records set on December 6, 2013 | Extremes | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)". Retrieved 2013-12-08.
"U.S. Daily Snowfall Records set on December 6, 2013 | Extremes | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)". Retrieved 2013-12-08.
"Death toll rises in America's big freeze: Tens of thousands warned they could be without power for two weeks as ice storms bring down cables | Mail Online". Retrieved 2013-12-08.

Nominator's comments: Record snowfall and precipitation has hit the United States and has caused traffic slowdowns --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article would need much expansion before posting. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Royal Marine sentenced to life imprisonment for murderEdit

Article: 2011 Helmand Province incident (talk, history)
Blurb: Royal Marine Sergeant Alexander Blackman is sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of an Afghan insurgent in September 2011. (Post)
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: A high-profile military trial relating to the Afghan War has concluded. An ITN precedent might be Robert Bales; or, more tangentially, Haditha killings getting a place on WP:OTDIt Is Me Here t / c 12:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 5Edit

[Posted] Nelson MandelaEdit

Article: Nelson Mandela (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of South Africa and anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela dies at the age of 95. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 --MASEM (t) 21:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support This is the kind of death that deserves a blurb. His impact is beyond anything I could type here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, he was very notable in the human history. Egeymi (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. I think this could be posted ASAP. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. Do it quick. Küñall (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-full blurb only. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Obviously. Resolute 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although I doubt anyone would oppose (I'll be proved wrong in due course!) - one of the world's most notable personalities of the late 20th century. But never mind "do it quick" - let's make sure the article has a decent update first. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The article is in good (if not great) shape, and the death is noted and cited; there really only needs a paragraph at the moment about his death in one section, but prior to this we knew his health was not great. And now we'll get more on his legacy as the world renumerates on his influence, but that shouldn't stop posting without that. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The article is a Good Article, which is better than 95%+ of what we post here, so article quality isn't an issue. There's already a legacy section, though maybe a sentence or two more at the end of "'Retiring from retirement': 2004–2013" would be good. SpencerT♦C 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support obviously --Երևանցի talk 21:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's proving very difficult to update the article with all the edit conflicts. SpencerT♦C 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL, I had trouble adding my support vote here due to edit conflicts. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per Muboshgu. - JuneGloom Talk 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support - Widespread coverage, significant figure. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support I support this. He was one of the most influential and notable persons of the 20th century. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Photo? I think Mandela deserves it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — The renowned human-rights leader is an instant ITN choice. [63] Sca (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes (ec) the greatest living human as of today. Immediate posting was warranted. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted photo to follow Stephen 22:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Definitively - most notable person in human history Miszatomic (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Being one of the largest names in, well, South African history, as well as impacting the world in such a widespread way makes this an obvious choice. Article coverage is likely to explode in the next hour or so alone. ~NottNott ( -) 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Beaten to posting it multiple edit conflict support - no brainer. Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A very obvious support- huge news. DarthBotto talkcont 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Endorsement of decision to post to full blurb. Significance of the man undeniable. Redverton (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and endorse full blurb. Well done, editors. Jusdafax 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for shites and larfs.... Ahhhh who am I kidding?! Obvious Support for full blurb and picture! - Floydian τ ¢ 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
WTFArs in all the posts below that also have support (and this is an obvious support no doubt) there is an update requirement and the page currently links to "Mandela died on 5 December 2013 at the age of 95, at home and surrounded by his family.[346] His death was announced by President Jacob Zuma.[" Llikewise UPDATE THIS FIRST!!!!Lihaas (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you just oppose things for the hell of it? The article quality and update questions are already discussed above. Please be more polite, type more carefully, and read what others have said. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
See this from the criteria: "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." This seems like a classic case for applying that. Neljack (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Also to add: the article, prior to yesterday, was in pretty damn fine shape, and included up to the point of his poor health in September of this year. His death was quiet (in his bed), and the "major" update will come from the next several days. (Heck, I would not be surprised if there is a "Death of Nelson Mandela" article on the horizon, given how much tribute we're seeing so far. As such, the article was in the proper shape to let readers figure out where to add new material they felt they could contribute. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support When I thought of people who would warrant blurbs Mandela was the first and most obvious name that came to mind. The huge worldwide coverage is a testament to his remarkable impact not only in South Africa, but around the world as a symbol of justice and reconciliation. Neljack (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There is an orange level tag on teh top of the page. Articles dont go up ofor that. Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Rules say: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link". I'll say this is a case where we should use the exception: It's huge news and article has previously gone through a "Good Article" process. Iselilja (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The orange tag was placed after the posting, and has since been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's gone now - and unless the editor who wished it to be there can come up with any real evidence of a POV issue on th GA article in question, it's likely to stay that way. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated in light of the concern of certain editors above that this was posted without an update, see this diff showing a good deal of work done since posting, and a well-updated death section. I think the policy followed here was appropriately WP:Break all rules. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Nope, that's not a policy, it's a "humorous essay". There's a big difference, you'd do well to learn that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • They might have meant WP:IAR which is policy, and likely would have been applicable if the update was all but "he died". --MASEM (t) 14:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
        • They might also have consistently confused policy with guideline with essay. Hence the advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - This is the major story on all news stations even now.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Central African RepublicEdit

