Open main menu

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.

Contents

July 31Edit


[Closed] New ant speciesEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ants (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover thirty-three new ant species in Central America and the Caribbean.
News source(s): NBC News

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Thirty-three new ant species were found. Andise1 (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if the article is updated. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What's notable about this? Nergaal (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ant seems too non-specific an article. Considering there are 12,500 classified species of ant it would be misplaced to include in that article a substantial update about the discovery of 33. --LukeSurl t c 07:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Pending compliance with LukeSurl's suggestion. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, According to this NPR article on this non-event, "He's just published two papers describing 33 new species of ants, bringing his personal "new species" total to 131. Longino says that's actually average among entomologists. "I do OK," he says, noting that some scientists have discovered thousands". The nominator needs to stop being gulled by press releases. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on comments by LukeSurl and Abductive. Will support if it is linked to a reasonable update in some subarticle. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • weak Oppose - for now per lukesurl. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - new insects are extremely common (some estimate 90% of living species are not named yet). 33 at once is proabbly rare, but an appropriate update on the 33 as a group seems unlikely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

July 30Edit


RD: Eileen BrennanEdit

Article: Eileen Brennan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, The Independent, Xinhua global edition

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Iconic, decorated supporting actress with huge six-decade stage, film, and TV opus and own lead cut short by car accident, globally covered and recognized for her work by artists from Peter Bogdonavich to Michael McKean μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Long career with much recognition would suggest that she is notable in her field. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The question is not whether she was notable in her field; she undoubtedly was (she wouldn't qualify for an article otherwise). The question is whether she was widely recognised as a very important figure in her field. Looking at the news articles on her death and her WP article, I don't see any reason to think that she was. She didn't win any major awards. The articles on her death don't describe any great importance or impact that she had. They basically describe her as a moderately well-known actor with a long career. While praising her ability, they don't describe her as being very important or indicate any particular impact that she had. I fear that we are too ready to post actors who may be quite well-known (at least in their home country), but don't meet the death criteria. She may have been an important figure in the field of cinema, but does she really qualify as a very important one? Neljack (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, Glenn Close is the only other actress to have won an Obie, a Golden Globe and an Emmy. Brennan wasn't a shockingly beautiful lead, which seems to be the criterion you are suggesting for winning actresses. But she had roles created for her (Helly Dolly) Private Benjamin (tv), and was specifically sought out for roles such as Last Picture Show up to Cheeper by the Dozen. That seems to meet RD requirements. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
(to Netjack) A Golden Globe and an Emmy are not "major" awards? Further, the great majority of actors go their entire careers without even being nominated for such awards. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the Golden Globe is for Best Actress, not Best Supporting Actress (as I had thought), so I guess that qualifies as a major award. But I stand by my point that there is no evidence that she was widely regarded as a very important figure in her field. The fact that the great majority of actors never get nominated for such awards is irrelevant: the great majority of actors don't qualify for Recent Deaths either. Finally, since I have no idea what she looked like, I certainly didn't take her appearance into account (and it would be utterly inappropriate to do so). Neljack (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly the point--since an editor has no idea what a celebrated vintage actress looks like she couldn't possibly deserve recognition. We need a little more scope here than just voting for our own recent and local interests. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I didn't dismiss her because I hadn't heard of her - I'm perfectly aware that I am not very knowledgeable about TV and cinema, so I don't assume that actors I haven't heard of don't qualify. I looked at the article and news pieces and then made a decision. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
For better or worse, being pretty is part of what makes actresses successful, and it's embedded in our criteria. If we are going by awards, it's 23 years, for example, since the Best Actress Oscar was won by someone who didn't have a tendency to make people dribble. Unfortunately, having been sought out for roles doesn't hit the right buttons. Picket Hollywood, by all means. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Netjack.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Netjack. Gamaliel (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose what Neljack said, on the other hand she is much better candidate than that glee bloke was. SeraV (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
But not, as we hear above, as pretty or as non-American. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in spirit an an iconic, recognizable, decorated actress with a very long career; though I note that this will likely age out before it gets enough support for RD. Still, I think she merits inclusion. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Quick acquitted of serial murdersEdit

Article: Thomas Quick (talk, history)
Blurb: Thomas Quick is officially acquitted of the last of his 8 former murder convictions in a lengthy appeals process after he recanted his earlier confessions.
News source(s): [1],[2], [3]

Article needs updating

 --BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - article could use some work in addition to updating. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem significant enough. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Not American or British enough is what you really are saying. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe if this guy was from some country I've heard of like France or Europe or The Iraq I would vote support. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You just made your !vote nul and void as natonality is not a reason to either oppose or support.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, must be a slow news day in the important countries. But you must have heard of it, it's the home of that famous tennis star?! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that place! My favorite cooking show host is from there. Gamaliel (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BabbaQ, not American or British enough. μηδείς (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
For those not editing, there is a hidden comment in the above saying it's not notable since it's an aquittal. Medeis' form of humour, I guess.Fgf10 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Ofocurse an acquittal is notable dear Medeis. Something is not however not notable because of its origin country.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Not worth updating either, apparently. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the Guardian. Response to the hidden comment above: It is a notable acquittal; acquittals are not inherently unnotable. International implications as the murders were not limited to Sweden. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Major crime story, regardless of country of origin. Fgf10 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I argue that this is much more notable than his conviction ever was, since this means there is obviously something wrong with swedish justice system. SeraV (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
For sure. If they had executed this guy as justice demands, the whole issue of appeals would never have come up. Formerip (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah my point was, that he was sentenced without any actual proof expect for his confessions. You think justice have worked just fine if someone is found not guilty after 20 years in jail/psychiatric confinement? SeraV (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean "there was obviously something wrong with swedish justice system"? Evidently it is currently working fine, by admitting the grave errors in these cases. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. SeraV (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the circumstances, I don't see anything here that couldn't have happened anywhere in the world (except, maybe, the opportunity of re-trying the cases). Formerip (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. even though it is not needed. In my opinion this is a case that is exactly right for mention at ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, his exoneration has actually been occurring piecemeal over the last several months. Abductive (reasoning) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually news about these sorts of things should not be mentioned at ITN until completely delt with. Like now, that is why it should be mentioned now and not several months ago now that it is done and complete and Quick is kind of historic.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd like there to be secondary sources on this guy. Right now it's all newspapers (primary sources). Is there a documentary or book on his case? Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
If you read the article and look at the image you will get the answer :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Newspapers are secondary sources and are absolutely fine, with all the normal caveats. Although there isn't much sourcing in our article altogether, and parts of it tell a slightly different story to what is in the Guardian article. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You say that newspapers are absolutely fine, but then say that there are discrepancies between the sources in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There is book, Thomas Quick: The Making of a Serial Killer, which is pointed out and linked in that guardian article about him. SeraV (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Guess they'll all have to be pulped now. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable enough, regardless of location. How many people convicted as serial killers go on to be acquitted? Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is anyone planning on updating the article? Formerip (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Hanumangarh bus crashEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Hanumangarh (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eleven school children died in Hanumangarh when their school bus crashed into a truck.
News source(s): The Hindu Indian Express The Nation La Prensa Washington Post

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Even though bus crashes are kinda common, bus crashes with multiple children killed are more tragic and notable. Andise1 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
WP does not post thins because they are tragic. If its notable, then yes that's for ITNC to decide. As such this is not in the news or notable (what with Telangana taking the headlines)Lihaas (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
This IS in the news. No one said both this event and Telanaga can not be posted. Andise1 (talk), —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Its not the news. Im watching it as I write. NDTV, CNN-IBN, TIMES NOW...I didn't even hear of this till I came to ITNC and ive been watching tv for hours.oh! and people said the u.s. media was bad...Lihaas (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All due respect to the dead children, but this is not wikicrashia, and these nominations are getting to the point we need a ban on the topic of all traffic accidents. In The News is the name of the section, not the sole criterion for things being posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not significant enough an event to be posted. 331dot (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I oppose a formal "moratorium" on good faith suggestions- discussion is perfectly capable of keeping these from being posted, as it is here. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think a moratorium on crashes might be in order... doktorb wordsdeeds 10:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, that's not even worth having an article on, let alone an ITN story. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Moratorium. We need to end our obsession with crashes, even if (or perhaps especially when) children are involved.--WaltCip (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
How is the lack of a moratorium hurting us here? This item will not get posted; further such similar suggestions are likely to end up the same way. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It encourages people to create articles on non-notable traffic accidents to try for the ITN/C, which is against NOTNEWS and NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, then 1)those grounds can be cited in any ITN discussion and said discussion can be closed; and 2) it should be dealt with at the article creation level. We don't need a formal policy prohibiting any category of suggestions. That's a very slippery slope to go down. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with 331dot. The idea of banning certain kinds of nominations is highly unproductive. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree also.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. No need for any kind of blanket ban. Modest Genius talk 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I afgree with Masem here. Ive been advocating too. Friviolous articles with no encyclopaedic value other than news stories get added here. We need to review this as ITN is hurting WPp's encyclopaedic outlookLihaas (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, if something is "frivolous with no encyclopedic value", it it easy to state that on any such nomination and have the discussion closed(should enough people agree). We don't need a policy to do that. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and support a crash moratorium. Gamaliel (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

TelanganaEdit

Nominator's comments: Its not too often the world's most populous English-speaking country approves a new top-level political division. The state formation is the culmination of a decade of protest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Damn you, bmy nomination ;)
Anyhoo, the reason I did not nominate this was the government has not approved the creation of Telangana. The Congress Working Committee approved it (and all sources are noting its partisan politics for the election). There is a lot of process left to creating Telangana. Remember in 2009 the INC-led government approved it and backtracked 14 days later after protests. That's a sign enough to wait. I've added all this to the aforementioned page at the new link I added to the blurb. I also added to Indian general election, 2014#Issues
CNN-IBN now also saying the bill won't be tabled in the monsoon session of parliament, so that means even the proposal for bill , let alone debate (which is more open), is months away.Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. This is obviously massive news, but I'm unsure as to the timing. Do we post now? When the state is formally created? Both times? My question is therefore whether we have posted anything relating to Scottish independence as of yet? I know this is not a direct comparison, but the answer to that question would affect my opinion, and probably other people's too. —WFCFL wishlist 21:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Well nothing had happened yet. Only a ruling party committee had indicated for partisan decisions to create this state (and the reactions indicate this from opposing parties, as well as the media). They have indicated a willingness to propose this to the cabinet/parliament who THEN decide after [ostensibly] non-partisan deliberations which is several months away. As said 4 years ago the same thing happened and was rescinded. The attached WSJ links indicates this saying "Ruling party..."
Secondly, no we did not post the decision for the Alba referendum.Lihaas (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that response Lihaas. The Scotland comparison is certainly a factor, but not the only one. There's no doubt that the creation of the new state would be ITN, but even kick-starting the process is a huge political shake-up (in the same way that discovering that the UK might not exist in 2015 was pretty damn big). What I'm trying to decide is whether "being huge" qualifies it for ITN, regardless of what has actually happened. It's a toss-up. —WFCFL wishlist 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose When it is actually approved yes, but not until then. Neljack (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
comment reworded blurb to indicate it is not Iindia that made the approvalLihaas (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until the state/territory actually becomes a state. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until final approval of this proposal, which looks like it will be next year. 331dot (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until the new state is actually created. -Zanhe (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: the blurb needs to explain what on Earth Telangana is. 'a new state of India' or similar would help. Modest Genius talk 12:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Having read a bit more, we should wait until this is formally and finally approved (and possibly until it actually happens). Modest Genius talk 12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Big news, but this particular step isn't yet. Gamaliel (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning verdictEdit

Articles: United States v. Bradley Manning (talk, history) and Bradley Manning (talk, history)
Blurb: Bradley Manning is acquitted of aiding the enemy but convicted of other charges
Alternative blurb: ​...for giving classified documents to WikiLeaks
News source(s): [5]

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I assume people will be interested in this. --Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

oppose the more notable part would have been his treason charges. This is more straightforward. Perhaps wait to see his punishment.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Support - The verdict, including acquittal on "aiding the enemy" (which is believe was the treason charge) is a significant development in a long-simmering news story. When the sentence is announced, the ITN blurb can be updated. I prefer a blurb that clarifies what he did, like: Bradley Manning is acquitted of aiding the enemy but convicted of other charges related to giving classified documents to WikiLeaks --Orlady (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it cant be taken as a support. Using that logic the IP below "there shouldn't be any debate, it's big news" should be taken as an oppose. Really both should be null and void then , if you wish. Still leaning towards consensus. Just needs an updateLihaas (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the story – this is widely accepted by those on both sides as being one of the biggest intelligence leaks in history. I think leading with acquitted and bold linking it might come across as a bit one-sided though. We need to incorporate both the conviction and the aquittal, so I would suggest leading with one, and then bold-linking the second. Admittedly not the way we normally do things (we normally bold link at the first opportunity), but in this instance I think trying to maintain NPOV trumps convention. —WFCFL wishlist 19:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - there shouldn't be any debate, it's big news 24.136.136.91 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I hope any votes based on whether the user approves or disapproves of Manning will be disregarded. Regardless of what one thinks of his actions, this has been a big story and the significance of the leaks can hardly be doubted. I suggest that we add something like "by a US court-martial", as we usually indicate the court or at the least the country when posting about court cases. Neljack (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, very significant. For months the verdict has been subject for discussions and predictions. It has also influential consequences that may also affect Julian Assange. In short not an ordinary eventEgeymi (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, but think we should post after the sentencing. Formerip (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but yes wait for sentencing. SeraV (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait for the sentencing and the blurb should be along the lines of "Bradley Manning is sentenced to xyz after being convicted for leaking US govenment documents to Wikileaks". LGA talkedits 23:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose found guilty of theft is not exactly newsworthy. Only partisans care here, and we don't do partisan, do we? μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally what is newsworthy here is how USA and Obama administration treats their whistleblowers, Manning is not an isolated case. SeraV (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This is slightly different to putting a bag of sweets in your coat pocket Medeis. —WFCFL wishlist 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Verdict in a notable case followed worldwide(due to the Wikileaks association). Not wanting "traitors" on ITN is an invalid reason to oppose; we don't base what is posted on judgments about what he is(some would disagree); we merely post what factually happened to him. I believe he was never actually charged with "treason", which has a specific meaning per the US Constitution. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
He's not a traitor, he's a thief. I don't think we normally post thieves, do we? μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we don't normally post thieves, but I think it depends on what is stolen. Would we post a hypothetical theft of the Mona Lisa? Probably. Would we post the theft of a few pieces of art from my local museum not created by anyone with worldwide fame? Probably not. In this case, he stole hundreds of thousands of documents with as yet undetermined consequences and damage to a large nation. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Or maybe he saved this nation... Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
....which is equally as invalid an argument as saying he is a traitor as that is a political view. It is a fact he was convicted of stealing and releasing the information, thus he is a thief, regardless of how one views his actions. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
He wasn't charged with theft and his crimes don't meet the normal definition of the theft (no intention to permanently deprive). Just sayin'. Formerip (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - update is currently insufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Editors' personal political views should carry zero weight. This is a huge story of worldwide interest and certainly worthy of an ITN blurb. Jusdafax 05:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - the trial has been intensely followed by media worldwide. The acquittal of the main charge is highly significant and makes front page news everywhere. -Zanhe (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant and notable, reported around the world and has continued importance in a number of fields. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - when/if he gets a prison sentence.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, and I don't mind if we post now or when sentenced (just not both). The blurb should definitely mention the Wikileaks connection, as not every reader will recognise his name. Modest Genius talk 12:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when sentenced ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Huge story with world implications. Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This article needs more information on the verdict before it will be suitable for posting. --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This will probably need to be posted after sentencing. At the moment it is only possible to expand upon the verdict using one side of the story. The judge's detailed written rationale for the convicions and sentence, coupled with the government's response and the resultant debate, will enable us to present a more balanced view. At the moment, almost anything that is added to what is currently there is being removed on POV grounds. —WFCFL wishlist 23:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] New Pakistan presidentEdit

Article: Pakistani presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Mamnoon Hussain is elected as the new President of Pakistan
News source(s): Tribune

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: Wait till official announcement --Gfosankar (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  • A change in head of state is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
comment the article is sort of cites with various tags, I have thus added the orange tag on top to answer these. (and the missing bits are important section to the whole process)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed the last remaining orange-level tag as I think it's good enough. ITNR so no need to support. Can someone take a look, decide if they agree with me, and mark [ready] if so? Modest Genius talk 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Referencing is mediocre at best (see multiple [citation needed]). Update is woefully insufficient - I would expect 2-3 paragraphs on the results + reactions\implications, not one sentence and a chart. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and Updating It is an important candidate for ITN, I would like to see the article expanded further. I would be glad to help. Faizan 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  Article Updated The article has been updated, expanded, and fixed. Minor copy-edits have also been made, and the references have been fixed too. The article should be posted there at ITN. Nominated by Gfosankar, updated by Faizan 9:29 am, Today (UTC+5)
  • Posted as the main concerns of sourcing is taken care of and it is a ITNR but please add a paragraph or two about any reactions or implications. Secret account 04:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok sure, I was the updater, and I have not got credit yet. Secret! I mistakenly undid my own edit here, causing the confusion. Can it be fixed? Faizan 06:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Secret, the section about "Implications" has been added with a para. But as they were just the presidential elections and not the parliamentry, they did not get any significant reaction or an "aftermath". Faizan 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

July 29Edit


[Closed] RD: Ilya SegalovichEdit

No consensus to post; no progress made in expanding the article in the past 6 days (article too short). SpencerT♦C 16:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ilya Segalovich (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: My first RD nom so unsure how these go.
Anyways, it may be a long shot, but I thought its something different from outside the English-speaking world and he was an internet entrepreneur. He wasn't even 50 so its not "old guy dying". Importatnly, he was the co-founder of Russia's Yandex (read a la Google's Sergey BrinLihaas (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There should ideally be five sentences in the death section, and if he is more important than just the co-founder of a search engine it shouldn't be too hard to find relevant two sentences of relevant praise of his work. It's kind of hard to see his importance given the size of the article. Perhaps more can be translated from the Russian? μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Russian article is also very short.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't know where all this RD noms are coming from. The proposal that lead to the deaths ticker does not allow for nominations specifically as an RD item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.68.240 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
please take side discussions to talk page --Jayron32 23:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • If you want to oppose this nomination, please come up with a valid reason - claiming recent deaths can't be nominated specifically for RD is nonsense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The fact that this is out of process is very much a valid reason. Re-read the original proposal. If you don't like it then propose changing it but policy does not change according to what you want it to say. The RD listing iwas intended as a halfway house for noms that fail to get a full feature. Here we have a suggestion that EVEN THE NOMINATOR does not think warrants that. Why should it be considered for that back-up option when even s/he has so little faith in it? 87.112.68.240 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to link to where you are getting this. The RfC under which RD was proposed specifically offered he alternative of nominations for either full blurbs or ticker listings, that's the way it has been done since the first RD entry, and the template reflects this clearly. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(re: 87.112) Um, RD is the default for 95%+ of all deaths and has been since inception. Full blurbs are not given for nearly anyone. It is not a "half way" compromise, but rather the normal way to list deaths. Again, come up with a VALID reason to oppose or drop it. (Also, Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. If there was a conflict between RD policy and this nomination, which there is not, it would be because the policy that is out of date. This nomination is perfectly ordinary and not the least be invalid.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
From [6]:
The nomination process would (unless it is found necessary to change at a later date) remain part of the ITN nominating process, with the added provision
ie it is an additional option may use, not an alternative for nominators to use. The motion then goes on to explain in detail as to how votes are to be counted which is premised on there being three options. That voting process was very hotly debated so you can't wave it aside when it is inconvenient. If there is no nomination for a blurb there is no nom for RD either. If the rule has been habitually ignored that does not alter the rule - the argument "this is the way we have done it" is itself not a valid one. 87.112.68.240 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
That a blurb suggestion is required is entirely your novel interpretation of the discussion, not something that was discussed by even one person. The distinction you are trying to make between "additional option" and "alternate option" is nonsensical. Our actual policy says nothing like requiring a blurb suggestion - it only says most deaths are listed only on RD. It is down right silly to mandate people supply a blurb suggestion when they well know the death is of RD (not full-blurb) level. Finally, and most importantly if you think Wikipedia policy works like a law system where laws are passed and then carried out, you are very much mistaken. Our policy is decided by practice, not the other way around. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is absurd to see a blurb when nom'd ONLY for RD.
Anyhoo , close this side discussion to move to the tlajk page and discuss the nom?Lihaas (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • IP 87's statement is manifestly false. It hardly makes sense to hat the statements pointing that out while leaving his second sentence--the oppose in the first sentence should be enough. μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for the moment. His significance hasn't been demonstrated - was he really one of the most important internet businessmen / pioneers? If he just co-founded a Russian search engine and nothing else, that isn't enough to meet the criteria as far as I'm concerned. Modest Genius talk 12:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The main search enginge in the country. Ala googleLihaas (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, sort of. Google is popular worldwide. But that aside, I so no evidence that he made substantial innovations or was an outstandingly significant figure in internet commerce. Modest Genius talk 11:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Libyan assassinationEdit

Article: 2013 Benghazi conflict#July (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following the assassination of Muslim Brotherhood critic Abdelsalam al-Mosmary, violent protests and bombings occur in Benghazi and the Libyan national capital, Tripoli.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Similar to the Tunisia anti-Islamist assassination except that this has had more violent repercussions. Bit pov to post one and noth the other? Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is bombing whom? μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Its on the page as factional fighting. In this case Islamists vs. secularists/liberal.Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

National capital of where? Formerip (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That was in the section title ;)Lihaas (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
So does the section need wikilinking within the blurb? Formerip (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, but I hasd since added it to the blurb/Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Reading the article you get the impression the assassination and bombings are attacks by the islamists. The blurb doesn't convey that. It is like when you read "150 dead in religious violence in Nigeria" in a headline and then the article says one suicide bomber bomber killed 149 Christian churchgoers. The facts and the blurb should be clearer. μηδείς (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Tunisia updateEdit

Articles: Tunisian general election, 2013 (talk, history) and Mohamed Brahmi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following the assassination of Mohamed Brahmi and ensuing protests, a general election is set for 17 December.

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: The original article update for ITN is still listed near the top of INT so I though this was a significant update and reaction to the protests./ Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The general election will be ITNR when it occurs, but I don't think the mere scheduling of the election is ITN worthy. I'm withholding a formal oppose opinion as I don't know what precedent is in this area; are the calling of general elections in other countries posted(such as the UK and Canada where they do not necessarily occur on a regular basis)? 331dot (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Weve done it when its not a refular scheduled election. Likewise this was affirmed after the protests and the recent chaos.Lihaas (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose ITN deals with after the election, not before doktorb wordsdeeds 06:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We have posted unusual circumstances calling for electionsLihaas (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already posted the assassination, and we will post the election when it happens. No need for a third appearance. Modest Genius talk 12:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Its only a bump/blurb update, not a third postingLihaas (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Well them maybe you should have said that in the nomination? I support updating the wording (without the second bold link), but oppose bumping it. Modest Genius talk 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Uumm, I did mention it as only an update. See above.v.Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Jewelry stolen in CannesEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Carlton Cannes · (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Jewels worth $136 million were stolen from the Carlton Cannes in Cannes making it the biggest jewelry heists in years.
News source(s): hollywoodreporter

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is a notable jewelry stealing. A lot of jewelry that is. Worth a lot of money was stolen in Cannes. Andise1 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, when the last one was nominated, (Brussels Airport diamond heist), assurances were given that it was special, rare and large. So it was posted. Now later the same givlomh year we are treated to another robbery. No thank you. Abductive (reasoning) 05:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think it is not significant as Abductive expalined. Egeymi (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A bunch of gems get stolen from a bunch of rich people who had crap security. Not really important news in the grand scheme of things. --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pile on oppose per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the total is now $136 Million. Sounds like poor people care more for their property than do the rich. Revisit if they catch Cary Grant or David Niven. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose Time's up on this one. If they catch Leonardo I'll consider changing my mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment We should close this and open a new one, as now the reports say it is worth 136 million dollar, and not 53, making it the largest heist in history. It is now called the "heist of the century", passing Antwerp Diamond Heist (100million) and Schiphol Airport diamond heist (118m). Ref
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
opposed to relisting without new development. These will be numbers reported to insurers for reimbursement, not costs paid. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Peace talksEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#2013 talks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Peace talks resume between Palestinian and Israeli representatives.
News source(s): [7]

Article needs updating
 Formerip (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Not wishing to poke fate with a large pointy stick on this, lets actually wait until there is something to announce, from my reading of the source all that has been agreed is that both sides will talk about talking. LGA talkedits 02:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support My initial thought was to oppose on the basis that nothing has actually happened yet, but on reflection I think the resumption of peace talks is sufficiently significant news in itself. No talks have occurred for several years, the whole process seemed stalled, and a great deal of diplomatic energy has gone into getting them to resume. The news is getting widespread international coverage too. Neljack (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per Neljack. --LukeSurl t c 08:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Significant, notable that it's happening in the first place again. --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the status quo: talks between Israel and Palestine start and stop. If there's actual progress made, that'll be news. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now As above. Talks mean nothing without action, if I can say that without sounding like a Facebook meme. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
oppose by precedence we post results (and this will likely yield no tmuch but more promises to talk)Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Normally that might be true, but in the context of the overall situation this is a significant development, as they haven't even agreed to talk about talking in years. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. weal oppose insteadLihaas (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether the talks fail or succeed is not the point; they haven't even agreed to talk about talking in years. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose peace talks conclude would be notable. μηδείς (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The two sides doing anything other than attacking one another is big news in itself. —WFCFL wishlist 17:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree that this a ITN-worthy blurb, as the two sides have not talked in years. Jusdafax 04:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose and it's a shame too. From all I've heard and read, there will be nothing significant to come from this, as Muboshgu notes, this on-off-on-off talkie-no-talkie relationship has been (and will be) the norm for some time. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - neither the linked article section, nor the new standalone article are of sufficient quality to post, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack SeraV (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - come on, this must be the atleast 10th time that the peace process breaks down and starts again. And with the palestinian president saying that Israel must leave all occupied territory it means this process is dead before it even started. The day when the peace process brings true peace then perhaps.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps? It should then be highlighted with colours all over. Weve got time to think hot to present it..Lihaas (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] RD: Virginia E. JohnsonEdit

Now stale, latest item now 27 July. LGA talkedits 08:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Virginia E. Johnson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: She's named the "first woman of sex therapy" and Robert C. Kolodny said "She received many awards, and is fairly widely recognised as one of the most important women in science in the 20th Century". Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly seems to qualify as a very important figure in her field. Neljack (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No Brainer so long as it's updated. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, half of Masters and Johnson. Abductive (reasoning) 05:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Death was July 24. --LukeSurl t c 08:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - RD, Seems notable in her field. --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - undeniably important and historic woman. Jusdafax 10:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Meets death criteria for her impact with Masters. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - overall referencing is weak; death update is very insufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the article is Start class level and completely inadequate to be linked to the main page. RD shouldn't exist to link to pages with minimal information.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The article hardly has minimal information, and the ITN requirement is it be updated. not FA class (not that it's updated). Keep in mind she's neither recently famous, a football player, nor a video game. So the size of her article at wikipedia means nothing. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We frequently reject articles based on article quality.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagged articles. There's nothing wrong with this one per se. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
And we reject articles that are minimal. RD should highlight quality articles of biographies of RDs. Highlighting quality content on WP is the primary aim of ITN, so article quality matters.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Just go ahead and link to such a policy of only highlighting premiere biographies if it exists. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale? The NYT published her death on the 25th. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Not yet. We have 2 items on the template that are July 21/22. SpencerT♦C 04:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - This could be posted as it has consensus and it is not stale yet. However, it seems that noone has any interest in improving the death update or article in general, so right now it is being disqualified on those grounds. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:58, 30 July 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.

July 28Edit


[Posted] Cambodian general election, 2013Edit

Article: Cambodian general election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amid allegations of voting irregularities, the Cambodian People's Party wins a majority of seats in the National Assembly.

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

Nominator's comments: I will try to do some more expansion and add some more references later tonight. The results are preliminary but will be confirmed finally in Mid-August to early September. However, this appears to be procedural, as in the prior 2 elections there was a 2-week gap but the seat totals did not change. --SpencerT♦C 13:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Tentative support until references are added. Some sections don't have any. General elections thrice the size of Ireland should be easy ITNR. –HTD 05:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking ready since this is an updated ITN/R. SpencerT♦C 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good, posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 CONCACAF Gold CupEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 13:45, 30 July 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.

Nominator's comments: This is a confederation championship like the UEFA European Championship, African Cup of Nations, Asian Cup, and Copa America all of which are included in WP:ITNR. In the past have suggested that this be included to small, but positive support. --CWY2190(talkcontributions) 23:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose because you spoiled the final for me :). Otherwise, this was a B-team tournament for all the top teams in Concacaf. I watched many of the matches in the tournament. Concacaf teams take this tournament more seriously in the year after the World Cup when the winner qualifies for the Confederations Cup.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. These types of competitions being nominated has been controversial in the past, as this is not the top level of competition; it has also been suggested in the past that the aforementioned similar tournaments be removed from ITNR. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    On the flip side some people would argue that as football is the most popular sport in teh world it deserves more coverage on ITN. I'm fine with posting the Copa America and the CAF; not sure about the Asian Cup. However, given that this isn't really a 'top level' competition in North America, I really think it doesn't come close. BTW the Copa Libertadores just finished which is ITNR and it wssn't nominated but its' more notable than this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's "not really" the top level for North America from a US perspective, since they don't need to exert themselves much, but it very actually the top level from the perspective of, say, Belize, or in the most obvious sense that there is no North American championship at a higher level. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's not just a US perspective. The top 3-4 teams--Mexico, Costa Rica, etc sent weakened squads. The US didn't have to exert themselves to win it because they never faced a full strength team from of of the major Concacaf teams.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I didn't use the word "just", although I am thinking from a Rawlsian perspective. Formerip (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. It's not comparable to the Euros, Copa America etc, because most of the participating nations are minnows and there is not much variation in who wins. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was inclined to support, but then I looked at the articles; given the state of them with relation to MOS issue and the lack of any prose on the actual event, it is nothing more than a results listing I could not support linking from the main page. If those are fixed then would consider a support. LGA talkedits 02:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposecertainly no coverage off the sports pages in the US. See comments about importance of mere soccer games below. μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know it's not a major soccer tournament because we won it. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
+1 204.111.20.10 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose With a few exceptions these were mostly B-squad teams. Outside of Omar Gonzalez, Eddie Johnson and Landon Donovan, even the winning team was mostly B-squad. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] 2013 Italy bus crashEdit

No consensus to post; article extremely short and has not been updated since it was nominated about a week ago. SpencerT♦C 16:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 Italy bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​38 people die when a bus came off a flyover and fell down a slope.
News source(s): The Local, NBC News; CNN

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major bus crash in a country where accidents are not common. More news sources are covering this event but I am nominating this somewhere where service is really slow. there is no article on the crash yet. Andise1 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless death-toll rises significantly or some other notable incident is involved. Tragic, but not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, it's "just" a bus crash, but we do post them from time to time, and the death toll of this one is significant enough already. This appears to be the second-deadliest traffic accident of 2013 after the Chibombo bus crash, which we posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I think the argument can be made that the level of casualties isn't enough here, but this story is getting a lot of coverage. This is on the front page of NBC News and CNN as of this moment. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
oppose 100 deaths in guinea and we don't post that. European ;lives arenot worth more for ITN merit.Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Who said that they were? If you are referring to this, it appears it was not given the attention requested before posting. No news sources were provided to indicate its coverage in the news; it was also not a recent event. It had nothing to do with valuing anyone's life or lives more than anyone else. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tragic accident, but not appropriate for WP to cover as no evidence of long term effects. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Same can be said about the last few train crashes we posted... YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Will need some more updating, but a large death toll for a road accident and getting extensive international coverage - it was top of the BBC News website, for instance. Neljack (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: unusually high death toll for an accident in a developed country. -Zanhe (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] World Youth Day 2013 concludesEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 16:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: World Youth Day 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​3 million attend the closing papal Mass for World Youth Day 2013 at Copacabana Beach in Rio de Janeiro.
News source(s): [9]

Article needs updating
 --Gentgeen (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A lot of people, but nothing terribly newsworthy happened to report. Lots of people turning up to see and hear the Pope isn't exactly anything new. Neljack (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the idea of posting an event involving a immensely large gathering of people(in the millions), this was a gathering of Catholics in a heavily Catholic country to see their spiritual leader. It would be news if such an event didn't draw such a large crowd. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What's the difference with that with events such as world cups where there is an immensely large gathering of fans (indeed, this one is a lot of times larger than the largest world cup crowds) in a heavily <insert sport>-crazed country? Those aren't "exactly anything new", to quote the post above this one, either... –HTD 10:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be kind of nice to have something that isn't a variation of Something horrible happens, causing lots of people to die. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just wait for some sporting event. Beerest355 Talk 01:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless some other notable related event occurs. On the merits this is probably more important than most sports playoff finals and street protests, but I oppose them too. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see the opposers' points. It's too bad this isn't one of the 15 largest gatherings of people in recorded history. Oh, wait, it is. Gentgeen (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC
  • Is that a support vote under the sarcasm? 331dot (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Gentgeen is the nominator. SpencerT♦C 16:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Death toll in Syria passes 100kEdit

This is obviously not getting posted. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:54, 29 July 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: Casualties of the Syrian civil war (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United Nations announces that the death toll of the Syrian civil war has surpassed 100,000.
News source(s): Associated Press
Nominator's comments: While this was announced four days earlier, I think it's still fresh news. 100k death toll is a significant milestone for the civil war. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a horrible war and a horrible milestone, but ultimately these sorts of non-events are arbitrary milestones and are not themselves meaningful. The 99,999th death is no less notable than the 100,000th. We should report notable events from wars, not meaningless, symbolic, and arbitrary events that coincide with round numbers. --Jayron32 17:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    The number of casualties shows how deep and devastating the war has become. If we'd report territory changes such as army X took over Y strategic city/town/neighborhood, then we'd have to report back when the other party takes it back as well (the situation is fluid). At least, this is the argument offered to me here. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is updated, but there is very little "updated content" for us to showcase. Since this milestone is not connected to any particular event, there is not much more to say about this outside of what is already stated in the blurb. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivial. What about the 100,000th road death in Mexico? Or the 100,000th cancer death in Germany? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Is "trivial" really the right word? I'm just wondering. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 28 July 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.

July 27Edit


Kuwaiti general election, 2013Edit

Article: Kuwaiti general election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Kuwaiti general election liberal and Sunni groups win increased number of seats
Alternative blurb: ​A general election is held in Kuwait
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. --LukeSurl t c 22:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Might want to say "an increased number of seats". Neljack (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is ITNR so there's no need to support. However, the article is missing essential information: how many seats were on offer, who won them, what was the turnout (both numbers and percentage), did the NDA actually boycott it or not etc. There should really be a results table of some sort (as in the article on the previous election) and ideally an infobox too. Modest Genius talk 11:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Two days later, no article improvements. Modest Genius talk 19:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Publicis and Omnicom Group - And then there were twoEdit

Article: Publicis Omnicom Group (talk, history)
Blurb: Publicis Omnicom Group is announced, to be formed from a merger of Publicis and Omnicom Group, two of the "big three" advertising corporations.
Alternative blurb: Publicis and Omnicom agree to a merger that would form the world's largest advertising group.
News source(s): [10][11][12]

Article updated

  Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - major business story. I remain of the opinion that the correct time to post is the announcement as that is the phase of the merger process that generates the most press coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'm torn between a desire to pander to occasional complaints that we don't post enough business news and an inability to see very much that is interesting about the story. Formerip (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
oppose whats the landmark issue.? Its not a famous first.Lihaas (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The creation of the world's largest advertising group. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Since when has being "a famous first" an ITN criteria? 99% of what we post could not honestly be described that way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose of no reader interest, of no encyclopedic import, of no impact except to mid level execs. If I didn't know better (and I do) I'd swear they were paying for this publicity here, lol. μηδείς (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your reasoning makes no sense at all. How do you know there's no reader interest? And how is the merger of two of the largest companies in a major industry of no encyclopedic import? -Zanhe (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per ThaddeusB. Story is significant and ITN-worthy on a number of levels, including the ongoing trend of mergers forming gigantic conglomerates. Roughly equivalent in its field to Coke and Pepsi merging. Opposers reasoning fails to convince. Jusdafax 05:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - merger of two of the big three advertising companies is highly significant. -Zanhe (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked ready - support and update are good. I adjusted the blurbs to reflect the fact that it is an agreed upon merger, not a completed merger. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt blurb 1 Secret account 01:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Mogadishu Turkish embassy bombingEdit

Article: Mogadishu Turkish embassy bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: Turkish embassy bombing in Somalia by Al-Shabaab kills 1-6 people.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, VoA

Article needs updating

 --Երևանցի talk 03:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment The number of fatalities varies from source to source. CNN says 6, Reuters talks about 3, while some report only one dead. --Երևանցի talk 03:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That is normal for breaking news. It takes time to sort out the death toll. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Attacks on diplomatic facilities are notable. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose The article was redirected to List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013. If it's not important to have a standalone article, it probably isn't notable enough. SpencerT♦C 14:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. Modest Genius talk 11:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Miami hostage standoffEdit

After 3 days, every !vote has opposed. Modest Genius talk 11:18, 30 July 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: Miami hostage standoff (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: With the conclusion of a hostage standoff in Miami, Florida, seven are left dead.
News source(s): Chicago Tribune

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: This is a rather unusual and ghastly incident. I believe it warrants notice. DarthBotto talkcont 16:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it was noted in passing for a few minutes on the BBC homepage, it's just "one of those things" I'm afraid. Perhaps we could have a ticker for US shooting murders.... According to List of school shootings in the United States, there have been 12 shootings in schools alone in the US in 2013 alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    Can you please refrain from soapboxing? -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Enough. There are message forums for this sort of thing. Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of senseless bickering.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • What I mean is that if we posted every US gun-crime shooting spree, we'd need a special ticker or something. What part of that is soap-boxing Tariq? Please explain. Bloomberg seems to suggest nearly 100 gun deaths per day... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    There's a difference between "not significant, especially in comparison to other shootings". It's another thing to say "Perhaps we could have a ticker for US shooting murders....", which is obviously a ridiculous suggestion meant to jab at American society. One might argue that it's not that egregious, but I'm particularly sensitive to it given your overt soapboxing about the same topic back in in February 2013. And you didn't help matters with your subsequent statement below. -- tariqabjotu 23:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    "You can't handle the truth...."! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose TRM is basically right (and I cannot stand the usual crap about Americans being gun happy). This sort of crime is all too common. TRM mentions only schools, but this happens with fired officeworkers, in domestic disputes, and with drug dealers on about a biweekly basis. This case is certainly not encyclopedic in nature. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
"Americans being gun happy"? I'm going to respect your opinion about not inclusion, but what you just said is offensive. DarthBotto talkcont 17:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Medeis said she "couldn't stand the usual crap about Americans being gun happy". I disagree with her on that, there are 88 guns per 100 people in America (like mobile phones), so this kind of incident should be expected. That's why it's not ITN material really. How will this impact the future of America, or the world? It won't. Is it widely reported outside the US? It was, but it's yesterday's news already. In other words, it's de rigeur I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing can be done till the AfD is taken care of anyways -- Ashish-g55 17:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Agree with Medeis, this is tragic but not news when weighed up against all the facts. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Any incident of mass murder is shocking, and always worthy of serious discussion. Furthermore, there is no hard-and-fast rule for the posting of mass murders, nor should there be. But if we're talking about incidents of this scale (regardless of whether guns are legal in that country or not), the bar for extraordinary circumstances is generally quite high. The random murder of schoolchildren by someone who was not legally entitled to bear arms is one that we posted not too long ago. Following a family half way across the continent to murder them on a family holiday (with a then unknown motive) was another. I'll leave it to others to draw comparisons between those cases and this one, but it's a disgraceful fact of life that mass murder is too common on this dangerous planet for us to indiscriminately post each instance. —WFCFL wishlist 19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with WFC. Every instance is worth discussion. It doesn't mean to say that most instances are just commonplace and not "in the news". Facts are facts, and if some editors feel that stating them is "soap boxing" then perhaps they should take a break. It's true that for every 100 people in the US, there are 88 weapons, it's true that there have been twelve school shootings in the US in 2013, it' true that 900 Americans are shot to death every month. That's why a story like this, while entirely tragic, is not newsworthy, it's a common occurrence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't post (or shouldn't, at any rate) every train crash and lorry pile up. Ditto gun crime in the US. Simply too many people are dying, too often, for Wiki to allow front page prominence to each and every event. This is a little local difficulty, and as stated above, ITN can't allow every gun-happy American to have their time in the sun. For a country with such lax and liberal gun legislation, front page attention for every incident involving guns is simply illogical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose No different to every hostage standoffs that happens every year. Donnie Park (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a completely unusual event. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 28 July 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: Barnaby JackEdit