Articles: Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration (talk, history) and International Support Mission in the Central African Republic (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The UNSC unanimously passes resolution 2127 creating MISCA amidst civil conflict in the Central African Republic. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Things are getting worse in CAR. We've had this article on ITN twice already, the latest in March, but it seems there has been some new development. The article is full of tags, though. --Tone 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is there a specific event here to hang our hat on? (i.e. to have a blurb about) The BBC article seems to just be a general article about the poor situation there. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, probably this was not the best link. France is sending more troops.[64] This is a relevant development. Otherwise, it's a very ongoing story. --Tone 12:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) strong support/sticky there is a lot happening down there (and I was looking for an article...Would like to seperate the Seleka conflict article from the conflict under the Djotodia administration). It is often off the news, but in the last few weeks a bunch of stuff is crawling into the headlines. The law and order problem, the ethno-religious violence, sexual violence too.Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
After prodding, I've not created the new page and added a potential blurb. But the article needs work.Lihaas (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This seems to be very important. Agree with the above comments about the blurb. My offering is something connected to this story - [65] - The UN, for the first time ever, uses drone surveillance in the DR Congo Conflict - but this might detract from Tone's original suggested story, so feel free to ignore it. CaptRik (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Different conflict, a long, long way away from the CAR! Brigade Piron (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, it's been a very long day! CaptRik (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; maybe we can combine the genocide claim and France's deployment of troops? Though I don't want the blurb too long. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait So far no indication that it actually happened (and I hope it will not). Bad news, of course, but currently the article contains a speculation with no casualties. Brandmeistertalk 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I did put a note on the article [66] and above that it needs more work.
However, thre has been masive instability and violence. I was trying to work a blurb per the lack fo an original one. Feek free to suggest others instead of just refuting one.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Support now. Brandmeistertalk 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think the warnings by foreign politicians of the risk of genocide warrant posting. Actual evidence of genocide or crimes against humanity would. If we did have that in the blurb then, in the interests of fairness and neutrality, we would need to also include the response of the CAR government strongly disputing the suggestions (which would probably make the blurb too long). The deployment of French troops is a better candidate, but there are already international peacekeepers there, so I'm not convinced it is sufficiently significant either. Neljack (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Similar to others above, I think this story is important and should be posted, but it would be better to have a specific significant even to list rather than, essentially, 'the conflict in CAR is still happening and gradually getting worse.' GoldenRing (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
ethno-religious conflict?
Alsthough a google news search is dominated by French troops (as in the news) and calls for itnerventions. Still I think the former is more neutralLihaas (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
comment for anyone with the time/interest, see the talk page where i aded a bunch of stuff. Im very busy this week to add and sort it.Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the quotes around genocide as they may be misinterpreted as scare quotes. Support if they are removed. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarify a clearer rationale would help. The "international community" "warning" is very vague at best. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Warnings of genocide, not an actual genocide.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
changed blubrb keyword.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
note UNSC resolution should pass tomorrow giving a mandate tol a force. That should be blurb worthyLihaas (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it would be better to wait for a Security Council resolution, as we could make a clearer blurb with one. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Now over 400,000 people are reported as being displaced, perhaps we can post that. Brandmeistertalk 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Seleka military commander deadLihaas (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Suggest blurb. Or, we wait until UNSC decision that comes out today. --Tone 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
btw- International Support Mission in the Central African RepublicLihaas (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
UPDATE less than a n hour ago 2127 was passed unaimously, blurb updated
  • Strong support This is a serious and quickly escalating situation we have here in the CAR. Absolutely for ITN after some updates. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The new blurb is good, I would like to see some update, then ready to post. --Tone 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, ive provided (and asked) the necessary info. if someone cares to...Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle as important news about a dire situation. Wider implications for instance than a plane crash in Mosambique (33 killed) that are currently featured. I don't think however that any of the two articles are very good at the present stage. I would also have preferred a simplied blurb that was easier to grab for ordinary readers, for instance starting "The United Nations establishes the peacekeeping operation MISCA" Iselilja (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, seems to be an emergency UN action. Muslim militias supposedly shelling 35,000 Christians trapped in a compound. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
marked ready per the precedence on update lited above this. Likewise, the support is near unamnimousLihaas (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Timet set?Lihaas (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 4Edit