Article: Barnaby Jack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: ​New Zealand hacker and medical and financial security expert Barnaby Jack is found dead at 35
News source(s): BBC Reutersdaily beast at length

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: seems like he's top of his field from the articles EdwardLane (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • support as nom EdwardLane (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is a tad light. Most everything is about his death, and the presentation he didn't get to make because of said death. If the facts of his life which made him noteworthy can be expanded some, I'd support this, but right now I feel the article is a tad light. --Jayron32 14:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changing to full Support based on the updating work by Medeis, Deepred, Libbux, et. al. --Jayron32 12:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even if he was among the top of his field, I don't think he is notable enough for RD. He appears to have been largely unknown outside of the hacker community before his death; in fact, he was so little-known that nobody felt like creating an article about him until the day after he died. --Bongwarrior (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I was ready to vote no as not recognizing the guy's name until I realized who he was from reading the sources. I suggest editors read this article at the daily beast. Jack was basically the Frank Abignail of hackers, a huge influence on the electronic security field. The fact that there was no article on him until recently is absolutely irrelevant to the nomination and speaks more about us than about him. His death at 35 of unknown causes is also notable. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support made headline news in the UK, and as Medeis notes, unusual circumstances surround the death. Article could use a bit more girth, but no issues with just posting two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Due respect to the guy, but he was working in the tech field and didn't get a Wikipedia article during his lifetime. That actually doesn't say more about us than it does about him. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. I don't think it matters if he was largely unknown outside of hacker community, if he was top of his field, which he seemed to be. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He's just not notable enough or known as a significant individual in the hacking world. There's a lack of constant coverage covering him. I'd never even heard of him. While he is notable, he's not known enough. Beerest355 Talk 18:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for RD, content to go along with a full blurb. If the sources can be taken at face value then he was clearly at the top of his field, but does not seem to have been particularly well known within it (let alone outside of it). That limits the value of an RD posting without an accompanying blurb. —WFCFL wishlist 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree a blurb is called for since we don't have foul play as a known factor in the death, and he's not a sitting megastar, but I have suggested an altblurb anyway. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Reuters ineed says foul play's been ruled out. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis though the article seems a bit thin. Still, this is a good call for ITN RD, in my view, and not a candidate for a full blurb, which is for really major recent deaths, the way it has evolved. Jusdafax 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated the article is technically well updated as new, and I have added two new sections while condensing some headers. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Death section is still really light, any chance of expanding that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I could quote two sentences from the beast as reaction, maybe later tonight, have family flying in and an uncomfortable dinner with the inlaws pendiing. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Well good luck with the in-laws... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Flight delayed two hours (yay!)
  • Oppose There are very few hackers who are significant to be in RD and this one is not. As for hackers, compared to Kevin Mitnick and Gary McKinnon, Jack is nowhere in their level of significance. Donnie Park (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Update I have updated the death section to five sentences as well.

"Not a Hacker"? some of the oppose votes here seem to be based on Jack's being a hacker of wireless devices, not of old time networks per se. Given his testimony is credited with having the FDA change its regulations of wireless medical devices, his fame within the industry, and given we have sources from the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, NPR, huffington post, the Australian, PC World, Popular Science, etc., calling him famed, celebrated, etc., I think the "I never heard of him" comments are beside the point. μηδείς (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Reuters:

Jack was one of the world's most prominent "white hat" hackers - those who use their technical skills to find security holes before criminals can exploit them.

His genius was finding bugs in the tiny computers embedded in equipment, such as medical devices and cash machines. He often received standing ovations at conferences for his creativity and showmanship while his research forced equipment makers to fix bugs in their software.

I think we can dispense with the notion that someone needs to be a most wanted criminal like Kevin Mitnick to be a hacker. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I must say I was sceptical, particularly since I'm a New Zealander and had never heard of him. But the sources provided do seem to indicate that he was widely regarded as a very important figure in his field. And his death is getting a lot of attention - it's the second most viewed story on the BBC News website. Neljack (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems reasonable to suppose that if a individual is so highly notable as to justify ITN inclusion we would know what his real name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.82.208 (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Since his real name was Barnaby Jack, I really don't see what your oppose is about. SeraV (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. As far as I can understand from article and the quote above, this guy was notable enough. Not having a Wikipedia article previously isn't that convincing to me. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready we have majority support, a well-updtaed article, and broad world-wide support and coverage in the sources. The quality of many oppose rationales is lacking; personal unfamiliarity, newness of article, different definition of hacker, "not knowing his real name"; none of these refute he was the top of the fields of device and wireless hacking. μηδείς (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, come on. Since you !voted support, you shouldn't have been the one to mark this as ready. Beerest355 Talk 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I second Beerest355. Involved parties shouldn't be evaluating consensus. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Medeis has done nothing wrong - it is common for users who have supported an item marking it as "ready" if they believe it has been updated and has consensus. This is perfectly proper: marking as "ready" is effectively just a tag to indicate that an (uninvolved) admin is needed to evaluated whether there is consensus (and a sufficient update) to post. There still has to be that independent evaluation of consensus and update by an uninvolved admin. See this from the instruction as the top of this page: "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves."[13] Neljack (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clarifying. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, primary sources aka obituaries appeared after his death, showing that this person was not the subject of analysis in secondary sources prior to July 26, 2013. Wikipedia requires secondary sources for articles, and this person's article may not even have survived an AFD. It is inappropriate for posting to the front page. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure where you get the notion Barnaby Jack was not covered in secondary sources from. See mentions in PCWorld, Computer World, Security Week, Bloomberg etc. His paper "Remote Windows Kernel Exploitation" is also cited in various books, if not as widely as works by certain football players we have posted. Or, if your complaint is about our article, again, and not the sources themselves, it is irrelevant, as wikipedia is not a source. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
He was not analyzed. I am not complaining about the article, I am telling anybody who will listen that he barely deserves an article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Protests and violence in EgyptEdit

Article: Aftermath of the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Dozens are killed in Egypt following mass rival protests.
Alternative blurb: ​Egyptian security forces kill dozens of pro-Morsi demonstrators following mass rival rallies the previous day.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: According to the BBC, the death toll is between 38 and 100+ after security forces clashed (or attacked) Mosri supporters. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Update. According to RT the health ministry is now saying the death toll is 92 (instead of 38). MB is saying it's over 200 [14]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I cannot think of a reason why this should not be included. DarthBotto talkcont 16:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story world wide, and the situation is dire. Jusdafax 19:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sticky? The problem with protest outbreaks is the next day they might be bigger or gone. And has Morsi not been charged with kidnapping and murder, or did I misread something? μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support sticky. The situation is relatively fast-paced, and there have been multiple newsworthy flashpoints in the past month or so. If the sticky proved unwarranted, it would probably be removed in a week or so, which is roughly how long this story would run for anyway. —WFCFL wishlist 20:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support sticky per others. More that 100 deaths in a single day. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support obviously --Երևանցի talk 03:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, oppose sticky I think we should be sparing with stickies, and we haven't posted that many blurbs on the recent events in Egypt. A sticky is not very informative - most readers will probably not click on it, whereas a blurb would inform of this major development. Neljack (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As the others told above.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is now updated and alternative blurb suggested. I'd recommend having the sticky suggestion again when we have more nominations from Egypt, otherwise I think the blurb is much better for the time being. I understand that those supporting the sticky also support the blurb (or at least don't oppose it). Should be ready to post. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted I used a modification of the alternate blurb. -- tariqabjotu 09:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Murder so what about the murder charges against Morsi. is that not relevant to have in the blurb? μηδείς (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    Of course it is (and so are Friday's mass rival rallies), but obviously the killing of protesters is more significant. How do you suggest we incorporate it into the blurb? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

July 26Edit


July 25Edit


[Posted] Assassination of Mohamed BrahmiEdit

Article: Mohamed Brahmi (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Widespread protests in Tunisia after Mohamed Brahmi, the leader of a secular opposition party, is assassinated
News source(s): RT NY TimesAFP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Would be nice if the blurb could also include a link to Chokri Belaid but even adding 'another' or 'second' to the blurb gets a bit messy. EdwardLane (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Second opposition leader of the same coalition killed this year in Tunisia, so I think this story will unfold into something big. It's too early for me to see if this will get lots of coverage in the Spanish-speaking world, but some of the US-European media is picking up on this story quickly. ComputerJA () 08:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but as usual the article needs substantial work. Jusdafax 09:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support upon article improvement. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment just saw this which says

    Interior minister Lotfi Ben Jeddou told a news conference in Tunis: "The same 9mm automatic weapon that killed Belaid also killed Brahmi." He named the main suspect as hardline Salafist Boubacar Hakim, already being sought on suspicion of smuggling weapons from Libya.

EdwardLane (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That sort of information should be added to the article, not the ITN nomination. Modest Genius talk 15:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough it should be in the article, but also I thought it might have a significant impact on the support/oppose 'votes' given that it did now seem linked very tangibly to the chokri belaid story that was previously posted. Incidentally is this nomination/article ready ? EdwardLane (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

10 thousand people attended the funeral according the xinhua news source - to give it a scale of some sort. And though it's not easy to pin down there is also a good chunk of political fallout too, with thousands calling for the goverment to resign. EdwardLane (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Posted The article is still not stellar, but it's good enough and generally what we'd request for a new article. Support seems sufficient with no objection after two days. -- tariqabjotu 09:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RD: Chiwoniso MaraireEdit

Article: Chiwoniso Maraire (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC New Zimbabwe

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Noted person in the World Music scene. Probably a bigger story in Africa than in the places where most of us live, but I think we need to make a concious effort to make sure RD isn't just Western celebrities. --LukeSurl t c 16:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. I would like to support, but the article needs some work. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment-Longing to support, per 331dot. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The above two posts simply exemplify our systemic bias. If nobody here is a fan, the article will be crap, so it fails. There's something fundamentally wrong with this approach. I nominated something a few weeks ago. The article was crap. Thought I could improve it a bit. Wife broke her ankle. I got busy. Nomination failed because of crap article. Or, more correctly, the nomination failed because my wife broke her ankle. Is that really how we want things to work here? HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you ask your wife to be more careful in the future? Stephen 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
We all have things in life which might prevent us from doing things here that we might want to do; it's just the way it is. As we both said, we would like to support, but it's hard to support an article with limited information that doesn't allow us to decide. Articles in poor condition (about Westerners and non-Westerners) generally are not posted until they are improved, as well. I have a feeling that this person does merit being posted, but I need to see more information in the article. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite. I don't think it's anyone in particular's fault, but I think for whatever reason RD is a lot more susceptible to general systemic bias than the blurbs. LukeSurl t c 10:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
While I don't agree with your reasoning on systematic bias HL, I do extend my condolences, as a broken ankle is a serious wheelchair injury, and being a caregiver is a tough, time consuming thing to do. My best wishes for rapid healing to you both. Jusdafax 10:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for those thoughts. The systemic bias, however, comes from the fact that it will inevitably be the articles on people not from the cultures from which the editors here come that will be of a poorer quality. If we reject people because of that quality problem, and the poorer quality is because those people are from "foreign" cultures, that's virtually the definition of a systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't support this the way the article currently is. There's only one sentence about the death and the article as a whole is very short, and it does little to indicate why this singer is important. If this article is updated to satisfy RD criteria I may change my !vote. But for now, oppose.Beerest355 Talk 16:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on article quality, lack of update, and no indication of significance beyond the nominators claim that she's famous in Africa. Even the BBC article is very short and simply says she was popular in Zimbabwe. Yes, this is an example of systematic bias, but reducing the ITN criteria is not the way to fix that (which would effectively be positive discrimination). Modest Genius talk 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
How DO we fix it? HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
On the project level: by getting more editors in under-represented areas. On the ITN level: by paying more attention to non-western stories and media coverage and incorporating that into articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There's no need for new ITN rules or relaxation of existing ones. Modest Genius talk 20:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I see some progress, in that we are getting more nominations for non-Western stories, although we're nowhere near matching the reality that 90% of the world's population of not white and western. But how do we make our mostly western editors improve the non-western articles? HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not directly related to nomination. SpencerT♦C 04:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Require an editor contribute to getting one non-Western themed article up to GA status per year, or they are not permitted to edit pages of things they are interested in. 97.81.161.12 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Take the patronizing comments on everybody else's racism elsewhere, this is not the place for it. μηδείς (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As soon as someone expands the article to a more reasonable level, consider my vote a support. --Jayron32 14:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • How is that going to happen? Who is that someone going to be? Why not you? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not the one desperate to see the article on the main page. Your last question applies as well to you as it does to anyone else. --Jayron32 12:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, it does, and like you, I have neither the time, background knowledge or driving interest. That we don't should not be good enough reason for not posting this. While our rules remain as they are, we are both part of the problem. And probably shouldn't be. One day I'll get enough people to realise how blatant our systemic bias really is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just not important enough for the front page, and I can see the lack of updates to the article underlines this doktorb wordsdeeds 08:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This topic is certainly important enough for the main page. Yes, the article could use some work, and perhaps by posting it, others actually will work on it. There is a circular problem with not posting an important article that is sub-par when the reason it is sub-par is simply because the majority of current Wikipedia editors are not familiar with the topic. By continuing to keep such articles off the main page, Wikipedia is unlikely to attract new (or current) editors who can help improve them (and indeed, it likely alienates people who perceive Wikipedia as keeping such articles away from the main page as a sign that we simply doesn't care about topics important to them). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Current Wikipedia users can only discuss subjects that current Wikipedia users are familiar with; no one person here has the sum knowledge of all current human civilization. If users who care about underrepresented topics want us to care about them enough to support their posting to ITN or RD, they need to be here to convince us. It is something of a chicken-or-the-egg problem; but it's up to the people who care and are knowledgeable about the subject to get us to care. This discussion is now drifting away from the merits of posting this subject to the broader subject about systemic issues; I would suggest those discussions take place in the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
You're just proving the systemic bias. And I am not aware of any other "proper" forum where there would be enough interest. That too is part of the problem. We have a systemic bias that even prevents us discussing the systemic bias effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
So I should support subjects that I have no knowledge of, or an article that does not give me enough information to gain said knowledge? As suggested at the countering systemic bias page, you should go out and recruit users in underrepresented areas to contribute here. That's the only thing we can do without some sort of affirmative action program (which would simply reverse the problem). 331dot (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that you "should support subjects that I have no knowledge of, or an article that does not give me enough information to gain said knowledge". That's unhelpful misrepresentation. But you should care about fixing the problem too. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't say that, but that seems to me to be what you are suggesting; that I should accept a wink and a "trust me" to nominations of subjects that I don't know anything about. I do care about "fixing the problem", but whether I care or not is irrelevant; I can't contribute information I have no knowledge of, or support subjects that I don't know anything about without a decent article to reference. I can't fly to Zimbabwe, India, or other countries to recruit users from those nations. I can only contribute what I know and endorse subjects that I know. As this is drifting off topic, I will have no further comment here; I would be happy to do so in the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is off-topic, but I'm discussing it here because we have a systemic bias. I don't know a "proper forum" where this discussion would work. That's part of our systemic bias too. Where else do YOU regularly look that I could discuss it? Or does our systemic bias mean there's nowhere? HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback, 331dot, but I'm afraid I must disagree with this being the case here. This article has been brought forward by someone familiar with the subject, and while the quality of the article could be improved, its notability is about equal with many of the other RDs. I dislike the idea of using such a stringent quality standard to exclude on article on RD grounds. Being too stringent excludes many articles from ITN or RD, and it does have a disparate impact on topics that are less-cared about by Wikipedia's editorial majority. As far as the systemic bias issue, I would agree with HiLo48 that does seem to an appropriate place to bring it up (bringing it up in the context of specific instances where it appears to be manifesting), but I would be happy to also have that conversation on another forum, though I am unfamiliar with where that forum may be. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If it was brought forth by someone knowledgeable in the subject, then they should use their knowledge to improve the article and make it easier for those not knowledgeable to read about the subject to see if they agree it should be posted. As Wikipedia is run by consensus, absent some affirmative action program(which only reverses the problem), we can only discuss subjects that the majority is knowledgeable about; it is up to the nominator of a lesser-known subject to publicize it and inform others. That isn't any more stringent a standard for some articles than others; it's simply reality. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
331dot has conveniently positioned himself. Says we must find a better forum, but won't (can't?) tell us what that is? I think we're actually getting somewhere. Silence rather than opposition can be the first step towards acceptance. This will be a long process, but it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. I'm not "positioning myself" to do anything; I'm simply stating what I see. It is not up to me to find a forum for you to advocate an issue you are passionate about. I see numerous discussion pages such as the village pump. If you feel that people don't look there regularly, it is up to you to draw attention to the issue, perhaps with requests for comment on this page linking there(which I have seen done elsewhere). 331dot (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose based both on article quality and the notability of the subject. This person published 4 albums and there's no particular evidence that the person was a leader in their field (we need some evidence such as sales figures, awards or similar recognition). The fact that her band was very multinational is mildly interesting but not nearly enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bo Xilai charged in Wang Lijun incidentEdit

Articles: Wang Lijun incident (talk, history) and Bo Xilai (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Chinese politician Bo Xilai is charged with corruption and abuse of office in one of the most significant political scandals in China.
News source(s): Reuters CNN Washington Post The Wall Street Journal Xinhua

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a significant charge in a significant political scandal in China. Andise1 (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Question Don't we normally wait for a conviction/not guilty rather than posting charges? Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • On high profile cases, ITN usually posts indictments or arrests... –HTD 10:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until verdict. This is a significant case, but the indictment has been expected since his arrest months ago. -Zanhe (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. We usually post indictments and convictions, expected or otherwise. This is being widely covered and as such readers might come here looking for more information. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support since we have already posted installments of this story (two, I think). The blurb should end at "abuse of office" with the wikilink located elesewhere - blurbs should not proclaim their own significance. Formerip (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support per above statements. and this is obviously a special and significant case.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't see anything in either article listed as occurring in July. Stephen 23:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait until the verdict. We already posted this story once, and should wait for a conviction before putting it on the Main Page again. Modest Genius talk 11:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

July 24Edit


[Posted] New species (Hero Shrew)Edit

Article: Hero shrew (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new Hero shrew species, called Scutisorex thori, is found in Africa.
Alternative blurb: Thor's hero shrew, the first known sister species to the armored shrew, is discovered.
News source(s): BBC National Geographic International Business Times NBC News MSN Daily Mail