[Posted] The NSA is spying on everybody, everybody, everywhere, all the time, foreverEdit

Articles: Global surveillance disclosure (talk, history) and National Security Agency (talk, history)
Blurb: Edward Snowden reveals that the NSA is collecting 5 billion records a day on the location of cellphones around the globe. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Recent disclosures suggest that NSA is collecting 5 billion records daily on the location of cellphones around the globe.
News source(s):

Nominator's comments: Truly breathtaking in scale, affects every person on the planet who uses a cell phone. Yes, you reading this. --Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - this is all over the media here, and I guess it is much the same in other countries. An absolutely unprecedented revelation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Snowden's revelations are becoming quite frequent, and honestly I don't think this is going to shock much of the jaded public. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Most of the Snowden revelations had actually been hinted on before Snowden. What makes the Snowden revelations interesting is that we now have solid proof, which makes all the difference. So even if it was suspected before that the NSA were keeping tabs on people using cellphones, knowing it is so is actually important news. Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • comment should this article be updated? --Երևանցի talk 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. On a cold, dispassionate level, it's not that surprising that a massively funded secretive agency has secretly gathered massive amounts of information. And while I am undeniably as jaded as everyone else (neither positive nor negative about Snowden's actions, but jaded nonetheless), the scale of it is unbelievable. —WFCFL wishlist 09:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The NSA doing exactly what they are intended to be doing is not news; and once again we are not a Snowden ticker(or a ticker for his mouthpiece The Guardian). 331dot (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, we no longer will post any news items about wars, since war is just soldiers doing their jobs? The fact that NSA has been ordered/allowed to do this is huge news! And once again, we should consider posting this because it is notable (and widely covered), not because we are a "Snowden ticker". Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Wars are notable in terms of international relations and are not common. The NSA doing its job is not news. Further this information is being spilled a little at a time to maximize attention and sell newspapers. They've had this information since Snowden allegedly stole it and gave it to them. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The NSA is collecting location data on many millions of people. This is self-evidently hugely notable. Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • 5 billion people per day. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
      • 5 billion records per day (the source says hundreds of milions of people, so still very significant, but not 80% of the world population!). Given that they have access to data going over mobile networks, this isn't all that surprising, since your mobile phone checks in with the network reasonably frequently, and once you know which basestations receive the signal, getting a ball park location is easy. MChesterMC (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update - Another NSA revelation: Not only are they archiving everything everyone says, they are recording everywhere everyone goes. International scope, and of interest to a wide range of readers. NSA article appears to have no update, however. Jusdafax 12:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Edward Snowden is performing perhaps the largest media stunt in modern history. You may view that as a good thing or as a bad thing, but there's little arguing the fact that he's releasing his information in such a way as to garner the most attention. ITN is not intended to cover gradual progresses. It's the same reason we no longer post routine gay marriage items and such. While this is clearly one of the larger Snowden disclosures, there's nothing that particularly sets it aside from the rest of them—it stays in the category of computerized mass surveillance on a global scale, with little effect to your average person (despite the nominator's hyperbolic comment). The leaks overall are certainly ITN-worthy (and sat on the Main Page for a week or so when they first took place), but I see no reason to think that, within the context of the leaks, this is a truly extraordinary one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It may be a media stunt, but that does not make it not ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Not directly, no. But the operative part of the stunt is the dramatically-paced glacial release of all the documents, which lead to a new round of headlines two-three times a week, and thus turn this into a routine news item. I return to my gay marriage analogy: We posted the decision in United States v. Windsor, because from a historical perspective that was far more significant than your run-of-the-mill "liberal state to allow gay marriage" headline. I'd argue that you have to prove a similar situation with this specific Snowden leak, that this should be seen as a defining moment in the disclosures, that the vast majority of routine leaks pale in comparison to this particular one. And no, saying "ZOMG they're spying on EVERYONE" does not count as proving those points. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this is the big one, of all of the releases. Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
And what happens when the next release is considered "the big one"? Every one seems to be "the big one". 331dot (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose this is a media stunt to piecemeal list everything and get attention, we cant post it all...unlike wikileaks' once in a go releaseLihaas (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Most of these Opposes seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Most of the supports seem to be WP:ILIKEITLihaas (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. A government agency performing its function is not notable. I'll also second PinkAmpersand's comments. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. It is not an issue to oppose something because it is becoming very common at ITN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this should have been posted last time about nsa spying national leaders, but it wasn't for some reason. Given that this really should be posted this time. SeraV (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing side discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It wasn't posted because the leaders of all nations spy on each other as a matter of course, even if they won't admit it. The same thing is going on here- the NSA doing its job is not news. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • You're not some sort of expert on what is news and what is not especially since newspapers disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't claim to be any expert. I gave my opinion, just as you did. An event being in the newspaper has never been sufficient reason to post it on ITN. People forming consensus here do so by giving their views, just as they did below with my nomination. This is being made news artificially as The Guardian has had this information since it was allegedly stolen by Snowden and given to them(which we did post). They have been sitting on it and releasing it gradually to draw attention(and sell papers). 