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is only the second species of the Hero shrew that has been found so far. Andise1 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article reads like copyvio. Or just crap. Fix it. Abductive (reasoning) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
?? Yes, Andise, fix that "crap"? Is that how this works? μηδείς (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Just callin' 'em like I see 'em. Articles need to be in decent shape for ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 22:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the above comments relate to armored shrew. The article for the news species didn't exist at teh tiem the comments were made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, your article is much better. Can a pic be added? Abductive (reasoning) 14:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Following up... I've started to work on the hero shrew article. The text was indeed a (likely) copyright violation via close paraphrase. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Comment the (non-existent) species article would be the best one to update presumably. Also blurbs should always be in the present tense. I have modified the blurb accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - new (living) mammal species are very rare. This one is especially notable as it may rewrite evolutionary history (the hero shrew was long thought to be an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium, but this species suggests it may have evolved slowly after all). People not involved w/the study are calling it a significant find. See also the analysis provided by Nature, the BBC, and National Geographic (all used in the article). Article is now updated; I have suggested an altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way to get an "important because it..." type phrase in the blurb? I am all for phylogeny. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps: Thor's hero shrew is discovered, casting doubt that its sister species, the armored shrew, evolved via punctuated equilibrium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talkcontribs) 00:34, 25 July 2013‎
I was trying to think of something more positive, like "Scutisorex thori, able to bear 72kg on its spine, is the second armored shrew discovered in 60 years." μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Discovering a living mammal is a rare event and is certainly newsworthy. This is even more true with this particular discovery, given the seeming consequences on evolutionary science. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That bit about punctuated equilibrium is not backed up by the sources. Try to find where people have claimed Scutisorex somereni as an example of punctuated equilibrium prior to yesterday. Abductive (reasoning) 14:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As already pointed out, this is rare. And awwww Shrews are just sooooooo cute! Don't believe me? Look. LOOK. [15] --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready updated and well-supported, read ta go. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I had not heard of a shrew before and didn't know (and still don't, really) what a "sister species" is. The linked articles are bare-bones (sofixit, I'm not complaining) and I had to come here to really understand that this is about the discovery of a new mammal species, which is uncommon. Can the blurb be rewritten to something like "A new mammal species, Thor's hero shrew, is found in Africa". 69.165.207.197 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Santiago de Compostela train crashEdit

Article: Santiago de Compostela derailment (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 56 people are killed in a train crash in Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
News source(s): http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2013/07/24/espana/1374693824.html

Article updated

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose no transportation accidents unless something beyond death count is notable. {remove opposition, 35 is more than 12]. μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
How? - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We posted the Brétigny-sur-Orge train derailment with lower death toll. If we posted it, it is logical to post this one too. Also, these events are quite rare in developed countries. Jeanluc20 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
But it was not logical to post the French mishap. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Per Jeanluc and established precedent for train crashes in developed countries. Death toll now 20, wouldn't be surprised to see it rise. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Extensive coverage in the Mexican news and internationally as well. 20 dead is good enough for ITN. ComputerJA () 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral looks like a terrible crash, actually made it onto the BBC homepage despite Baby George. (Article needs substantial update though....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major accident and sufficient news coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Appears to be a high speed rail accident. I would however like it pulled if the death toll turns out to have been overstated. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support given the death toll, but strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be one rule for train crashes in developed countries and another for ones in developing countries, which would be a blatant example of systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That kind of rule is often applied here. White western deaths count for a lot more than others. Obviously I don't support that approach. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that is a problem here. Neljack (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The converse problem exists, that infrastructure is poor in third-world countries, and death tolls much higher. The journalistic rule of thumb used to be 1 Dead Englishamna equals 10 dead Frenchman, equals 100 Dead... and that is certainly still the case, say, for tropical strorms in the Americas, see Hurricane Mitch. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Medeis is correct - death tolls are higher in the developing world than the first world for the same storm/disaster. It is not about the importance of the lives lost, but rather the rarity of the disaster. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of that. Terrorist attacks are more common in the US than they are here in New Zealand, but that doesn't mean I would oppose a terrorist attack in the US but support one with the same number of casualties in New Zealand. It's still the same number of dead, and therefore the same importance. This isn't DYK: we're not here to post surprising and unusual things, we're here to post important things. Neljack (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Death toll now 35 according to the BBC (I've updated the blurb) and it's being described as the worst rail accident in Spain for 40 years. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update, significant train crash. However, the blurb should say 'dozens' so we don't have issues with keeping the number up to date. The article is currently only two paragraphs, so needs some expansion first. Modest Genius talk 22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant casualties; receiving significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready - article meets minimum requirements and is reasonably complete for this early stage. I fixed the tense of the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


[Closed] Abu Ghraib prison breakEdit

It appears that this nomination has ground to a halt doktorb wordsdeeds 06:33, 29 July 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: Baghdad Central Prison (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Iraq, ten police officers are killed as hundreds escape from Baghdad Central Prison.
Alternative blurb: Al Qaeda claim responsibility for a prison break which frees more than 500 prisoners and kills 10 police officers.
News source(s): The Guardian,Huffington Post

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major security breach which compounds the troubles Iraq is in and is likely to lead to wider repercussions. Some sources are reporting 25 deaths of members of the security forcesand up to 800 escaping . --yorkshiresky (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Break occurred on 21st July. --LukeSurl t c 09:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stale. By the time this gets posted it will be 24/25/26 July depending on where you are in the world. This nom was made way too late. The encyclopedic value of the event is not enough to allow for such a late posting. King•Retrolord 09:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's not stale. If it were posted now, it would be the second or third item (the event happened overnight between July 21 and July 22). -- tariqabjotu 09:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes but by the time it is posted it will be a lot staler than it currently is. King•Retrolord 09:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Um, yes, every story is staler than it was when it was nominated. How much staler is dependent on how quickly the article is updated and how quickly people comment. -- tariqabjotu 10:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Well back to my original point. I think its too stale already. And there isn't enough encyclopedic value here to negate that fact. King•Retrolord 10:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Stale, for the purposes of ITN, is not subjective. Stale is when the event occurred before the last item on ITN. That is not the case here, being newer than all but the first one, or maybe two, items. So it's not stale. Whether a story is significant enough for ITN should be time-independent. -- tariqabjotu 10:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Stale, for my purposes, sums this up perfectly. King•Retrolord 10:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update - Notable attack/jailbreak from an infamous prison that was and is a symbol of torture. Argument about event being stale is unconvincing. I believe the alt blurb may be the best one. My concern is the update in the target article on the prison which is currently way too thin. Jusdafax 10:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    The prison itself is famous. Shouldn't we go with a blurb that at least mentions it? King•Retrolord 10:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Should the blurb/article to be updated be changed then? King•Retrolord 10:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. (it was a redirect anyway) --LukeSurl t c 10:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable for the nature of some of those freed. --LukeSurl t c 10:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support many deaths + big jailbreak + infamous prison. SeraV (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per SeraV. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: No opinion on the merits of the story, but the article needs some attention. The update is adequate, but the rest of the article is a bit of a mess. Although the tags are only yellow-level, I do think the other sections and structure of the article need tidying up before this should go on the Main Page. Modest Genius talk 16:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I sympathize with king blinking lord's concerns, but I find I can't read the bit's near his signature. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Who? King•Retrolord 17:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, biggest news out of Abu Ghraib since Abu Ghraib. Abductive (reasoning) 22:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah... so about those orange tags. -- tariqabjotu 03:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Two days, no improvement. Looks like it isn't going to happen. Modest Genius talk 20:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I did some cleanup and referencing work; we have only 2 tags now, one of them orange. SpencerT♦C 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

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


[Closed] Recent Deaths: Djalma SantosEdit

Nomination appears stale and no consensus to post in any case doktorb wordsdeeds 06:05, 30 July 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: Djalma Santos (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Alternative blurb: ​Former Brazilian football player Djalma Santos dies at the age of eighty-four.
News source(s): Sambafoot Terra Brasil globo

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Djalma Santos was "a Brazilian footballer who started for the Brazil national team in four World Cups, winning two, in 1958 and 1962." "Santos is considered to be one of the greatest right-backs of all time. While primarily known for his defensive skills." "Along with Franz Beckenbauer, he is one of only two players to be included into three FIFA World Cup All Star teams (in 1954, 1958 and 1962). He was named by Pelé as one of the top 125 greatest living footballers in March 2004." I added a blurb even though (if this ends up being posted) it will probably go to Recent Deaths. Andise1 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD but only if article is significantly expanded. For as notable of a career as Santos had, his article is shamefully lacking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose unless he was also a decorated war veteran or something else to make him more notable than a good ball player. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 'One of the top 125' (in the opinion of a single, albeit well-informed, person) doesn't sound so outstanding. If he was the leading exponent in his day of some particular position or skill, I'd reconsider. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
See my comments below for evidence that he was not only the leading right-back of his time (and an innovative one in developing a more attacking role for fullbacks), but one of the leading right-backs of all time. Neljack (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. The "top 125" player statement is from a single person. "Best right-back of all time" statement is uncited and just an opinion without something to back it up(awards, tops in statistics, etc.) Would reconsider upon expansion of article making his notability clearer and less about one person's opinion. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question how big a story is this in Brazil? --LukeSurl t c 11:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comparison: (Can't compare with goals since Trautmann is a goalkeeper.)
Djalma Santos Bert Trautmann
Domestic appearances 964 553
National team caps 98 0
World Cup Finals appearances 4 0
World Cup Finals titles 2 0
World Cup Finals All-Star teams 3 0
Trophies won 22 1
Played at Europe? No ZOMG MAN CITY!
Posted? Pending; leaning no Unimamous (save for HiLo's post-post comments)

HTD 11:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment on my name appearing in the above table: I neither opposed nor supported the Trautmann nomination. I simply sought a better standard of discussion. Such efforts often meet resistance and misinterpretation here. And that's all part of the problem. At least this time the nomination has helpfully mentioned the sport this guy played. That's all I was seeking last time. (Don't really care whether or not this is posted either. There is so much pointless soccer content in Wikipedia anyway that another 0.0000001% makes little difference.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The quality of the article and exceptional story probably swung it for Trautmann. Looking at the arguments above, a well developed bio which makes clear that Santos is a credible contender for the greatest full back ever would probably convince Alex and 331dot. —WFCFL wishlist 14:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaning support – this nom should not be opposed on the grounds of calibre in my opinion, but the article and update are mediocre. —WFCFL wishlist 14:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So, Santos is a better card to have in Top Trumps. But since Trautmann was unable to play international football because of his residency, and didn't start playing until he was 25, because of the war, none of your comparisons really mean much. Oh, and because "trophies won" would not normally be understood to include individual domestic matches. However, joint fifth most capped player for Brazil is not to be sniffed at, so support. Agree that the article could do with some expansion, though. Formerip (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Change to support once the article is expanded and it is clearer that his notability is not based on just one person's opinion. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trautmann was posted because of his post-WWII Anglo-German relations work, not his footy career (I hope). Santos is just a footy player. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "Regarded by many as the best right-back ever to have played the game", according to FIFA [16]; "widely regarded as one of the greatest right-backs ever" [17]; "rated in many international surveys as the best right-back of all-time" [18]. Being one of only two players ever to make three World Cup All-Star teams should also be a pretty good indication that he was regarded as the greatest right-back of his time. He was a pioneer of attacking fullback play: "Brazilians credit him and his contemporary Nilton Santos with helping create the overlap. Both players got forward when possible, which was a rarity among defenders of the time." [19] The two oppose votes saying he's just a footballer should be disregarded: footballers, like those in other fields, are eligible to be posted if they were "widely regarded as a very important figure in their field" (which, as the sources linked to indicate, he clearly was). The fact that some people don't like the field (and I'm not a soccer fan either) is irrelevant. Neljack (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
He was also named in the FIFA World Cup All-Time Team and described by Sir Bobby Charlton as "the best right-back I ever saw. He was too good to be a full-back, really, he could have played anywhere on the pitch." [20] Neljack (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
If only the article contained information like this... SpencerT♦C 12:34, 25 July 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.

July 23Edit


[Closed] South Sudan governmentEdit

Nomination has grown stale and there was no consensus to post in any case doktorb wordsdeeds 06:03, 30 July 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: Politics of South Sudan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The first South Sudanese cabinet reshuffle takes place since its independence.
Alternative blurb: ​President Salva Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan fires his vice president and all of his cabinet ministers.
News source(s): Al Jaz

Article updated
Nominator's comments: First national government changeds sicne independence. Its the closest to democracy in South Ssudan. Lihaas (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We generally don't post cabinet changes; cabinets usually serve at the pleasure of the President/Prime Minister. If this was a general election, it would be ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Unfortunately, the nominator rather poorly worded the importance of this story. If this was any regular cabinet shuffle, it would not be news - cabinet reshuffles happen all the time. In this case, however, every single minister has been sacked, but most crucially so has the Vice President. Now, going by our article on the VPship, it's an appointed position by the PM as well, so it may not be notable enough even then, but still. The fact the Vice President's been dismissed is the important thing here, which makes this no ordinary reshuffle. I've suggested a possible alternative blurb. Redverton (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to pile on to what this is about, Sudan Tribune is also reporting an attempt to unseat the head of the (only real) political party, as well as sacking every minister and deputy minister. A few years ago all these ministers used to be the heads of rival rebel groups, so this smells like a power grab, and maybe even a coup against Kiir's own government. Unfortunately, there's no update to the suggested bolded link, and only one line updates to Salva Kiir Mayardit and Riek Machar. - BanyanTree 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Great to hear, but without wanting to promote the topic (new country doesn't revert to chaos or tyranny) it will be hard to justify it for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The rationale needs clarifying--nom makes this sound peaceful "reshuffling" Commenter describes as coup. Which is it? μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed- if it's a coup, then the blurb should say so. Otherwise, I still oppose. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Without being too flippant about something which is unlikely to happen, would we post the wholesale replacement of the British cabinet, up to and including Nick Clegg? Possibly, but the reasons for and consequences of the decision would be the deciding factors (for instance if the cause of the reshuffle was a major political scandal, or if it was clear that the new cabinet had a dramatically different agenda). —WFCFL wishlist 14:18, 24 July 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.

July 22Edit


[Closed] Recent Deaths: Dennis FarinaEdit

No consensus to post doktorb wordsdeeds 23:04, 23 July 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: Dennis Farina (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN USA Today Chicago Tribune

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He played Detective Joe Fontana on Law & Order. He was also in Miami Vice, Midnight Run, Get Shorty, Unsolved Mysteries, Saving Private Ryan, and quite a few other films. Andise1 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
"Please do not...... add simple "support" or "oppose" notes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached. Andise1 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, who? Is that unclear? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Is my original comment unclear? He was an actor who appeared in many television shows and movies. You could have also gone to his article to find out who he was too... Andise1 (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Andisel is absolutely correct to remind you, Medeis, of the clearly-stated protocols ITN has in place for nominations. Asking "who?" as a one word ITN response is out of order, rude, and generates needless ill-will. And you have been here long enough to know that. Jusdafax 00:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
"Ill will?" seriously? I didn't say the guy was a stupid American imperialist who would not have been mentioned if yatta, yatta, yatta, Americans (or the like). It is a suggestion, not a policy, and I think "who" was perfectly eloquent in this case, and I neither withdraw nor apologize. I am nor even opposing, just "whoing". μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. He had an extensive body of work, but not much in the way of formal recognition in his career. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I recognize the name, but I'm not very familiar with him. I really don't think there's any way he could be considered "widely regarded as a very important figure in his field" as required by the death criteria. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Solid body of work, but fails the death criteria (much like Cory Monteith and Mel Smith) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I applied the Monteith test and the Mel Smith test, but he didn't pass either. Formerip (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We really must calm down a bit and stop letting the fan clubs of minor performers decide the content of Wikipedia. There's been too much of that recently. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not a fan of him nor have I ever been. I saw that his death was receiving some significant coverage (mainly in US sources) so I decided to nominate him. Andise1 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The media and the entertainment industry have an interesting relationship. The modern entertainment industry could not live without the media, and the media loves that content to fill column inches and television minutes, for which they now have sub-daily deadlines. We don't. The fact that things appear in the media does not really make them news for our purposes. We certainly don't mention Hollywood romances and the consequent babies here, but they are well covered by the media. I accept that you're not part of the fan club here, but some recent postings (and perhaps this nomination) have attracted plenty of them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He's from the U.S. and who cares about them? Obviously no sources outside the U.S. have covered this. Seriously, support. Abcdefg0 (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Here are a few more news sources that are reporting about his death Andise1 (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose like Bongwarrior noted, he does not meet any of the death criteria, which should be enough for not posting him already. And Andise1 popularity is not one of the criteria for posting these, which should be kept in mind. SeraV (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not meet the recent deaths criteria. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sorry, just not significant enough. Not widely recognised as a leader in his field. The RD section is not for listing every vaguely famous person who dies. Modest Genius talk 16:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing this discussion, it clearly is not going to be posted. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 23 July 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] Duchess Kate bears a sonEdit

This has been posted and there is virtually no chance it's going to be removed. Pointless discussion is fun but, well, pointless. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 22 July 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: Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, William and Catherine, bear a son, third in Line of succession to the British throne
Alternative blurb: ​The Duchess of Cambridge bears a son, third in line of succession to the British throne
News source(s): [http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/world/europe/uk-royal-baby/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 It's a boy! Catherine gives birth to royal baby

By Laura Smith-Spark and Richard Allen Greene, CNN]