331dot (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh indeed, but since your opinion is not being based on anything it is just that, your opinion. Look I am not trying to be overly hostile to you here, but I really can't understand how you can claim that your nomination below is more important and more notable than this story. I seriously can't grasp on what sort of standards you are working on here. SeraV (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't wish to rehash the debate below but I will say that my nomination was a first-ever event for that nation in its entire history, while this (and the foreign leaders spying) is a normal function of the NSA that is only being artificially made a story; as I said we posted the initial leak of information, so we don't need to post every piece of information that Snowden and his mouthpiece The Guardian decide to release and make a story. As I have said before to others, we are not a Snowden ticker. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Your normal function is illegal in most countries that NSA is targeting. And most stories don't actually stop at the initial posting. I agree that we don't have to post everything about this, which we haven't done either, but most important pieces we definitely should. SeraV (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
            • And when a foreign country arrests an NSA agent for their illegal activity, that might be a story, or if a nation cuts off or changes diplomatic relations with the US(like closing an embassy or expelling diplomats), that might be a story too. Every piece of information released seems to be the "most important"; it's hard to tell when it is not all released at once(which again is a strategic decision). 331dot (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
              • Like that time when nsa was spying on certain nations leaders and they confronted usa about that, right? Expect you opposed that too. But your opinion about this seems to be that nothing about this is important anymore since we posted this once already. SeraV (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
                • It's one thing for a nation to just complain about another nation; it is another to actually respond to another nation's activity with an action of one's own. I'm not willing to say we should never post anything about this ever again, but don't think an agency performing its intended function qualifies. I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
                  • Yep, agreed. SeraV (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we need not repeat the same story over and over again. It's been posted already. When the NSA stops tapping phones and Internet, that will be news. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The criteria for ITN are 'the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.' Because the question of significance of an event is always relative (even at the best of times there would always be some bias), we generally rely on secondary source tests like wide reporting in media etc. The current set of disclosures on phone tapping has received very wide media attention and has made headline news in most newspapers, so for me the test of significance is satisfied. But again wiki is not a newspaper and in near future Guardian and others are going to be feeding more info and as some editors have pointed out above ITN may look like a ticker. Similar queries were raised during the discussion of ITN for the syrian civil war related news and if I remember correctly that discussion did not lead to a major policy change but reaffirmed the consensus notion that only if there is a significant development in an ongoing conflict or ITN worthy item, the update would be posted. There has been a surge in media news over this '5billion call records' story and if we look at the webtraffic to the NSA article we would see a slight trend towards an increase (however it could be cyclic as well), but another article dealing directly with the leak Global surveillance disclosure seems to have a higher traffic flow than even the NSA article, thus from the trends I would conclude that the latest leaks are significant and hence I would support ITN for Global surveillance disclosure. LegalEagle (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The problem is, there's not a news event related to this. The fact that newspapers will release "revelations" when other news is slow is not itself a relevant event. I would actually like to have the NSA matter itself highlighted across the new and old media, but a support on that basis would be like voting in favor of posting a minor shooting or a development in gay marriage because gun violence or LGBT issues are personally important to me, not because of the impact of the story itself. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: per User:Thue Brigade Piron (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant development that is getting widespread international coverage. I note that we haven't posted anything on this subject for quite some time. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Also Abductive's comments about IDONTLIKEIT are absolutely correct. We have people asserting that this is "not news", despite the fact is getting widespread international coverage in the news media. Clearly what is meant is that it shouldn't be news - in other words, IDONTLIKEIT. Neljack (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
My objection is not IDONTLIKEIT. My objection is that the initial theft/leak of information was posted, and we don't need to post every revelation that The Guardian/Snowden chooses to release, to maximize attention and sell newspapers. I have a further objection in that this story is only stating that the NSA is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It would be like reporting "US Park Rangers patrol National Park". That's their job. Same with the NSA.
Lastly, many stories get "widespread international coverage in the news media" and are not posted (such as a first-ever event for a nation) so that isn't enough of a reason to post something, and never has been. 331dot (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
My point in noting the widespread international media coverage was not that this was sufficient by itself for posting, but to show that your claim that this was "not news" was patently false. Nobody has suggested that we should every revelation that is released - that is a straw man. But we should not decline to post stories that are of sufficient significance because of the way in which the information has been released - that is quite irrelevant to its significance. Finally, I find the point about the NSA just doing their job quite bizarre. Are we now saying that things people do as part of their jobs should not be posted? That would, for instance, rule out virtually everything that politicians do. No doubt the NSA is doing its job, but the point is that the way it is doing its job has caused considerable international controversy. Neljack (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
And that controversy is being stretched out artificially by a newspaper. Let's get the whole kit and kaboodle released so we can actually decide what is the "most important revelation" in the stolen information. In another week we will likely be back here discussing yet another "most important" bit of information. It is obviously true that no one has actually suggested posting all stories from Snowden's trove, but that is de facto what is happening. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian may have been the first to report on it, but they aren't the only ones doing so. If the international media publishes something that only involves very specific groups, I do understand that not all of Snowden's documents may have a long lasting effect and we should not include such details here. But this one affects the global population at large. -A1candidate (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