Article updated
 μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • XXX is a very fashion-forward name, isn't it?--WaltCip (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but don't wait around for a name. Prince Charles wasn't named for a month, so let's get it going with a neutral blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A little silly the amount of attention this gets, but indisputably big international news. --LukeSurl t c 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Baby of the decade! (its sad that the world cares so much but unfortunately thats the reality) -- Ashish-g55 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct the lede: The mother is properly known as Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I think the verb is "bear", not "bare." With appropriate write-up, support once the official announcement has been posted in London. (Plus, cute babbehpix!) 50.195.77.65 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Her common name is Kate. Why do we ignore that policy for these people? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – Could care less about this myself, but for England this is a fairly big deal. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Edit conflicted trying to nominate this (and several more times supporting). The future monarch of dozens of nations is clearly significant. It's plausible that we won't have a freely licensed picture of the baby for some time, unless a Wikimedian happens to be in the crowd. Perhaps we should directly link Line of succession to the British throne? --Pakaran 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Then update once we have a name. Miyagawa (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support both significant and exciting event.Egeymi (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support neutral blurb. Names are overrated when it comes to royals anyway. Tombo7791 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Correct it a bit more: What's wrong with "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge gives birth to..."? It's not as if William "bore" the child himself anyway. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note Isn't it the mother that actually bears the child? Therefore, a better blurb would be "A son, third in line of succession to the British throne, is born to..." Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, my high school advanced placement English teacher actually used that as an example of where the passive voice ("is born") is unquestionably appropriate. So yeah, maybe. Pakaran 20:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment, Black Kite's blurb is much more proper.Egeymi (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Alt blurb updated, it was Kate who bore the child, William did his bit nine months plus a bit ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Are you suggesting we should add "...nine months after her husband inseminated her using his penis"? Formerip (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I still think gives birth to a son is more natural-sounding than bears a son. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I hate that this is getting so much attention, but that's the way the world turns. I also agree that changing it to "gives birth to a son" is better. Beerest355 Talk 20:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose altblurb --it's not a bastard child, and we are concerned with the live birth to the parents, not which canal. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Please look up the definition of bears a child – it refers to the act of giving birth. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
AS opposed to "have a child" which means "eat one"? This is silly PC nonsense--unless they're naming him Jesus. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "Yeah, whatever" comes to mind. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready the birth section is updated, the blurb can be updated if a name is timely given, there is no opposition in general. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted a slight variation of the altblurb. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Shouldn't it be "third in the line of succession" rather than "third in line of succession"? The latter, which is currently displayed, sounds weird to my admittedly American ears. Dragons flight (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, it seems like the "the" is needed; I've added it. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    No chance of mentioning Commonwealth realm to avoid the anglo-centric posting in the blurb? Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Weeell, those Commonwealth realms might be considered a little anglocentric in who they decide to have as their head of state. Can you think of a way of saying it without adding very much extra text to the blurb? Formerip (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes. That's critical. I'm an Australian who would rather we didn't have a monarch, but at this stage this kid is just as much in line for the Australian throne as the British one. This apples to around 14 other countries too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Australia actually has a throne, does it? We would have to add something like "and to become head of state of 15 Commonwealth countries" or something like that. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW, "the" isn't necessary. You can be third in line at the post office, or third in the line at the post office. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    What a wonderful metaphor. I bet Charles wished he'd got that pension cheque cashed at his local Cash Converters instead. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see it that way at all. Being "in line", without the the, is idiomatic, and only works when you're in line somewhere, to something, with someone, etc. If it was "third in line to the British throne", I wouldn't have seen a problem. But "third in line of succession to the British throne"? No, I don't think so. Likewise, while you might say you're "third in line at the post office", you probably would not say you are "third in line of people at the post office". -- tariqabjotu 22:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    "Third in line of people at the post office" is actually grammatical, it is just not something we would normally say ("of" = out of). You could instead compare "third in order of preference". Formerip (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    Here it is on the Queen's website (third para) [21]. Not a massive deal, but why use more words than are necessary in a blurb? Formerip (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and remove at once. Notability is not inherited, at least not here on Wikipedia. We'll post it if and when he is appointed head of state through democratic election or through a non-democratic mechanism in the country in question, which is the treatment we give all others. If you want to announce the birth of your newborn son or daughter, you should turn to the local paper, not an encyclopedia. This does simply not qualify, especially considering that the election of a head of government of a state with nearly 10 million inhabitants was not posted, and this guy just happens to have famous relatives, he is not the head of state or in any equivalent position. Any speculation that he might become so in the distant future (provided his grandfather succeeds his mother, and that his father succeeds his own father, and that he himself again succeeds his father to a political position in maybe 60-70 years) is just speculation per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Would we post the birth of Putin's son, or the birth of a new member of the Castro family (where family members succeed each others as head of state)? This is an outrageous example of tabloidization and of Anglo-centrism and violates all principles applied to other cases discussed here. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, in some countries, notability is inherited. And the world's press go to great lengths to ensure that remains the case. (Know exactly what you mean, though.) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not relevant. Heck, we don't even post it when the US Democratic Party choose their presidential candidate, which is a way more notable event than the birth of someone who is currently (under mechanisms that may very well change in the meantime) fourth is line to possibly succeed someone who possibly succeeds somesone who possibly succeeds a head of state in maybe 70 years. And the press gives such a way more influential event as the US Democratic Party choosing a presidential candidate a lot more media attention. But we don't post it, because it's country bias, and this is gross country bias too, more blatant and unencyclopedic than anything else previously seen on the main page. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • (Know exactly what you mean, though). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Can I just correct you a little. Although it's probably factually wrong anyway, I think you meant to say that the American press gives the choosing of a Democratic presidential candidate way more attention than this. Spot where the bias is. Formerip (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
          • (ec) Any "country bias" argument is invalid, as "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." This is the "in the news" page and this birth is in the news. One purpose of ITN is to direct readers to articles they might be looking for on subjects that are in the news. It's isn't speculation that this child will be the King in the future, he will be; it is far more likely that he will be than he won't be. If you disagree with it being in the news, then speak to the press. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, it's speculation that this person "will be King". Who says so? You? It's really up to the people who live in the country in question in around 70 years to decide. I find this crystal balling of yours rather unlikely, constitutions tend to change in such a timespan and more and more countries in the west tend to abolish non-democratic mechanisms such as this. We build an encyclopedia, and content is subject to encyclopedic standards. We don't post tabloid gossip merely because it's "in the news", a lot of similar tabloid stuff that get tons of media attention is not posted for this exact reason. If you disagree with that, maybe a blog would be a better medium. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
              • It's not unencyclopedic that this birth occurred. It's not unencyclopedic that the child is in line to be King. Yes, the monarchy could be abolished in the next 50 or 60 years. In the next 50 years, the US could have a military coup and be ruled by a dictator, or abolish presidential elections and start a monarchy, or space aliens could invade and take over the Earth. The 2014 Winter Olympics could be cancelled or boycotted. Anything can happen with anything, that isn't a reason to post to ITN a story which is indeed in the news. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
                • The birth of Tony Blair's son got huge amounts of media attention too. Is that next? How about children of Paris Hilton? Or the drama surrounding Michael Jackson's family, which gets even more media attention than this non-event? Josh Gorand (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • Tony Blair's son will not inherit the Prime Minister's office from his father. Paris Hilton is not the President of the United States (thank God) nor would her children automatically be so if she was. Ditto with Michael Jackson. Any other persons you want to ask about? For a "non-event" it is certainly getting a lot of coverage. Again, if you dislike what the press covers, speak to them. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • Josh, even I who are totally against these "american and english instant notability" figures can see that your arguments are pure speculations. And you obviously need to read a article about British succession.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
                      • The guy is not the son of a head of state, but a great-grandson. It's crystal balling and nothing else that he "will be King" in almost a century (IF he outlives his father, and if nothing is changed in the meantime). He is not the crown prince, his grandfather is. So it's like posting the 4th in line expected to POSSIBLY become North Korea's leader after today's North Korean leader (and they do inherit the position too). Josh Gorand (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - In comparison to most "only known for being english/american characters we approve of for ITN I would think this one is actually notable beyond being of a certain nationality.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
As l0on as its on ITN its NOT possibly a a stale discussion as it CAN be removedLihaas (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless you have something to discuss, you shouldn't re-open a discussion just for the possibility of further discussion. This has been discussed to death at WT:ITN by the only person to express opposition to this posting. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 28 July 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] 2013 Dingxi EarthquakesEdit

Article: 2013 Dingxi earthquakes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A series of earthquakes in Gansu Province, China kill at least 89 and injure more than 500.
News source(s): News.com.au, NYT, Xinhua

Article updated

 --Zanhe (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, significant, although I'm not 100% sure whether it should be counted as one earthquake or two shocks of it. Brandmeistertalk 09:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved to plural: 2013 Dingxi earthquakes. -Zanhe (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Casualties are in line with the types of earthquakes that we normally post. Article isn't ready just yet, however - it consists mostly of a series of one-sentence sections and some unclear wording. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Expanded a bit, still working on it. -Zanhe (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Still needs some work, but almost there. It looks miles better than it did yesterday. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as per Bongwarrior. The BBC at least are considering one of the aftershocks as sufficiently major to use the term "earthquakes" rather than "earthquake". --LukeSurl t c 09:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article is still pretty thin. Not a whole lot on the damage and relief efforts yet. Jusdafax 10:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - much better article now. Still needs some expanding, but the posting admin will make the final call. Jusdafax 21:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article still needs a lot of TLC. 2013_Dingxi_earthquakes#Effects needs coherent paragraphs and 2013_Dingxi_earthquakes#Relief_efforts definitely needs copyediting. As it reads now it looks like a non-native speaker of English wrote it. SpencerT♦C 22:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I've rewritten and expanded the whole article. Should be ready now. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 Wellington EarthquakeEdit

No consensus to post. KING RETROLORD 06:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 Wellington earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A series of earthquakes culminates in a 6.5 magnitude earthquake near Wellington, the capital of New Zealand.
News source(s): BBC, NBC News
Nominator's comments: 6.5 quakes aren't common, and this is a few years after the Christchurch one that did cause a lot more damage. --MASEM (t) 00:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There have been 11 quakes of 7.0 or greater so are this year, and 74 between 6.0 and 6.9. So, I'd guess around 30 of 6.5 or greater this year. There doesn't appear to be anything to make this one worth posting at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose thank God as no fatalities and routine for the island, of no lasting or encyclopedic import, maybe DYK. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fortunately no major damage or injury so it is not worth being posted. The deadly China earthquake that just occurred, on the contrary, should be considered. Jeanluc20 (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    The China earthquake is probably a shoo-in whenever the article is ready. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was quite a jolt (certainly gave me a fright when I saw the walls of the house swaying!), but the damage doesn't seem too bad and thankfully nobody has been killed. As Thaddeus said, earthquakes like this are nothing new here; we're used to them. Neljack (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ThaddeusB SeraV (talk) 06:43, 22 July 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.

July 21Edit


[Closed] French riotsEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 02:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 Trappes riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​20 cars burned in riots in a Paris suburb
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, RT, VoA
 --Երևանցի talk 00:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Relatively minor property damage; doesn't seem to be any significant casualties. No evidence of widespread coverage of this event. 331dot (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wait summer riots in Paris are de rigeur. Against riots in free countries normally, but this is an interesting topic if something comes of it. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless this gets quite bit worse. SeraV (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think more people were injured and more cars burnt during the Nauru asylum seeker riots. YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Notable enough for an article but not an ITN listing at present. However, if things continue to escalate I'll be prepared to reassess. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 23 July 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] 2013 El Mordisco AttackEdit

'Article: 2013 Colombian clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: 
​17 government soldiers are killed in a attack by FARC revolutionaries in the Colombian department of Arauca.
Alternative blurb: Clashes between the Colombian government and FARC rebels kills 19 soldiers and 6 FARC combatants.
News source(s): [22]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A major attack while peace talks are going on between the government of Columbia and the organization in Cuba. No article that I know of yet, which is surprising, but notable nevertheless and when was the last time we posted anything from there? Secret account 00:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. We shouldn't post something from Columbia just for the sake of doing so. This seems like par for the course for that ongoing conflict- though attacks during peace negotiations are unusual. Would prefer an article to evaluate before stating my final opinion. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I was surprised when I saw this as a top story in The New York Times and BBC because, I and probably most others interested in current affairs thought that FARC relevancy ended with Alfonso Cano death and the aforementioned peace talks, as there was hardly any major news about the subject. The Colombian-FARC conflict has a bloody history that took hundreds of thousands of lives, forced more than a million others into exile, a major impact in the global drug trade and so forth during a 50 year span, thus an attack like this during peace talks to happen will likely has serious consequences for the entire region. Secret account 01:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I created an article and the incident(s) seem to be significant, so Support, if expanded by someone else. By the way, it looks like there were 2 clashes one on the 20th and one (presumably in the south) on the 21st (in the east). --Երևանցի talk 01:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if this gets proper article, this will certainly not help peace negotiations there. Bbc reports now that on that attack which the blurb is about only 15 soldiers died, and 4 on that second attack. SeraV (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • comment pretty sure this is colOmbia (south america) not colUmbia (new york) so changing the blurb spelling (it was to a disambiguation page previously anyway). EdwardLane (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support due to potential impact on the peace process and because it is the deadliest attack since peace talks began. Article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unsupported I am not really against this, but the conflict is reaching its 50th year, and as recently as 2010 almost 500 dead in a year was not uncommon. I'd rather we wait till the guns are laid down than post an incremental update. Notice we have pretty much stopped reporting even bigger attacks in Iraq. μηδείς (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Such attacks happen almost daily in Iraq. Death toll isn't everything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Tour de France ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2013 Tour de France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cycling, Chris Froome wins the 2013 Tour de France
Alternative blurb: ​The 100th Tour de France concludes with Chris Froome of Team Sky winning the general classification.
News source(s): BBC live updates

Article needs updating

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

 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Open ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2013 Open Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Phil Mickelson wins the 2013 Open Championship at Muirfield

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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, All articles are updated.HotHat (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    The update needs to be more substantial, either in the Phil Mickelson article or the 2013 Open Championship article. The latter could be updated by expanding the Final round section to about the length (or something close to the length) of the First round section. -- tariqabjotu 19:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as an ITN/R event as well as one of the four major golf tournaments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated - the article is now updated and presumably ready for posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Japanese House of Councillors electionEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:01, 27 July 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: Japanese House of Councillors election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Liberal Democratic Party-led coalition win the House of Councillors election in Japan, thereby controlling both houses of parliament.

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The divided (or "twisted") parliament in Japan that started in 2007 ends after this election. --–HTD 15:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This election is not actually on ITNR, so I've removed that note. ITNR covers general elections, which this isn't - this is an election to one-half of the upper house of a legislature. As for whether it should go up, I'm not sure: IIRC, we don't normally put up even U.S. House or Senate elections, unless there's something rather notable about it. In this case, it's looking very likely that the LDP will finally reclaim control of both houses of the legislature in Japan, which does mark it above the ordinary. I reserve judgement till I see more debate here. Redverton (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, the last US congressional elections weren't posted because (gasp!) they weren't updated, or the presidential election drowned out everything else. –HTD 15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an election to, as Redverton stated, "one-half of the upper house of a legislature". Notable, yes, but, worthy of inclusion on ITN versus some other stories, no. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • FWIW, the nomination for the French Senate election, 2011 was support wholeheartedly (at least by those who cared to comment), only that it wasn't updated in time. A quick read shows that the Japanese upper house has approximately the same powers as its French counterpart, if not a little bit more powerful. –HTD 15:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this body was more like the United States Senate, I might support, but this body can be overruled by the lower chamber of the Diet, meaning their powers are limited. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 July 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 King of the BelgiansEdit

Article: Philippe of Belgium (talk, history)
Blurb: Philippe becomes King of the Belgians.
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Significant event for the history of this small European country. Hektor (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. A change in head of state is ITNR. Like the abdication of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, we posted both the announcement and the actual change. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot, article needs moving to a new title though - Phillipe I of Belgium? Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, related article is in good shape, so it should be posted soon.Egeymi (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We posted the same story about two weeks ago, when it was announced. Formerip (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you sure? I don't see an ITN tag on the talk page. SpencerT♦C 19:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • We most certainly did. The article that was posted was Albert II of Belgium. It was missing an ITN tag, so I've added it. -- tariqabjotu 19:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • As I stated, we posted both the announcement and actual abdication of Beatrix. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. This only follows the precedent of posting the change on the Dutch throne.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. --LukeSurl t c 20:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot - hey, I may be the third person in a row to, but it's a solid argument. Redverton (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really. Are we saying that we are now going to post every change of head of state twice, once for the announcement and once for the coronation, inauguration or whatever? Formerip (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
For royal abdications, sure, seems sensible as both make the news (one's a shock, the other's a big fancy ceremony). Despite recent trends they really aren't that common. Ol' Lizzie is gunna cling to that throne with every scrap of strength she's got left for one. --LukeSurl t c 22:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that posting the announcement of an abdication should be weighed on its merits; the actual change in head of state is ITNR regardless. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, when one thinks about, we often do post both the announcement and the coronation/inauguration, etc., since many heads of state are elected. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe we post inaugurations of elected heads of state(as a rule at least); we did not post President Obama's inauguration this year. In those cases, the election represents the change in head of state. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, there has been a strong consensus against posting inaugurations of elected rulers. Given that, I find it quite bizarre that we seem quite willing to post the change of power twice in monarchy situations. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with ThaddeusB, these really shouldn't be posted twice. SeraV (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It is more unusual for a hereditary ruler to voluntarily give up their throne than an elected leader losing their office(which happens by design). As I said above, announcements of monarchs voluntarily stepping down should be judged on their merits separate from the actual event, for this reason(which I think is why it was done with Beatrix and even the Pope). 331dot (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
There is truth in your argument, I admit. And well these really don't happen that often. SeraV (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 22:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 20Edit


[Posted] RD: Mel SmithEdit

Article: Mel Smith (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Significant figure in British comedy from the 1980s onwards. He was one of the four cast members of Not the Nine O'clock News, the most influential satirical comedy show of the 1980s. He followed this with Alas Smith and Jones, which ran for over 14 years on primetime BBC television. He was a director of films and stage plays and co-founded one of the first British independent production companies, Talkback, which became a prolific producer of British comedy programmes. His death from a heart attack at 60 is quite unexpected. Bob talk 16:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. A very prominent person in British comedy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Awards? Honors? Influence? I'm not seeing sufficient significance to meet any of the death criteria. And "expectancy" of death is not a qualifier or disqualifier. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose very prominent comedian but most likely not meeting the RD criteria because of lack of awards and international prominence. A shame as his death is quite a shock and having seen him on my telly box for 20 years, I think he'd make an ideal RD candidate, particularly after the Glee character waltzed it. But hey, this is Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
That Glee character was cute enough to pass for someone half his age. I wouldn't let the sister I hate date this Mel guy. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I did miss the "dateability" criterion for RDs that obviously swung the Glee nom. Mel was funny and had a 30-year career, Glee-guy had one role for three seasons, presumably Tariq must post this based on that alone? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
That's the "date the sister you hate" criterion to be clear. I didn't vote for the Glee guy, he was posted before I had a chance to vote against him. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I get it. I guess it depends on Tariq's mood, whether or not this gets posted (although it has more support that I could ever have imagined). The Rambling Man (talk)
Oh, so you're jumping on an opportunity to be obnoxious, are you? (And it looks like you have company.) At the time of posting, the death of Cory Monteith clearly had consensus, as people felt the prominence of the story in the news outweighed the breadth of his contributions. You could discover that the article on him was the most-read on Wikipedia this week, so perhaps they were on to something. But I suspect we'll continue to see you [and others] needlessly whining about this story, believing that I posted the story because of what I felt about the contributions of the individual or what I wanted to do, rather than what the sum of commenters at that point felt about the prominence of the story. It's petty enough to bring up Monteith in nominations that aren't comparable, but it's just low for you to then proceed to attack me personally. -- tariqabjotu 00:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Like this is relevant, so he was popular? That does not mean that he was important enough to post according the criteria that we should all use to post these. Actors are almost by definition popular, luckily popularity is not part of the criteria here, nor should it. You should just admit already that you made a mistake there. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no mistake to admit. I explained the matter a number of times there; among 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 yet some people still seem to think I should have discounted supports because they didn't agree with the claims of notability or didn't agree that the prominence of the story regarding his death mattered. There is simply no purpose to beating this dead horse. -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course, well are you posting these two then (Mel Smith and Helen Thomas)? After all "recent death space is free" which is enough for you apparently already, and these have lot's of support as well. I admit that my support was a bit obnoxious too here, but it is also true, he really is quite famous and important comedian. Also that part of the rules you keep quoting is not relevant here, since dead people must meet 1 of the 3 criterias. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That Tariq comment came out of the blue, I was not expecting this turn and didn't realize it was Tariq who had posted Monteith, nor do I think he was wrong to. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Systemic bias alive is alive and kicking! If posting admins are entitled to ignore the criteria for posting RDs, little hope remains. Sob. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't look lke systemic bias to me. This looks like User:Tariqabjotu bias. Once again I have very grave doubts about his suitability as the ITN gatekeeper, with specific regards to his statements in recent days and the tone above. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I like trucking, I like trucking, I like trucking and I like to truck. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support On the edge of notability for RD, I suppose, but coverage around the world and let's not forget that bloke from Glee. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Started career with Rowan Atkinson and while overshadowed by him still had an huge and succesfull career. Very important british comedian. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Article/update needs work - there are a half dozen or so [citation needed] tags and the update is only 1 sentence long. Both will need addressed before I can consider supporting. Also, most of the supports are utterly unconvincing - please explain why you think he is sufficiently important on his own merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've tidied it up, referencing what can easily be sourced and removing unsourced and irrelevant trivia. I'llput some reactions to his death in later if no-one else does. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A very significant person in British commedy. --Bruzaholm (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "Significant" how? As far as I can tell, he was on a couple of successful shows, but that's it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Boooyeaah well known in the UK. --85.210.109.89 (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This isn't UKpedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Objections relating to an event or person being from a single country are not valid. This doesn't have to be UKpedia. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • What a hilarious hypocrite Muboshgu is considering his below nomination. Just hilarious. --85.210.109.89 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Being well known, no matter in how many countries, doesn't satisfy the death criteria. And has nothing to do with the nomination I made. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
            • How well known someone is is an indication of notability in their field. It's not the only factor, but it is there. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. If we posted the actor from Glee we can surely post this one who had a longer career and was probably more well known. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I thought it was Mel Smith who passed away, otherwise I would had put more weight to the support. Same reason as the others, if we let this Glee guy in (and who is he), then we may as well let him in since he is a prominent name in British comedy. Donnie Park (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • If you click on the YouTube link just below, about half a minute in or something, you will see that the Glee guy is Mel Smith's comedy partner. Thank you Tim. Formerip (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • One mistake doesn't justify another. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9km3-fWJ7sg Nestrs (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if the only justification for posting is the "the Glee guy" was posted, then there apparently is no justification for posting. Whether one agrees with the posting of Monteith or not, the situations are not obviously comparable. As an admin, I would give little to no weight to most of the support votes - please make a case based on Mr. Smith's merits if you want this posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough but you should also oppose then based on his merits or lack of them, there is no real reason to oppose in your post. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
My oppose is based on the lack of demonstrated importance. It is not my responsibility to prove there is insufficient notability, but rather the responsibility of supports to prove there is sufficient notability. So far, few have even tried. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Your responsibility is to read his article I am fairly certain. Not just read what people say here. If you have read that and still oppose, fair enough. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, nothing I have read - in the article, in the news, or here - convinces me. I don't see any significant awards, and no one has really attempted to argue for exceptional coverage or cultural impact. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Neljack (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There is some consensus (even after discounting most of the supports which are either OMG Glee was posted this should be to or YouTube links with no evidence of importance) to post as RD has a slightly lower threshold plus there is a free space, but where is the update? Secret account 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. Has he won any honors/awards in recognition of his importance in the field? Not really, at least according to the article as it's currently written. SpencerT♦C 05:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant writer in two comedy shows still respected today, director and producer, helped set up significantly large (and successful) production company TalkBack. Only one flop that I can think of ("Morons from Outer Space"). doktorb wordsdeeds 07:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the guy did actually seem to have some accomplishments beyond his recognizable looks: lead in two shows, owned production company. Just needs two sentence update to go, μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We're starting to get really low on the actor notability meter here. fwiw I'd have opposed the Glee one as well. Wizardman 16:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per doktorb. Three other thoughts.
Firstly, someone having received awards should count somewhat to showing that they were rated highly in their field but the lack of awards should not normally count against them. In the Helen Thomas discussion it says "Orson Welles never won an Oscar for directing. Mark Twain never won a Nobel Prize. F. Scott Fitzgerald never won a Pulitzer for fiction", awards can be made for seemingly capricious reasons and so someone who is significant can miss out. So I don't think that a lack of awards should count against Mel Smith, nor against Cory Monteith. [As an aside. I think that a lack of awards might count against Helen Thomas as she had retired & was old. Organisations tend to give give lifetime achievement awards to people who are believed to have missed out on 'proper' awards.]
Secondly, the reason that he is know to many people only from two programmes from a long time ago is because he has subsequently done a lot of non-screen work. He (and Rhys Jones) made Talkback into a company worth GBP62 million.
Thirdly, the comparison with Cory Monteith has some validity but there is an element of apples and oranges here. Monteith's fame amongst the general populace is currently high because Glee is currently on air and to honestly compare against that you have to think about Smith dying whilst Alas Smith and Jones was at the height of its popularity. I cannot find any figures but it was very popular when originally broadcast.
FerdinandFrog (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
But the Glee guy was so popular that it simply had to be posted, regardless of the fact it failed to meet any of the RD criteria. Actual facts and adherence to criteria didn't get in the way of that ITN posting, apparently short-lived popular American TV stars have a free pass. Maybe we should add it to ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It's been a long established, unwritten, principle at ITN that with deaths if the person who died is young and in the middle of their career we can lower the threshold of notability. Thus it's simply not an apt comparison and really isn't helping along this nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
So Wikipedia is working at the level of a tabloid newspaper? I thought we were better than that. Clearly I was wrong. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hah! I have worked at a tabloid newspaper. This is more like a low-scale chimp-typist civil war. μηδείς (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Request Can an admin other than User:Tariqabjotu look at this please? doktorb wordsdeeds 20:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd post it right now, but I've already commented on it. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated technically, but with "found dead" and "nice guy" comments, not "groundsbreaking" comments. I am not sure why Tariq should neither post nor give his reservations if he wants. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm strongly against the criticism of Tariq that's been going on in this thread and elsewhere. To comment specifically: 1. As far as I can remember, he never posts without considering the ITN criteria. As far as I can remember he always posts with a detailed rationale and carefully considers both criteria and ITN consensus (which can at times overrule ITN guidelines). 2. He is not a 'gatekeeper'. He is one of 7 admins who has edited the ITN template only in the last two days, and one of many more in recent history and several admins are active on this particular nomination. 3. Several admins besides Tariq have already expressed reservations about this nom or opposed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That comment belongs on the talk page, not here. This thread is not about Tariq. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready marked ready given 2 to 1 support. Yes some of the votes are "monteith", but the nom did have two leads in series (compare Jack Klugman) and was cofounder largest comedy production busines in Britain. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted though after Thomas as his death happened a day prior to her. Secret account 00:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Helen ThomasEdit