These ever growing accusations of "IDONTLIKEIT" are beyond silly. That applies to genres or works, not disagreements over notability/significance/importance. Nobody has opposed this nomination because they don't like the Guardian or the NSA. How in the world does pointing out that there's no new event (i.e., no new news) associated with this release, that could have been made last week or next, amount to not liking anything? The whole point of this page is to come to consensus on notability/significance/importance, and saying that people cannot express the judgment that a nomination lacks notability/significance/importance because that would be "NOTLIKINGIT" is to fail to understand both the scope of that policy and the purpose of this page. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - Snowden's revelations have been described as the biggest data leak in US history and so on. I fail to see to see how current inclusions such as "The Rugby League World Cup concludes with Australia defeating New Zealand in the final." could be considered more important than "the most damaging blow dealt to Australian intelligence in the nation's history." -A1candidate (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, it was the biggest data leak- which is why it was posted when it occurred. We don't need to post it every time The Guardian chooses to release some information. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That will ultimately depend on the significance of the leak itself. This particular leak certainly is one of the most significant ones:

Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, called it "staggering" that such a massive location-tracking program "could be implemented without any public debate."

I just fail to see how the conclusion of rugby tournament could ever be more significant than this -A1candidate (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Every leak seems to be "the most significant". We have no way of knowing which one truly is, as The Guardian drips their info out a little at a time to maximize attention. Rugby is ITNR and its presence on ITN does not mean it is "more significant" than anything else; each item is judged on its own merits(or should be, at least). 331dot (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Most of them are individually significant and will ultimately affect the course of world history. A rugby tournament may be a recurring item, but that alone does not make it significant. I also have to point out that it was The Washington Post, and not The Guardian, who made this particular revelation. -A1candidate (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I could understand posting historical effects of this information, such as a nation expelling diplomats or cutting off diplomatic relations, but the leak happened and was over with when it happened. The news source cited above is The Guardian(and they have the information). 331dot (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The historical effects of Snowden's disclosures are not just limited to foreign relations. The disclosures themselves involve equally important topics such as human rights, the freedom of the press, and more importantly, the individual privacy of every human being on Earth.The leak is not over yet, it has just begun. If you have been following Snowden's disclosures closely, and if you were to take another look at The Guardian article, it should be clear that their report is almost entirely based on an earlier version by The Washington Post, one which The Guardian rightfully gives credit to. -A1candidate (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The leak has already occurred; Snowden and those working with him are not currently stealing information. They are only releasing what they already possess. I understand there are potentially other effects; if laws are passed, people arrested, or other actual, current events due to this, then I would probably support posting that. This is not a current event, it is a public relations stunt to generate sympathy for Snowden and his cause. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No, the news leak is an ongoing occurence. The copying of electronic information by Snowden should not be confused with the leaking of information itself. The news leak started when Snowden first sent his documents, but it certainly did not end there, or else the public wouldn't have known anything about it. Not sure why any newspaper woukd "generate sympathy" for Snowden and risk being investigated by state prosecutors on charges of terrorism -A1candidate (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I presume they would do so due to the aforementioned causes you speak of(free press, etc.) 331dot (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Surprisingly, Snowden's evidence is continuing to reveal major new aspects of the surveillance programme. This is a significant revelation, above and beyond what came before. Previously he was talking about either discovering who was talking to whom, or reading people's messages. Now it's about actually tracking where they are. That's another major step, and worth another blurb. This is important news, regardless of how tired some of the commentators above have become of the ongoing story. Modest Genius talk 13:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • And we'll be back here in another week or two with another bit of "important news" about this leak that is being stretched out artificially. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Then we should just establish a ticker for Snowden to back this artificial media circus. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Nobody is asking for a Snowden ticker. There are some disclosures that would only be of interest to specific groups such as IT specialists and citizens of a particular country, but other disclosures are of interest to the global population at large. I think we're just seeking to include those that belong to the latter category. Not doing so would grossly compromise the goal of ITN to "reflect recent or current events of wide interest." -A1candidate (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There is only continued wide interest because one newspaper working with Snowden has decided there should be. The actual event, the loss/theft of the information, already generated the wide interest; these drip-drip releases done only out of self-interest just serve to continue it long after the actual event has passed. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I hope you would be more careful before making such accusations, because your statement is factually wrong. The documents are being leaked by multiple news organizations in multiple countries. -A1candidate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, though The Guardian seems to be the most well-known. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should this be getting major coverage? Probably. But it is generally not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. This has been largely absent from the news cycle and is only getting the same coverage the other revelations. A Google Trends analysis of NSA shows that search interest is waning, indicating that it is less likely that readers will be searching for the content because it is in the news. What this does reveal is that we probably should have posted the spying-on-other-nations story (when there WAS a significant jump in searches), but that time has come and gone. I am also rather concerned with the fact that every citation about the event in the global surveillance article is cited to the Washington Post, the publisher of these revelations who has a significant stake in the success of the story. There may yet be another story from these Snowden leaks that makes headlines and would make for an appropriate ITN item, but this one is not it. Teemu08 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but your assertation that "every citation about the event in the global surveillance article is cited to the Washington Post" is factually wrong. The documents are being leaked by multiple news organizations in multiple countries. This is something that is reported by the international media, not just a single newspaper. -A1candidate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Look I agree here with you a bit, however that other spying-on-other-nations story was filibustered by the same people this story is now, and ultimately ignored in spite of reasonable consensus to post it. And I fear that all other stories about this are going to face the same fate, so if this is not posted now I fear it never will be again. That aside I do believe this story does have reasonable consensus to be posted now. SeraV (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, "... all the time, forever" makes it sound less like a typical news event. But I don't see why the huge size and momentum of this story makes it any less worthy of posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. And soon, before this one too has been talked into stagnation. This is a story that is huge in scope and, while originating from one nation, is one of the few stories we've seen that is quite literally global. GRAPPLE X 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking anything into stagnation, nor is anyone else. People are expressing valid concerns and opinions. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    No need to be defensive (unless you think a nameless statement refers to you) but the previous stories about the NSA were talked about until they went stale and frankly I'd like to see us actually post one some time before the sun explodes. GRAPPLE X 23:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    When was the last NSA story that was posted to ITN? Links to ones that were talked to death and not posted would also be helpful for people like me who don't frequently participate in ITN. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The last one I saw ended up here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready Article is updated. I believe there is consensus, both numerically (two to one in favour) and in terms of strength of arguments. Neljack (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yay! "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks, User:‎Stephen, so glad someone was watching...

Libyan lawEdit

Article: Law of Libya (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Libyan General National Congress votes to make sharia the basis of all law in the country. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera NBC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Well its a landmark jurisprudence change just short of a new constitution. Not to mention perhaps the highest change since 2011. --Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. An Islamic country voting to use Islam as the basis of its laws is not news. It'd be news if they voted to be more secular. I also appreciate the news source given, but I'm finding little coverage of this at this point. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Contra 331dot, this is significant news. Only a minority of Muslim countries have sharia as the basis of their whole legal system. More commonly, it only applies in certain contexts, generally relating to family and personal status matters. See this article: [67] Neljack (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • According to that article Libya had some degree of sharia law during Gaddafi's regime, so this is not a massive change in policy. Further, as I said already I am not seeing many stories on this vote(nothing yet on NBC, CNN, BBC, Guardian, Le Monde), 331dot (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Such a fundamental law is obviously notable. Just imagine if the US made a law tomorrow that "the bible is the basis for all law in the country". Would 331dot then say "A Christian country voting to use Christianity as the basis of its laws is not news."? Thue (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The US is a secular country per its constitution. If we amended our Constitution to recognize Christianity as the state religion and The Bible as the source of our laws, that would be news. It would not be news if the US as a secular country voted to be a secular country. That said, this vote has nothing to do with their Constitution (which has yet to be written), if it did, then I might be more persuaded to support it. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
So why did you presume that Islamic countries have Islamic law? Lots are secular, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and a bunch of others like Seneral , etc.Lihaas (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make here is that Libya has used at least elements of sharia law in the past and simply voted to do what they had been doing before. It also is not yet in their Constitution; if it was, we could post it in that context(and I would support that). 331dot (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update or change of target article - A big news story, international in scope due to the recent revolution and murder of the head of state. I notice the target article is not updated and now tagged by the nominator. Perhaps it would be better to update the Libya article itself. Jusdafax 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm dropping my opposition as I am now starting to see this appear in other news outlets. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There has been no update to the bolded article. Stephen 01:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 3Edit