Article: Helen Thomas (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, NY Times, BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Long-time dean of the White House Press Corps, covered ten different presidents, was given the seat front row center. "she broke some barriers by becoming the first female president of the prestigious White House Correspondents' Association and Washington's Gridiron Club.", "considered a pioneer for women in journalism." – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support I came here with the intention of nominating this. I actually think she is notable enough to justify an entry in the main section rather than just RD. For decades she was present at nearly every presidential press conference, and often got to ask questions. Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, when she became the senior wire reporter in the perss corps, she got to ask the first question at every briefing. Until she left UPI for Hearst in 2000. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support There is a couple of uncited lines near the top, but otherwise the article is in very good shape. Miyagawa (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. –Randor1980TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 15:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Update needs work - update consists of one sentence at current. That is insufficient for ITN purposes. Otherwise, article looks good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support seems to be a very prominent person in US political journalism. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support I don't see the BBC using terms like "pioneer" without justification. Just because I'm not completely commensurate with her impact (because I'm outside the US), it shouldn't stop me supporting the nomination, albeit mildly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose she had mild notoriety as a curmudgeon who occasionally insulted a president and for her rabid anti-semitism. She was certainly nowhere near the top of any field--just recognizable when occasionally seen on TV. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support according to her wiki page there were at some point anyway journalist awards given in her name, and with career that spanned 60 years I think she certainly qualifies. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a first rate example of the press glamorizing one of its former members. Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
support came here for this and her controversy (let alone career as the longest WH correspondent) was recent.(Lihaas (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)).
Are you saying her anti-semitism is a reason to support her nomination? μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Who ever said she's anti-Semetic? She was Semetic. She was anti-Zionist. What does any of this have to do with her accomplishments, anyway? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you Lihaas? Did you just answer why the controversy surrounding her would be a reason to post according to Lihaas? μηδείς (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Widely recognized by other journalists and some of the Presidents she questioned as significant in her field. [23] 331dot (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
So widely recognized for her work she never won a Pulitzer Prize. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Specific awards, while a consideration, are not the be-all end-all in making someone notable. She has won awards. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware she won other awards. But she didn't win the award that matters most in her field. The fact is she isn't Woodward and Bernstien -- she never broke any major stories. Or actual journalism as it is called. Hot Stop talk-contribs
Orson Welles never won an Oscar for directing. Mark Twain never won a Nobel Prize. F. Scott Fitzgerald never won a Pulitzer for fiction. This really isn't a winning argument. Gamaliel (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Orson Welles didn't sit in the White House press room a few times a year as the president spoke and insult him Rumplestiltskin-like either. It's rather unclear what her not winning a prize for her investigative journalism or brilliant writing says in her favor. What field does her not winning prizes put her at the top of? μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She certainly qualifies, but the article is appalling and should not be linked to the main page. For someone who had a 60-year career and reached the top of her profession, far too much coverage is given to the supposedly controversial comments she retired over. The article is 3,800 words long and less than half of those words are not about that incident. Formerip (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I trimmed it some, since it was a little too much, but I don't know that any more should be cut, as it was a major controversy that led directly to her leaving the press corps. Even if it is still too long, I don't think that it's so bad that it shouldn't go up on the front page, and I hope you reconsider your !vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • It's directly relevant to the nomination. Helen Thomas was basically the bugaboo of the press corps from the time of the Carter administration. She was much better known for "there goes Helen Thomas again" moments except to a small cadre of admirers who enjoyed her rude, and finally career-ending antics. She sometimes was the story, but she didn't break any. She was certainly not an important journalist in the sense of Woodward and Bernstein or even Andrew Breitbart. If she's posted it will be as a celebrity along the lines of (but much less notable to the average American than) Mel Smith, not as a professional newswoman. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I know nothing about her except what I have read in the article, so I'm not denying the relevance to the nomination or her article. But there is no way that a two-minute conversation can merit taking up half of her bio, given that she was in the public spotlight for sixty years. It's just an embarrassing collision of WP:RECENT and WP:POVPUSH. Formerip (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I would say the problem is not the amount of material about the incident, but rather the limited description of the rest of her career. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Longtime questioner of presidents with a notable career. Early female journalist and iconoclastic reporter. Certainly worthy of an RD mention on ITN. Article shortcomings exist but do not justify an oppose, in my view. Jusdafax 22:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's clearly not certain what is the specific field she was famous and respected in. If she was so because of the longevity of her career and the fact she served ten US presidents, then it would have surely made her much more notable and influential. We cannot simply post her death because of the records for being the "first female in something paltry". Please first resolve these issues and explain what are the things that she influenced in the US politics or anything else in the world before to convince me vote the opposite.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, she held no political position. She sat in the White House press room as a journalist and usually placed one question per conference to either the president or, more usually, his press secretary. This is what Sam Donaldson is known for having done, if you are familiar with him. She then wrote a weekly column or more when news warranted it. She was much more famous for occasionally asking presidents hostile and loaded questions than anything she ever wrote, and she had no effect on political developments. μηδείς (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up, but it doesn't seem something important either.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. An institution. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The quotes in the article (from figures ranging from Fidel Castro to Dana Perino, as well as various journalists and news articles) would seems to establish that she "was widely regarded as a very important figure in her field". I would, however, like to see the sections in her article on the controversial comments further trimmed, per WP:Undue. Neljack (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (preferably blurb) or RD, you can easily argue that Thomas was probably the most influential female journalist in history. Being a political reporter at a time that it was a field fully dominated by men and female journalists mostly were regulated to the gossip or society pages is groundbreaking (Another candidate for "most influential" Katherine Graham was a publisher). Secret account 02:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Ignoring the imbalanced weight of the article, the update on the death itself seems like it could be better. -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: As mentioned by Tariq, the article is horribly imbalanced. The infobox says that her "years active" was 1943–2013, yet it seems that over 90% of the text written about her career is about events after 2000. SpencerT♦C 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    As mentioned by Tariq... Well, a lot of people have mentioned that; I was just repeating. -- tariqabjotu 05:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Update I've trimmed the Playboy interview section, which was just three paragraphs on her talking about the Palestine comment. I've added a bunch more for her earlier career as well, so hopefully it's a little less slanted towards the more recent events. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not perfect, of course, but that definitely seems to help. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. It's not perfect indeed, but it's not terrible either. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I can't believe that there's any debate about this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Highly important in her field. --LukeSurl t c 15:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 15:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Costa Concordia trialEdit

No consensus to post doktorb wordsdeeds 23:06, 23 July 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: Costa Concordia disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Five people are found guilty for manslaughter over the Costa Concordia disaster.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It appears that the judgement is of very big importance for the whole trial that was opened to investigate the disaster. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the original disaster; the manslaughter convictions afterward aren't as important. SpencerT♦C 16:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on this quote in the BBC News article, "Prosecutor Francesco Verusio told reporters that Capt Schettino's trial was the most important.". When even the prosecutors talk about this being minor it really isn't that significant. Possibly this might be covered in the blurb when the verdict on the Captain happens (trial due to resume in September). Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose These are the small fish in this case, according to that bbc article they agreed to plea pargain and are even unlikely to ever sit on a jail. Now when Captain of that ship is sentenced I think we should report that whatever the result might be. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Only a conviction of the Captain should be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I can't say I really care about the nomination, but I have to say I am surprised a conviction on manslaughter in this case isn't going up, regardless of whether it's the captain scapegoated in the press. This is a major conviction in an historic shipwreck case. μηδείς (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a conviction, yes, but the prosecutors, victims groups and media all say that it's minor. About half the BBC article is not about this conviction but about the Captain's trial. Thryduulf (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't warrant posting. KING RETROLORD 09:41, 22 July 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.

July 19Edit


[Closed] Asylum in AustraliaEdit

No consensus to post. However, this looks like it would meet DYK criteria and would provide an interesting hook as well. SpencerT♦C 15:17, 22 July 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: Asylum in Australia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announces that Australia will no longer grant asylum to anyone arriving in the country without a visa.
News source(s): Ny Times

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The New York Times remarks "No issue looms larger over Australian politics than how to deal with asylum seekers". I'm not sure that is 100% true, but it certainly is a very important issue for the country as thousands of people try to get asylum by coming via boat (and hundreds die in the process) each year. The new policy effectively ends asylum the these refugees, and so is a major development in this highly important issue. Story is drawing a lot of international coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There's been a strong consensus in the past against posting policy announcements. I could see posting the Australian government firing on boats or one sinking, as that would be an historic incident. But a policy announcement is basically a something that hasn't happened yet. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    As a side note, these boats sink all the time, so that wouldn't qualify at ITN either. Unless it was absolutely huge, the current record is 300+ deaths from memory. RetroLord 04:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Simple policy change; if as Medeis says it results in something tragic (or was in response to a specific tragic incident) then we might have something. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Australia has a federal election coming up, possibly within weeks. This is part of the election campaign. If the current opposition wins (a strong probability), something different will happen. If the government wins, something different could happen. (Ever seen a politician break a promise?) Wait to see what really happens. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fortunately, the circus known as Australian asylum seeker policy isn't notable enough for ITN. This is about our 200th policy in 10 years. RetroLord 03:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • On the plus side, the article (which surprisingly didn't exist before yesterday) is evolving quite nicely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe the policy change is significant and agree with ThaddeusB that the article is now Main page material. With all due respect to opposers, including resident HiLo48, I feel this is a very good time to put up an article about "Down Under." Jusdafax 10:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Navalny freedEdit

Duplicate nomination, no comments for 4 days. Modest Genius talk 17:01, 23 July 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: Alexey Navalny (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny released after being held in custody for one day.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, LA Times

Article needs updating
 --Երևանցի talk 17:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
So what should we have in the news for Navalny? Leave it as it is, no update? --Երևանցի talk 18:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's been removed, there's nothing much to report right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
OK --Երևանցի talk 18:33, 19 July 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] RD: Bert TrautmannEdit

Article: Bert Trautmann (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eurosport

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Not many sportspeople can claim to have been a Nazi paratrooper, then play as a goalkeeper for Manchester CIty, in an FA Cup Final with a broken neckThe Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • SupportFeatured article, very nice, but doesn't have anything about his death? RetroLord 12:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    Three sentences in the Personal life section, all referenced, more to come as it filters through. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    Changed to support, RetroLord 13:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Typically I wouldn't be sure, but the very high article quality describing his life and career is to me a solid example of the type of content we should encourage at RD. SpencerT♦C 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - significant player and influence in post-war relations between the British and Germans. Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a ManU legend --Երևանցի talk 18:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
haha yes --Երևանցի talk 18:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb "Captured decorated Nazi converted to soccer superman who won British final with broken neck dies"? μηδείς (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Perfect summation to us Brits who hold him in such high and unique esteem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This was an appalling discussion for a global encyclopaedia. The sport this guy played wasn't mentioned until the very end. We have to stop writing as if the audience already knows what we're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, after all, you obviously couldn't have clicked on the link: Bert Trautmann (or the link in the nomination comments) and discovered all this to be true? The "audience" seldom gets involved in this cess pit, what's your real issue here? RD means his name gets put up in lights, nothing more.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh come off the grass. Simple question. Why didn't the blurb, or the title, or the nominator's comment, name the sport? HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Because I guess the sources provided covered that issue? There is no blurb (it's RD), there is no title (it's RD) and the comment was linked to sources describing his legendary status. Did you actually read the nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I did, and it didn't name the sport. My goal here is simply to raise the standard of discussion. We are a global encyclopaedia. We must write for all of our audience. I wouldn't write about an Australian footballer without naming the sport. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I think you've confused "audience" with "editors"! The article the audience reads is a featured one, which is clear about the nature of Bert's prominence. Here, as editors, we expect a level of competence which means internal and external links provides sufficient background. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
              • I say again, with a minor clarification, I wouldn't write on this page about an Australian footballer without naming the sport. Makes it easier for everybody. Just trying to make it all work better :-) HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

July 18Edit


[Posted] PandoravirusEdit

Article: Pandoravirus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Researchers announce the discovery of Pandoravirus, a new type of giant virus with a genome twice as large as any previously known virus.
Alternative blurb: ​Researchers announce the discovery of Pandoravirus, a giant virus with a genome twice as large as any previously known.
News source(s): Science, NPR, New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Important discovery, this organism is very different from anything previously known and appears to be distributed worldwide. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support based on very radical difference from any known life form. μηδείς (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd like the article to explain how it is radically different before supporting. In fact, I'd like the article to be expanded quite a bit. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The article needs only three paragraphs to be eligible as a new article for ITN, which it meets. The organism is reported the largest known virus, apparently with hundreds of genes, while the average virus has less than a dozen. See National Geographic delaying this until there's a huge corpus on this will only mean guaranteeing the nomination goes stale. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The article should state these facts, no? Abductive (reasoning) 01:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
          • It does to some point. (It was edited more recently than your first question). I am leery of adding side material that may be seen as clarificatory by some and fluff by others. I suppose the judgment to be made is, how much do we need to spoonfeed the layman. I think the nominator would be a better judge of that than me. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
            • There's a difficult conflict here. Normally the rule we follow in scientific articles is to avoid "recentism" -- to not use information until it has been thoroughly reviewed by the field. But if we followed that rule rigorously, we would never be able to have news stories about science. On the other hand, churning out a long and detailed article about something on the very day its discovery is reported doesn't seem right either. My view is that the best approach is to report the discovery with a short article, and then gradually expand the article as the information solidifies. Looie496 (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Also, it would be bad to use any superlatives put out by the scientists themselves. For example, "radically different" is pure hype and scientifically meaningless. Best to stick to the facts. Abductive (reasoning) 04:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                • "Radically different" was my choice of words in my support comment here. But do feel free to blame the scientists for putting the phrase in the blurb if it helps. Looie has given the proper opinion on not padding out articles on new discoveries. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting now that the article is in better shape. Abductive (reasoning) 05:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I have paraphrased Looie again, and added a slightly more concise alblurb. :) μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before posting anything based on a research paper we need, as a bare minimum, quotes from experts independent of the research expressing general credulity and a sense of awe within the field. That's as a bare minimum. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The paper was peer reviewed, which indicates it has been credited by its peers. Credulity is not the word you mean to use here, FormerIP; it means something else. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No I mean credulity. Have they discovered a giant virus or is it, as suggested in passing by one of the news articles, possibly a small bacterium?
Pandoravirus is a closer match to the amoebas they infect. (See page 11.) Abductive (reasoning) 03:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Peer review gives us some degree of confidence that the research is sound (although, even in that case, consider Andrew Wakefield). It doesn't tell us anything about whether the the findings and proposals of the authors are important or uncontroversial. Formerip (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Credulity means gullibility--being likely to believe nonsense. I highly doubt that's a quality you are looking for to show the nomination is well-supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, Nature opines that it might well be important. That holds more weight than Science clapping itself on the back. As you may have noticed, I generally am not a fan of hyped-up science news stories. But this has a chance of being a new Domain. So, if this doesn't get posted but crap about a new frog species does, it just makes ITN look bad. Abductive (reasoning) 20:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you meant to link to Nature, but you linked to Science.
My bad, here is the Nature link. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Posting any science story without exposing it to basic rigour makes ITN look bad. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course, but my argument is based on what could not be better secondary commentary for this sort of story at such short notice. Abductive (reasoning) 01:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a legitimate point, but I think the New York Times story addresses it. A New York Times story is itself a mark of importance, because their science writers have expertise in the topics they write about, but also the NYT story includes quotes from two independent experts in the field. I don't think those quotes belong in our article, but they are useful in supporting the importance of the story. ("Dr. Embley and other researchers hail pandoraviruses as an important discovery. 'I think it’s wonderful that such crazy and divergent lifeforms continue to be discovered,' said Tom Williams, Dr. Embley’s colleague at Newcastle University.") Looie496 (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
An article in the NYT proves that a story is in some sense newsworthy, not that it reaches the threshold for ITN. The BBC wesbite doesn't seem to be covering this at all (although they have published a number of science stories today).
And you're selectively quoting. Williams quote basically says "neat" rather than "groundbreaking" in any case, but paired with the other quote ("They provide no evidence for that notion, so it seems a distraction to me"), I don't think the case is at all made. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A rare and potentially very important discovery. (Coverage + potential importance is all we can expect for ITN - proven importance is not possible in a "news" setting.) The NYT article and discussion above are sufficient to prove to me that we should be covering this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Snow LineEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Articles: Snow line (astronomy) (talk, history) and TW Hydrae (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists discover the first carbon monoxide Snow line in TW Hydrae.
News source(s): Latinos Post Space International Business Times Nature World News

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: Scientists have discovered the first carbon monoxide Snow Line. I think this is pretty big because it is the first one discovered. Andise1 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It's difficult to tell whether this is important. All of the cited sources (and every other source I can find) are taken directly from a press release or from interviews with the authors of the paper. As far as I can tell, there are no stories with critical evaluation from outsiders, which is the mark of a reliable science story. I would like to see stories from good science outlets such as the BBC, New York Times, or Scientific American before I would consider supporting this. Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The news here seems to be that this is the first time, according to the source, such a snow line has been "imaged" (not sure how that's different from detected). But it's certainly not unexpected. It seems a bit too incremental for an ITN lead, better for a portal. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hun? Isn't it self-evident that at some "line" the temperature is low enough for this to occur? What exactly is supposed to be significant here? I am struggling to see any significant within astronomy, let alone why this would be of any interest to a general reader. If there is some reason to post this, please explain. However, there are literally hundreds of "first ever" discoveries every day - every scientific paper that is not in direct response to another is in principle reporting the discovery of something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to lack of significance. Even within astronomy, this has caused no story whatsoever. It's a minor advance, nothing more. There isn't even any particular importance to the CO snow line, except that CO is relatively easy to observe.. Certainly not enough for ITN. Modest Genius talk 17:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Minor scientific advancements don't warrant ITN posts. KING RETROLORD 09:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Detroit BankruptcyEdit

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​The government of the city of Detroit files for the largest municipal bankruptcy in US history
News source(s): NBC News, CNNMoney, BBC News, Business Insider Australia, Montreal Gazette, Le Monde

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: I dont have time right now for proper nomination but quickly wanted to add this. As i believe this will end up going on ITN... discuss away! ---- Ashish-g55 20:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - definitly for ITN, an entire city going bankrupt.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but would need to see an article and blurb first. Headline story on CNN.com right now. Also on the front of the BBC's page (the main page, not the US section). As I understand it, the bankruptcy is the largest Chapter 9 one by far. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose ...without much further justification. Companies go bankrupt every day. What exactly is going bankrupt here? HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, just an entire city of hundreds of thousands of people. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That sounds impressive, but what does it mean to anybody? How does it affect the residents? The property owners? The businesses? Who DOES it affect? A city going bankrupt isn't something that happens where I come from. It's really not obvious to me what this really means. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • It will affect the city's creditors, the city's services, and most especially the city's retirees and employees (pensions, wages, and benefits are usually some of the first things to see deep cuts in bankruptcy.) It will affect the city's credit rating, meaning that it will have to charge higher interest in bond issues, leaving less money for future projects and operating costs. It may well scupper some long-term projects, although that's unlikely (the alternative without declaring bankruptcy was probably abandoning them anyway). And so on. Also, I do believe this is the largest municipal bankruptcy in the US ever (the next largest Stockton, California, about half Detroit's size). Lockesdonkey (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty major city going under, and the largest in the U.S. to file for bankruptcy. It's RoboCop coming to life, without the RoboCop to save us. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Largest municipal bankruptcy in American history, with large numbers of creditors and residents effected by the declaration. Hello32020 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A truly peculiar story. Once the fourth largest US city, then desolate and now even bankrupt. --hydrox (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not to mention its loss of featured status this year. Poor Detroit. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly something that we should report, i do think this needs it's own article however. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question what is the precise legal entity that has filed for bankruptcy? I would assume we probably have an article on that. --LukeSurl t c 22:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
That seems like an ideal target article. It has some minor issues I will work on. I have moved it to the simpler Detroit bankruptcy and created the redirect bankruptcy of Detroit. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready the target article has been updated and referenced and the bare url tag removed. This is quite well pdated and supported at this point. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    I would disagree. The body of the article talks about what led to Detroit's bankruptcy, but it doesn't actually talk about the filing itself; the Bankruptcy Filing section is rather slim at the moment. (P.S. I notice this is the second time you've used double brackets rather than single brackets in the header around "Ready".) -- tariqabjotu 03:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to fix the brackets issue if it happens again. The nominated article will be stale if we wait for bunches of technical details--one reason for ITN is to get such improvements from interested readers. It is well referenced, relevant, updated, and the nomination is hugely supported. There's no need to start adding new requirements on top of ITN noms. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Insisting that a target article include information about the actual event up for nomination is not "adding new requirements"; those are the requirements. That being said, Hello32020 (talk · contribs) was kind enough to provide the required update in the time since my comment here. -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question What did we actually post here? A big city going bankrupt? The biggest? (We don't often post records, because they can be broken.) A famous city? As somebody asked above, what actually went bankrupt? I'm pretty sure this couldn't happen in my country. Is this something that could only happen in the USA? I'm still really unclear on what this is all about. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Please read Lockesdonkey's post above, he explained it pretty well. Any government anywhere can go bankrupt if their debt exceeds their ability to pay it; Greece would have if not for being bailed out. (The US federal govt. said they would not bail out Detroit) If the government has no money to function, it cannot do so. This event is also representative of the decline of a major city in the world at one point (Detroit was once the fourth-largest US city) which does not happen every day. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I suspect the cause of confusion (not clarified in Lockesdonkey's otherwise very helpful post) is the use of the term 'City' to refer to the Government of the City, as I understand it Detroit per se isn't bankrupt (and it is hard to see how a city in the broad sense could be), but its local government is? ReadingOldBoy (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, it seems that editors here are using "city" to mean something quite different from City. That really needs to be made clearer. And I really doubt if Greece is a valid comparison. It cannot do a Chapter 9, whatever that is. HiLo48 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Absolutely nothing is preventing you from researching Chapter 9 bankruptcy.--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
            • Would you demand that an American research the equivalent legislation for another country? This is the most US-centric posting this week by far. We are a global encyclopaedia. We must act more globally. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
              • "Do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Also, this could have affects beyond just Detroit; anyone who loaned them money, collects retirement benefits from them, etc. is affected. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                • False accusation. I have not complained that the nomination affected only one country. I am complaining about the very poor explanation of what this event actually is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • It is not false. You said "This is the most US-centric posting this week by far.". 331dot (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • OK, to ease your paranoia (Why ARE people from the world's most powerful nation so defensive?) let's change that to "This is the most US-centric conversation this week by far." HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
                      • Based on the eleven asterisks I see, the only one acting defensive here is you. Ease off.--WaltCip (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
                        • Defensive? Stupid choice of adjective for me. My aim here is to improve the standard of discussion. This posting was based on very poorly worded argument, with lot's of missing information. (Note that I am not opposing it. I just had a lot of questions, and still do.) It could have been a lot better. If an equivalent story for a country other than say the US or the UK was proposed and discussed in the same shallow and parochial way, it wouldn't stand a chance. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
                          • I think if Melbourne's government went bankrupt it would be incredibly newsworthy.--WaltCip (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
                            • Melbourne's "government" cannot go bankrupt, or at least certainly not in the same way. To my knowledge no Australian municipality has ever "gone bankrupt". There is no equivalent situation in this country and, I suspect, many others. That's why I was asking questions. They haven't been answered. It didn't cross the minds of the nominator and American supporters, and you, despite my efforts, that things might work differently elsewhere, and that a little more explanation may have been desirable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
                              • This needs to be taken elsewhere at this point. The United States is a federation of fifty sovereign states, each of which has its own constitution and each of which is divided into municipalities which derive their authority from the state according to state law. Michigan as a sovereign state appointed a financial controller for one of its municipalities, Detroit, under its state law. That controller has determined the city is bankrupt, and has appealed to the federal government, in one of its few powers above the states, to file for municipal bankruptcy. The federal government is not authorized to bail out Detroit or any state or municipality, and Michigan has chosen not to do so either. If the suit proceeds, the creditors of the City of Detroit will find they are getting pennies on the dollar what's owed them, including pensioners whom, by state law, the city would not otherwise have been able to default on. But federal law is supreme in this matter, as it is anywhere it constitutionally conflicts with state law. Full stop. What used to be the richest per capita city in the nation has gone begging to the federal government under a 1937 law for relief from its creditors. Full stop. It is unprecedented, at least 4-5 times larger than any such prior bankruptcy. Full stop. Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their pensions, in a default larger than the size of Malta or Tasmania. Full stop. We have a reference desk where questions such as this can be further investigated if the Detroit bankruptcy and other articles linked to in its lea are not sufficient. Full stop. End telegram. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment apparently not so straight-forward, our blurb will need revision or pulling per this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull I agree with Rambling Man, not much here now I think. Repost if court of appeals disagree with judge. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
pull its unconstitutional and has to be nullified/withdrawn. Hence no story here.Lihaas (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is unclear if a state judge can order a party to a federal case to drop their action- we should wait to see if this is the final word before pulling; though a blurb reword would be OK for now. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose pulling Detroit filed for bankruptcy is a fact. Even if some judge orders them to withdraw. Its been a major news for 2 days... if it were to be withdrawn then edit the blurb to say so, no need to pull. -- Ashish-g55 23:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a county circuit judge who seems to have overstepped her bounds on a political basis, threatening to "notify" President Obama who is entirely without jurisdiction in the case. μηδείς (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose pulling: bankruptcy is an exclusively federal matter in the US; this is a state circuit court judge who has no jurisdiction to dismiss a bankruptcy filing. Even with her ruling, the City of Detroit has still declared that it is insolvent to the appropriate and competent court of law, it has still requested relief under Chapter 9 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, and no state judge has jurisdiction to challenge such a federal court filing. Imzadi 1979  02:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Imzadi. It is nice to hear something so clearly and competently put. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 Maccabiah GamesEdit

No consensus to post. RetroLord 10:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 Maccabiah Games (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2013 Maccabiah Games commence in Jerusalem, Israel.

Article updated
Nominator's comments: More than 9,000 Athletes will be participating in the games, The 3rd largest of its sort (after Olympics and Universiade). All are Jewish who take parts in the games from all arround the world, 80 countries. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hardly a top-level event, given that competitors are limited on a racial basis. Nor does it get a lot of international attention. Neljack (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose Oddly sectarian. μηδείς (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not at the highest levels of competition among countries. SpencerT♦C 00:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a top-level competition, and specific to a single group (Jewish by birth or religion) and not athletes in general. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 19 July 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.

[Pulled] Alexei Navalny jailedEdit

Article: Alexei Navalny (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny sentenced to five years in prison for alleged embezzlement.
News source(s): Washington Post BBC CNN NY Times

Article updated

 --Երևանցի talk 18:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support very significant event for Russia, might even hurt its relations with the West --Երևանցի talk 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support might I also suggest we also but Sergei Magnitsky on the blurb, he was sentenced posthumously just a week ago for tax evasion, it is I think relevant here because it seems to me anyway that these both are political trials. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This judgement marks the end of a very important trial that started almost three months ago. Navalny was definitely one of the most important political figures in Russia, who was hailed by many as a future presidential candidate.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Kiril. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Kiril. Neljack (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support significant development in Russia moving towards full dictatorship, well-known figure internationally Josh Gorand (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated see [24]. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulled He's apparently been released from prison on bail, pending appeal. Unless someone has a more up-to-date blurb that's still interesting, there doesn't appear to be anything ITN-worthy to post right now. -- tariqabjotu 18:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

[Attention needed] Guinea violenceEdit

Article: 2013 Guinea clashes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 56 people are killed in ethnic clashes in Guinea prior to an election.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death toll is high per recent precedence for disasters. Its also in the context of the election so I added thatlink. Lihaas (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: From the article, "In late February 2013, political violence erupted ... upcoming May 2013 elections." Why is this being nominated now? Are there new clashes or something? SpencerT♦C 01:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The nominator failed to provide any news sources which is why some may think this is not a recent event. These clashes are new recent clashes according to Washington Post, Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera etc. Andise1 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay thank you. In that case, the article needs substantial updates to reflect recent events. SpencerT♦C 14:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The elections have been postponed until September. The BBC says at least 54 deaths, so we should probably replace 56 with that. In any case, it is undoubtedly serious civil strife. Neljack (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The article (and especially the lead) will need more information on the election re-scheduling. (Lead implies elections happened in May; body says postponed "indefinitely", which apparently is not the case any longer.) Also, I see no real reason to mention the elections in the ITN blurb. - that would imply the violence happened because of the elections which is speculation at best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned it.Lihaas (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The update could use copyediting and more references. SpencerT♦C 22:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

July 17Edit


War crimes conviction #2Edit

Article: Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed (talk, history)
Blurb: Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary-General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed is convicted of war crimes committed during the Bangladeshi War of Independence.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Follow up to the below. This is the party secy general, that was the leader. Since last time there have been deaths in protests.. Lihaas (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • If the two post they should be combined as one item. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Same-sex marriage (United Kingdom)Edit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 05:49, 21 July 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: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Royal Assent is given to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, legalising gay marriage in England and Wales.
News source(s): (BBC) (Pink News)
  • Nominated by Doktorbuk (talk • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doktorbuk&action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BMarriage+%28Same+Sex+Couples%29+Act+2013%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=Marriage+%28Same+Sex+Couples%29+Act+2013&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated give credit)
 --doktorb wordsdeeds 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I was considering posting this but reviewing the ITN/C articles, basically realized that most "Country affirms same-sex marriages" have all pretty much been rejected as of late due to the fact its not a novelty nor anything affecting international matter. I would otherwise support this as the fact the Queen gave her assent for it, but doubt based on past nominations this will go through. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support like I've supported the French, New Zealand, et al., because of its significance. Lack of international impact is irrelevant, and in fact questionable, since the movement to marriage equality is happening worldwide. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because it was known this was coming since it was passed as the Queen's approval was only a formality. I actually support this but precedent tells me this probably won't be posted. It is a novelty until a significant portion of nations and/or the world's population has same-sex marriage as legal, though. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It was actually only passed on Monday, I believe, so it is not stale either way. I've changed the blurb, because this is not UK-wide law. Support, since we've recently broken with precedence by predictably posting a minor gay marriage related story because it was American. Formerip (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst I appreciate, as has been said above, that same-sex marriage is nowhere near becoming the law of the land in a majority of countries, passage of a new law is becoming fairly routine now, even if happening at an infrequent pace. Are we supposed to post the next 50 countries who pass a gay marriage law? It would have been notable if it was the first couple of countries passing a new law, but now we're onto however many and it isn't really notable in the same way now. Redverton (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose we didn't post nEW ZEALAND and that was a first in the region. This is not the first in Europe and sets no precedence.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose regardless of the national comparisons, this law essentially means churches can choose to officiate in and call already available civil unions marriages in their church. That's been state law in the US for years. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This is untrue. It also means that same-sex unions are covered by the generic law on marriage, rather than the slightly lesser and recently-coined civil partnerships law. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I am entirely undisposed to take any disagreement you have with me on good faith, at this point, Alex. If you want to state that argument a little more clearly (I am not sureI get your point) and link to the relevant articles or facts to support it I will read the material. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to of gotten too little coverage in the UK media. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Would be absurd to not post this after posting the DOMA decision, which didn't even legalise same-sex marriage. This is getting plenty of media attention in the UK and around the world, it was nominated at the proper time (when it becomes law), and it doesn't just mean that churches can call civil partnerships marriages - it means that same-sex marriage is now recognised by the state. Neljack (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack 84.248.131.49 (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Given how little coverage there is compared to other controversial bills, I don't think it should appear on ITN. It's also nothing new compared with other countries. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose File under slow news day. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support, per Neljack. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment from beyond the grave The repeal of DOMA was very different from the legalization of gay marriage in France, Brazil, England + Wales, and New Zealand. In the case of the USA, the elected national legislature had passed a law (DOMA) explicitly outlawing gay marriage, and that law was (much) later overturned by the unelected constitutional court. In all the other cases, a national legislature passed a law. Had the Queen vetoed (can she?) a law which legislated gay marriage either way, that would be comparable to the DOMA story. This, however, is not. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an expert but I think that in theory, the Queen could have refused to give Royal Assent, but by tradition and custom that is virtually never done. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, again very significant like the previous ones, i. e. in France. Hope it would be posted. Otherwise I and maybe some others would think that the WP editors have some bias.Egeymi (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a very important event for supporters of equality worldwide and should certainly be featured here. Some of the opposes have an almost homophobic ring to them... PantherLeapord (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose local news. New laws are enacted every day, there are million of laws around the world. The European Commission produces huge amounts of directives that we don't post. And this is not something new as pointed out, and it doesn't even affect a significant number of people. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
[[User:Josh Gorand - how many gay people in England and Wales have you counted then? doktorb wordsdeeds 06:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given above, not the first, or even close to the first time this law has been passed somewhere. RetroLord 02:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose No more same-sex marriage ITNs until Afghanistan legalises it. It's just not news anymore. --RA () 23:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I cannot fathom how an entire country legalizing same-sex marriage should not be ITN, yet Wikipedia will gladly put up a Supreme Court case that allows gay marriage to stand in a single US state (California) and strikes down DOMA (which did not come close to legalizing same-sex marriage). At this point, the !votes suggest there will be no consensus to post... yet the inconsistency truly boggles my mind. You know all those people who constantly complain about the English Wikipedia having a US-bias? Yeah, maybe they have a point. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose a new country legalizing same sex marriage is not really news anymore. Until a strongly religious country does it (Poland? Ireland?) I don't think such news are - I guess luckily - that notable anymore. Nergaal (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Queensland wins Rugby League State of Origin 8th time in a rowEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 State of Origin series (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Queensland Maroons win Rugby League's State of Origin for the 8th year in a row.
News source(s): [25] [26]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I'm not sure how the recurring sports news works exactly or if this is important enough, but the State of Origin is one of the most watched Rugby League events in the world and has just been won by the Queensland Maroons for the 8th time in a row. Mike lomas (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • How come this is "generally considered important enough to post", but the British Lions is not? There isn't a single credible argument that can be made that one is more important/significant/watched than the other. Mission Twelve (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess the news here is not so much the single event in itself but the winning streak, it's completely unheard of. The better part of a decade. Mike lomas (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor local competition. To win eight times in a row is not that big a deal when the contest only includes three teams. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's two teams. If we posted this, can someone explain why we wouldn't start posting soccer derbys? Formerip (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you can call it minor; according to the commentators, the match was broadcasted in over 90 countries, that's more than a few ITN/R items we have listed. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but this is a competition localised to just half of Australia, one half of the rugby code, and conducted between just a couple of local teams, not national teams (like The Ashes as noted below). Also, "cultural significance" is noted, but this contest started in 1980 didn't it? The Ashes started just under 100 years before that. Between two teams separated by half the globe. This is of minor interest and should not be ITN or ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good on them. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a top-tier competition. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good on them indeed. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support With respect, many of the opposes indicate that the people concerned haven't looked very carefully at this competition. Nobody who is familiar with rugby league would describe State of Origin as a "minor local competition" or "not a top-tier competition". It is probably the most intense and high-quality rugby league that is played anywhere in the world - even above international matches. I think it would be widely regarded as being as important as the NRL and Superleague, which are ITN/R, so it would seem to be important enough to post. The fact that it only involves two teams shouldn't disqualify it - The Ashes, for instance, are rightly ITN/R, despite involving only two teams. Queensland winning a record eighth consecutive series makes this even more notable. Neljack (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem you have is that the Ashes involves two nations, so a genuine international sport, and has been running for over 100 years. State of Origin is much newer and only involves two states of one of those countries, out of six states and several territories. You'll need to explain it better to non-aficionados. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The intro to the State of Origin article explains it well (the numerous references omitted; see the article for them):
Touted as Australian sport's greatest rivalry, the State of Origin series is one of the country's and the region's premier sporting events, attracting a huge television audience and usually selling out the stadiums in which the games are played. Despite the existence of international tournaments and State of Origin being a domestic competition, it is frequently cited as being the highest-level of rugby league played anywhere in the world.
I would suggest that it is a bit like college football and basketball in the US - an event with huge cultural significance and following despite not being an international competition, so if (like me) you support them because of that huge cultural significance and following then you should support this too. If you oppose them because they are amateur university tournaments, then you should still support this, because that rationale is inapplicable here. Neljack (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You could write a similar paragraph to that regarding football fixtures between Man Utd and Liverpool, though. Formerip (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
That article doesn't help itself with language like "Touted as..." That means "Attempt to sell (something), typically by pestering people in an aggressive or bold manner" or "To solicit customers, votes, or patronage, especially in a brazen way." It certainly not the language one uses for truth or reality. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
One argument that can be used is by using money. The NCAA basketball tournament's TV rights is $10.8 billion in 14 years, or about $771 million annually, or about $11.5 million per game. The latest NBA TV rights was $7.8 billion for 9 years, or about $867 million annually (I dunno how many national games are aired annually). If you're using the amount of money the league receives each year, the NBA earns more than the NCAA -- although the NCAA doesn't pay their athletes so... –HTD 09:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
That isn't the only meaning of "touted". In this context, it basically just means "claimed". Neljack (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"Claimed" would prove nothing either. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Naturally it would prove nothing except that people claim that, but WP can't come out as declare it as Australia's greatest sporting rivalry (that is subjective and would be POV), so no doubt that's why that say it's "widely touted" and then cite quite a few sources. Neljack (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be like posting the results of a hypothetical series between the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees billed as a "tournament". It's just two teams each representing parts of a nation. They might play at a high level, more than other teams, due to a rivalry, but it doesn't determine the championship of an entire league of many teams. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It's more like an interleague series between two strong baseball teams before interleague play was instituted, TBH. –HTD 09:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Local competition that is only active in half of Australia.color="gold">★RetroLord 07:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It may help to explain the "football" situation in Australia. (League fans aren't doing a very good job here.) The Barassi Line divides Australia into two parts. On one side, Rugby League (the game we're discussing here) is the main football code. That sport is not at all strong on the other side of the line, where Australian football is the popular football code. The strong area for Rugby League is the state of Queensland and most of the state of New South Wales. These are the two states that play in the State of Origin competition. The National Rugby League is a competition played by players from those two states. The best players in that league play in the State of Origin matches. Fans and media argue that the State of Origin series is more important and a higher standard than the finals (playoffs) in the National Rugby League. I'm from the wrong side of the Barassi line, so I'm not a strong fan, and not in a good position to judge if that's true. What is true is that the deciding match in the series was just last night, and fans are still very excited. There is naturally a lot of media hype surrounding the games (that's professional sport!) and many fans, unsurprisingly, buy it all. Hope this helps. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm not a league fan (I'm a union man). It's been quite a while since I've watched a league game, much less a State of Origin one. And, not being Australian, I don't pretend to have a full understanding of its cultural significance there. I didn't expect this to get posted; I just wanted to correct the misapprehension regarding the significance attached to State of Origin. Neljack (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - we should seek to post items of high cultural significance (which apparently is the case here) even when they aren't "top level" competitions. The cultural impact of sports is what makes it important - a championship itself has no meaning if no one attaches any to it. ITN should not be judging Australia's assignment of significance to this event as invalid anymore than it tries to do with American college sports. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this nomination rests on the premise that winning streaks are important. Unfortunately they are open-ended, and as can be seen in ITN/C debates about stock market moves, gold prices and oil prices, the consensus has been never to post those. Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the argument should probably be for making this annual event ITN/R. HiLo48 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It does not rest on that premise. That was merely noted as something increasing the notability and interest. None of the supporters have stated that it wouldn't otherwise be sufficiently important. Neljack (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose local news of very limited interest to most readers of the main page. We should only post the most important international sports events, most people are not interested in sports at all. Quite frankly, even the blurb is completely cryptic to me. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:48, 18 July 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.