[Withdrawn] 2012 PISA ResultsEdit

Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 5 December 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: PISA 2012 Tests (talk, history)
Blurb: OECD presents the results of the PISA 2012 Tests in mathematics, science and reading. (Post)
News source(s): Politico

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Truly international news. Covered in many national medias with reactions from politicans etc. Wikipedia has a very fine table over results (table updated by an IP;) *IMPORTANT UPDATE I do see we need a a special article for the 2012 tests, so I have started one and am in the process of expanding it. Everybody invited to participate in the article writing (including correcting language errors). Also changed the blurb. WITHDRAWN. Iselilja (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) --Iselilja (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, a good nomination. This is the headline article on the website of Australia's national broadcaster right now. (Perhaps because Australia has gone downhill in the assessment, and this is dramatic news.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support in principle, but "and East Asian countries" is a bit vague and probably not uniformly true. Suggest a just-the-facts-ma'am approach focusing on Shanghai. It should be noted that there are a few other regular surveys of education systems and PISA is not without its critics. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is more of a hook to this story than just "students take test". I just don't see much meat here; it seems to be confirming that the smart countries are smart, and the dumb countries are dumb. Not really trying to be flippant here, but I'm looking hard at this and I don't see what makes it ITN-worthy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you read my post? It's in the news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Almost everything that is nominated here is in the news. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just some test results. 331dot (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you read my post? It's in the news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I did. And when that's enough to post a story here, let me know, since I have a few suggestions. 331dot (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for discounting the judgement of Australia's national broadcaster like that. It's good to know that you know better. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I was not referring to any particular broadcaster; but an event merely being in the news has, rightly or wrongly, never been enough on its own to post a story. 331dot (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the article is updated, the purpose of ITN is to feature "articles that have been substantially updated." Basically every year, the PISA article is just updated with a new chart showing which nation has the highest scores. Realistically, unless there was an in depth article about 2013 PISA results, marginal updates to the PISA article every year are not sufficient to indicate that these events are sufficiently notable. SpencerT♦C 05:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The tests are only held every third year (and presented the year after). (I see the lead needs to be updated.) I fully agree it’s unfortunate we don’t have a sub-article for 2012 (and previous test years); there is certainly enough sources and notability for it. Maybe these shortcomings of Wikipedia makes we can’t have it on the mainpage; but it’s a shame because the tests themselves are surely of great notability; there are a lot of media buzz when they are presented; and they have long-time impact; influencing the educational system and political debates in many countries. Sweden's result for instance continues to fall, causing the media and politicians to use phrases like "Black Tuesday", "National catastrophe" (Opposition leader) etc.; it will be a dominating theme in the upcoming Swedish election. The bad results for Sweden also influences the educational policies in Norway, because the current right-wing government were inclined to support a similar privatization of schools that Sweden have had; but due to the horrible Pisa results Sweden has had, they are more reluctant to do so. The Norwegian Minister of Education has instead already been on the phone with his Polish colleague because Poland did surprisingly well and he will now go to Poland to study the Polish system, as well as focusing on the Dutch system since the Netherlands also did well. You will find similar mechanism in other countries. But Wikipedia's coverage might not fully well show the importance given to these tests. Iselilja (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "dog bites man" is not news. μηδείς (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Utterly incomprehensible oppose, so best ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
So now your personal ignorance of aphorisms is an ITN criterion, TRM? Perhaps you should go unilaterally insinuate that in a policy somewhere. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You make no sense. Why would you use "aphorisms" to oppose a nomination here? Why would you expect others to understand your curious !vote? Try again. And while you're at it, please learn the difference between a policy and a guideline, which currently clearly evades you! Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • ?
  • Oppose as there is little significance in an organisation announcing the results of a test for students. We do not publish every security council decision of the UN, etc. etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAWN; due to opposition, but also because I've got a bit of flu, so I won't be able to improve the article sufficiently in due time. (I'll probablyn ominate it for DYK instead). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:18, 5 December 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.

[Recent Deaths] Ahmed Fouad NegmEdit

Article: Ahmed Fouad Negm (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Al Ahram

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Famous Egyptian poet whose songs were popular during the 2011 Revolution. Al Ahram described him as "one of Egypt’s most renowned vernacular poets of the second half of the 20th century". Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support when updated. Seems to have been one of the most high profile Egyptian poets. Currently there is no mention of his death in the prose at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support upon update with death information per Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Death info now present; I fully support posting. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to qualify for RD. A writer who made a significant impact not just on literature but also on his country. Neljack (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've updated the article (2 lines and 3 sources for those who count). There is however an orange tag added about an hour ago as two sections of the article are without references to back them up. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
WHY? ITN needs reasons, we dont vote count..Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose When a poet is awarded for being an ambassador for the poor, one gets the impression his poetry is not what he's actually known for. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that an indication that he had a substantial impact? Neljack (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Not as a poet. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well some of the political impact does seem to have been through his poetry, which was quite political. Anyway, what would matter if most of his impact was as an activist? Surely we assess people just the same, whatever field their impact was in. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • And why, pray thee, would he have been selected as an ambassador, if he wasn't already known? Wikimedia Indonesia has a "free knowledge" ambassador, Christian Sugiono, and he was known as an actor well before he was taken on by WMId. Gita Gutawa was "educational ambassador" for a cigarette company, etc. I'm assuming that similar positions are awarded in Egypt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would have posted this, were it not for the fact that the article is comprised of two sections without a single reference between them. Stephen 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Link o death sectionLihaas (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems fairly notable in his field. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Attention needed' to the article. I oppose this, but I just went to the article to see if it could be marked ready in light of the obvious support. However, the article is orange tagged, and the early life section (the largest by far) has not a single ref, and the Duo section has only one ref among its three paragraphs. I don't read Arabic script myself, so someone else will have to address this for the article to be ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2Edit

[Closed] First Iceland Police shooting deathEdit

It's clear this isn't going to be posted, which is very unfortunate for Wikipedia. Aside from the minor citation issues on the page, I believe that the purpose of ITN is being forgotten and a little systemic bias was at work here. That said, I must move on. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 6 December 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: National Police of Iceland (talk, history)
Blurb: Iceland has its first death due to police action in its history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The National Police of Iceland are involved in the first fatal shooting by police in that nation's history.
News source(s): BBC News Fox News Al-Jazeera Daily Mail NBC News Zee News India NZ Herald

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We don't often hear that a nation had its very first death due to police action ever, which is the case here. I concede this might not get posted, but it is getting coverage and I thought since I updated the article I'd give it a shot. --331dot (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support we don't often get this sort of story, and we don't often get stories about Iceland. It seems that this is very significant in Iceland and is getting coverage internationally. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose While this is interesting, I don't see that a small country having its first fatal police shooting is really of sufficient importance to warrant posting. It is still one person being killed, just as unfortunately happens every day in various places around the world. Neljack (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point of view, but may be hard for us being from larger countries to understand what this exactly means to Iceland. This sort of thing never happens there, let alone not happening every day. It is also important enough to mention in media around the world, perhaps not as the top headline story, but it is there nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That is a fair point, though I think I have a better idea than many since I'm from a fairly small country. New Zealand's 4.5 million is obviously quite different to Iceland's 320,000, but a fatal police shooting here will always be big news throughout the country. While I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant, I won't be upset if this is posted - it certainly is an interesting story. Neljack (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
weak support with update. It is a rare incident, a minority topic, and it does have small country repercussions (per 331dot) (in a globalised perspective that is not bias)Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll tend to Oppose here. The incident is currently mentioned in one short paragraph and there may not be a whole lot of meat in the story to expand it with. So far, it seems too minor for the front page; even though it's the first police shooting in the small country, it's kind of natural that it could happen there too, and there doesn't seem to be something particular scandal-like with what happened. Iselilja (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no requirement for lengthy updates; just an update. The guidelines state "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable." I've met this five-sentence guideline. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
My thinking was more that if the story can be adequately covered in a single paragraph it may be a sign that the story isn't all that much. I can easily image news stories where only a short update is needed and the story is still notable: for instance if a person wins something very notable, also somethimes deaths, resignation etc. of a major personality. But a crime story, accident, storm, etc. that doesn't have more in it than can be summarized in a paragraph or two; will seldom be notable in my view. Iselilja (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - because it is a very rare incident over the entire scandinavian area. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, truly interesting in this age of another-day-another-shooting, but the blurb needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree and am open to suggestions. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose no evidence of police wrongdoing, certainly not the first death due to state action. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It is in Iceland by the police, which is why it is in worldwide media. How many such things have happened elsewhere? 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, missing the point I'm afraid Medeis. There's no implication of wrong-doing, just that this is the first person to be killed by Iceland police, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fatal shootings by the police are fairly uncommon in most Western countries, so that whenever one happens it is likely to be a first for the locality. Iceland is a small place and this is a sad event, but it is unremarkable. In case this is posted, though, note that the sources seem to say this is first fatal shooting by police in Iceland, rather than "the first death due to police", which seems a lot broader and a bit open to interpretation. Formerip (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It might be unremarkable to you and me, but we don't live in a country where this sort of thing just does not happen at all. I often hear complaints of systemic bias here, and I thought this would be a good story to work on that issue. We don't post many stories from the Nordic countries. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, FormerIP, despite opposing, sums it up perfectly, this is very common in most Western countries, but not in Iceland. That's why it's in the news.