July 16Edit


RD Alex ColvilleEdit

Article: Alex Colville (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Globe and Mail CBC Ottawa Citizen The Toronto Star National Post

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Colville is recipient of the Order of Canada, columnists have commented that his art "transcended the art world to become emblems of national consciousness", and has been described as Canada's "painter laureate". --Zanimum (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article makes no such claims. Abductive (reasoning) 15:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I added the OCCC part just now. — Wyliepedia 17:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely unknown painter (only 2 interwikis, very short article) Josh Gorand (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Since recent death space is free yet again, certainly this should be posted too, since that seems to be one of the criteria for posting these days. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Saran school lunch poisoning incidentEdit

Article: Saran school lunch poisoning incident (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 25 children die in Bihar, India, after consuming food tainted with organophosphorus.
News source(s): [27]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm nominating this on behalf of an IP who had tried to do so. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support the death of dozens of children due to negligence or otherwise is newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
oppose there really needs a discussed criteria for all these news events to fit into an enecylopaedia? Wheres is legacy and last value? this has no significance anywhere in the world. (even india)Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is to have that discussion. Further, large scale deaths of children are generally notable, especially in a public facility like a school. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The title is terrible. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Large-scale deaths of children are generally notable; agree that the title could use improvement. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weakly neutral unusual event, not really encyclopedic, though. The blurb should say "a free lunch" rather than a meal. Obviously it was a meal. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't say 'meal' at all. Why is the freeness relevant? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It said "meal" originally. I changed it to "food" when revising the blurb to bring it up to date. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - incident has led to violent protests and scrutinization of India's food safety. (Impact like that is exactly we look for to prove a topic is encyclopedic, at the very least.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I disagree with Lihaas this might have real effect for better or worse in India if this becomes big enough story in there. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Large-scale food poisoning does happen - happening at a school, particularly in a nation with the socioeconomic climate of India, is sad but not unheard of. If it was clear that a major revamping of school lunch programs throughout the nation was to come of the incident, I feel this would be a stronger news story for ITN. But as it is, it is an unfortunate event but nothing that seems to have legs. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support the incident is tragic and newsworthy, but the article is a bit too short. Support on the condition that the article is expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Article expansion is now underway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant worldwide coverage, and that coverage will continue as long as the investigation into this matter continues. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready the article is quite well updated at this point and well supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 02:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pleeeease change "organophosphorus" to "organophosphorus compounds". I do understand that media is lazy, but the former is an adjective not an actual noun. Nergaal (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, 'tis indeed a noun [28]. Formerip (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to chemical nomenclature I would stay away from sites like freexyz.com. According to that site, it is the same thing to Organophosphate. Nergaal (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
@Nergaal: No, no, no. "Organophosphorus" is a noun. "Organophosphor'ous" or "organophosphoric" would be adjectives. Phosphorus is an element; organophosphorus comes from the carbon- (organo-) phosphorus bonds. It does function as an adjective in the construction "organophosphorus compound," the same way "sodium chloride" would in "sodium chloride solution," but that's beside the point.  — TORTOISEWRATH 00:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
By the same analogy, what does organoiron mean to you? Nergaal (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

July 15Edit


[Closed] Mexican top drug kingpin capturedEdit

Discussions about the process of posting should continue at WT:ITN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Miguel Treviño Morales (talk, history)
Blurb: Los Zetas leader Miguel Treviño Morales is arrested by the Mexican Navy.
Alternative blurb: ​Reputed Zetas leader Miguel Treviño Morales is arrested on drug, kidnapping, torture and murder charges
News source(s): [29] [30]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is noteworthy enough for ITN, but I guess I'll just give it a try and get some feedback from you guys. The arrest is described as the biggest victory (so far) in Mexico's drug war in the administration of Enrique Peña NietoComputerJA () 00:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wasn't the last one caught or killed recently? Given our presumption of innocence, I doubt this would go anywhere anyway. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, Lazcano was killed back in October. Treviño Morales is considered his "natural successor," although some argue that he had ousted Lazcano before and was actually the big guy in Los Zetas. ComputerJA () 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment We posted the death of another Zetas leader, Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, back in October (which was touted as one of the biggest victories in the War on Drugs for outgoing President Felipe Calderon). Also, Nieto has been president of Mexico for less than eight months. I'm not saying that means this isn't significant; I'm just pointing that out. -- tariqabjotu 01:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right. Maybe if the one captured today were El Chapo Guzmán this would be a easy pass... ComputerJA () 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support he has one of the largest bounties n the world. US is paying $5 mil for his capture. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question I want to support this, but has he been found guilty in absentia or anything like that? Presumably he will go to trial and conceivably be found not-guilty? I thought normally we would post this if/when someone is found guilty. CaptRik (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't really think that applies here; there's no doubt from anyone that he's a Zetas leader. "Zetas leader" is basically his job description, not an accusation of a crime. To say that, for example, "Preschool teacher John Q is a pedophile" requires the pedophile bit, not the fact that he's a preschool teacher, to be proven in a court of law. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You've got this wrong, Tariq. Look up defamation per se. There's a very important difference in the law between asserting someone has a job and asserting that that job is a criminal enterprise.μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild support. Leader of the largest criminal syndicate in Mexico and one of the main figures in the Mexican Drug War. It's comparable to the capture of a major warlord in a civil war that has cost 100K lives. The blurb might need some background to make sense for people not familiar, e.g "drug cartel Los Zetas." (P.S. Arguing that we can't report this until a trial is like arguing we couldn't have reported Bin Laden was leader of al-Qaeda without a court decision.) - BanyanTree 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No, Bin Laden filmed videos and identified himself and openly declared war on the US and so forth. Has this Mexican gentlemen issued press releases claiming to be the head of a criminal enterprise? μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
ITN used to post things like the arrest of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo or death of Vincent Otti, with their reported positions, as a matter of course. If the standard is now that you need a press release confessing crimes, <shrug>. I'll let the reviewing admin decide the validity of my support. - BanyanTree 20:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We're not talking about a mere criminal enterprise here, we're talking about a massive drug cartel that has cause the deaths of thousands. It's closer to a civil war than a criminal enterprise. Even if that isn't the case, the arrest of notable wanted criminals or fugitives has been posted before. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Dyilo was tried and found guilty, Otti was killed, so bLp didn't apply. The fact that this is allegedly a "massive" crime is irrelevant. The fact that Treviño's been arrested is fine, we can report that. But we can't call him a drug kingpin unless he's either called himself that or been convicted. This is really very simple. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
What do you suggest we call him? "Accused" drug kingpin? Someone doesn't have to legally be adjudicated to be a drug kingpin to be one. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Medeis, if you feel referring to Mr. Morales as a Zetas leaders is a BLP violation, I suggest you try getting that information removed from the article about him first. -- tariqabjotu 21:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
You are quite aware of "WP:OTHERSTUFF". Don't lay that "fix the other article" excuse on us. Articles have footnotes, and accusations can be attributed and referenced in them, but not on the front page, and you are quite aware we hold to a strict standard here. IF it is the case they have announced it, it should be possible to say something along 331 Dot's suggestion like "Mexican authorities arrest Treviño as the head of the Zetas". But it absolutely has to be attributed, not assumed as fact. μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Mexican officials report I have been looking for an official and Spanish source that says Trevino was arrested as head of the Zetas. But CNN is reporting that arresting Mexican officials refused to identify Trevino by his supposed alias or as head of the drug cartel when he was arrested:

    Sánchez nunca lo llamó por su alias ni dijo que era el jefe máximo de uno de los cárteles más violentos en México, tampoco dio información sobre quién podría ser su posible sucesor en la organización criminal.

    Sanchez never called him by his nickname nor said he was the top leader of one of the most violent cartels in Mexico, neither did he give details on who might be his possible successor in the criminal organization.

    The best we can say is that Mexican Federal agents report the arrest of Trevino on drug, kidnapping, torture and murder charges. Even they are avoiding calling him head of he Zetas. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. In this new administration, the President has pledged to soften the language of the drug war. [31] The past administration did have reports on him being a leader, though [32] I'm fine if we put "reported" leader on the blurb and/or article. ComputerJA () 02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not ready to modify the wording on the Main Page. Yes, I see you've added the word "alleged" in the lead, but the genie's already out of the bottle. The Miguel Treviño Morales article says he's a Zetas leader dozens of times. The article would be a mess if you had to keep saying "allegedly" after every statement that no one contests. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I don't think it will hurt anyone if we leave it as it is. Not sure what Medeis thinks, though. Thanks for your concern. ComputerJA () 02:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This is shameful, Tariq. did you even read CNN on the arresting Mexican official? He announced charges of kindnapping, torture, murder and drug trafficking and refused to call the man head of the Zetas or identify him as a zeta. Your recent actions are unbefitting an admin and the front page. Not to mention there's absolutely no consensus to post in any form. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Maybe you like the glacial pace of ITN, but I certainly don't. There are no objections, and it's been twenty-four hours. And, yes, I saw what you said, but their refusing to call him a Zeta seems to be, from context, about not elevating him and the organization's profile. This is heavily implied in the Spanish-language source you provided in preceding paragraphs, as well as in English-language sources that discuss this point:

He was taken to Mexico City for questioning, but unlike the days of former President Felipe Calderon, there was no perp walk by a handcuffed suspect or piles of cash and guns put on display for the TV cameras. Instead, the government released a single video of a rumpled-looking, un-handcuffed Trevino Morales walking through prosecutors' headquarters, saying it wanted to avoid glamorizing drug traffickers or risk rights violations that could lead to a dismissal of charges. Authorities didn't even refer to his nickname, Z-40. (AP)

We do not have the same motives; we are here to provide verifiable information, as reported in our articles. That he is a Zetas leader is verified many, many places (including by Mexican government sources on a number of occasions). You're fighting the wrong fight here. -- tariqabjotu 02:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb I have added a blurb that avoids contradicting the Mexican prosecutor. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I support the usage of the word "reputed". ComputerJA () 06:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull Oh come on User:Tariqabjotu, this is not worth the megabytes its written with. Another low in ITN/C. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    Huh? Why? Is there actually something wrong with the article, or do you object to the story? I can't decipher what "not worth the megabytes its written with" could possibly mean, other than an insult to the editors who put their time and energy into writing the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It's an insult to ITN/C that this page 43 curiosity has been upgraded to the front page. On what grounds? There's almost no support in this nomination, it wasn't up for long enough to garner consensus, and is barely worth coverage on news sites outside Mexico. This is exactly the kind of story which would, ordinarily, be shot down. Why did you chose to accept it? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
We can't just have stories languish on ITN/C as others that take place in the Anglosphere garner attention and devolve into lengthy debates. I imagine that had this not been posted, you would not have even noticed or cared to comment on the nomination. Twenty-four hours is enough time for people to see and review a nomination and register their opinion, and it took more than thirty-six hours for someone (you) to object. During that time there was no objection while the article received a healthy update and cleanup. And I don't know what you're talking about with non-Mexican news sites not covering it. From my vantage point, this story has received prominent news coverage in a number of sources, more prominent still than the UK's legalization of gay marriage. What you see as a "Page 43 curiosity" is not the same around the world. And, of course, a story being primarily related to one country (if we can even say that about this case) does not make it ineligible for ITN. -- tariqabjotu 15:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Tariqabjotu, can you tell me what opinion User:Medeis had on this story, and when that opinion was posted here? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I have liked everything User:Tariqabjotu have posted lately, but this is not really fair, it is hardly his fault that people don't bother to support or oppose this. There was few support true, but there also weren't anyone who really opposed posting this before you. I also happen to think that this is fairly important news and certainly worth it to post. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The usual procedure is four supports and a ready tag, so I didn't feel it helpful to add an oppose while working to try to improve the nomination. It's called collegiality. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The premature and unilateral psting here is the problem. We usually have at least 4 supports before a posting. This one had one and a half supports and my implicit oppose while the way to handle the blurb was discussed. While looking in good faith for a verbatim source from Mexican officials I found a CNN source explicitly saying the Government would not identify him as a kingpin, but only state the charges. Before a discussion of this could be held, before there was consensus, before the article had ben marked ready, Tariqabjotu posted the most controversial blurb.
At this point, I am not sure whther there is consensus to post. With the nom with a support and a half, a pull, and my oppose as is, t seems not. Yet, if the item is not going to be pulled, using the altblurb ("Reputed Zetas leader Miguel Treviño Morales is arrested on drug, kidnapping, torture and murder charges") would be a much better situation than the current one. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a shame User:Medeis that Tariq acted in such a slap-dash manner on such a contentious nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 17:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems Tariq is okay about ignoring consensus and criteria. Perhaps he needs to let someone else do these more contentious candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't any of you have something better to do? -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course, but a few recent promotions to the main page have been against any criteria and against any consensus, so we should discuss it and suggest solutions. One solution is you stop promoting articles which don't meet the criteria or don't have any consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, this is not the right forum for bringing out your pitchforks. -- tariqabjotu 18:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I notice User:The Rambling Man that User:Tariqabjotu has not addressed my direct question about when [User:Medeis]] placed his doubt over the exact details of this nomination. Tariq implied that my "pull" was the first rejection in 36 hours. Not entirely accurate. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) This is the place to discuss mis-listing of ITNs. There are no pitchforks, simply questions as to why certain items have been posted by Tariq against consensus and against the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If we focus on the item, can we either pull it or switch to the altblurb, which has more support? μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I've read any encyclopaedia that suggests a "reputed" classification for an individual. Pull. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree to Pull I will start a discussion on the talk page doktorb wordsdeeds 18:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull if the blurb isn't changed--it implies he was arrested for being the zeta kingpin, not on the actual specific charges the government announced. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this needs either a pull or an altblurb but, if an altblurb is used, "reputed" should be avoided because it is easily confused with "of repute". Formerip (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I think renaming the blurb is better than pulling the article. May I suggest "Alleged" instead of Reputed? ComputerJA () 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Alleged implies by a charging authority like the government or a victim. In this case the government is not alleging he was a a Zeta, just a drug dealing , kidnapping, and multiple murdering torturer. I do agree if it is supported that changing the blurb is acceptable if there's not enough support for pulling. The issue of pulling is separate. Procedurally a pull is called for. On the merits it is borderline. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
In this case the government is not alleging he was a a Zeta What? Of course they are. Their refusal to use the term, or his nickname, during a press conference is about not elevating the status of the organization. You're really bending over backward to make your point. -- tariqabjotu 20:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Or, it can just stay as it is. We defer to article content. This happens all the time. If Medeis wants to claim that this headline is a BLP violation, he has to claim the entire article is a BLP violation (as it repeatedly treats Morales as known member of Los Zetas). For some reason, Medeis is unwilling to do that. This is a tempest in a teapot, and it's obvious no one actually agrees with his position on the blurb except to merely appease him or to claim impropriety on my part. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Your personal contempt for me is a convenient excuse, but this article has three pull votes and two and a half supports, so regardless of the blurb it does not have consensus and ddid not have consensus when you posted it. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Now (as well as at the time of your comment here) the number of people who support this nomination numbers six: ComputerJA, Nergaal, BanyanTree, 84.248.131.49, Formerip, and LukeSurl. If we include 331dot's comment on WT:ITN saying he "[doesn't] think the arrest of a highly sought after criminal suspect who is essentially waging a civil war is as 'contentious' as it is made out to be", we get seven. -- tariqabjotu 23:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I will specifically say that I support this being posted. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems a notable development in the Mexican drug war. I agree that "Zetas leader" is sufficiently undisputed by reliable sources to be placed, unqualified, in the blurb. --LukeSurl t c 20:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I now call for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion as it is going nowhere and devolving into criticism of the admin who posted this, which is already being discussed. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your command is my wish. --Jayron32 01:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] New moon: S/2004 N-1Edit

Articles: S/2004_N_1 (talk, history) and Moons of Neptune (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A moon named S/2004_N_1 is discovered orbiting the planet Neptune.
News source(s): Fox News Los Angeles Times

First article updated, second needs updating

Nominator's comments: Neptune's fourteenth moon named S/2004 N-1 was found by NASA's Hubble Telescope. Andise1 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support (after article is ready) - Significant discovery.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is quite an insignificant moon. Its discovery might be more interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Yet another tiny space rock. Just last week, Medeis was assuring us that the chance to name a body like this would never come along again. In truth, the giant planets have scores of little bits of rock and ice orbiting them. This isn't news outside a specialised circle. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Your unending crush on me is flattering, Alex, but I am not interested and you are probably grossing out everybody else with it. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "The moon is so small it was missed by Voyager 2 in 1989." μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Not a bad article for a moon discovery announced yesterday. It may not be a large moon, but this is exactly the type of subject that people turn to Wikipedia for information on. Regarding the rareness of the event, this is the first Neptunian moon discovered in the past 10 years. Kaldari (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Quite Interesting science story. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as this is the moon of a planet, not a dwarf planet. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too many of these minor discoveries to be legitimately notable doktorb wordsdeeds 10:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A new planetary moon is quite notable, unlike asteroids and the so-called minor planets that pop out almost every day. Brandmeistertalk 10:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per Kaldari. --LukeSurl t c 10:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is the moon of a planet in our own solar system therefore the casual reader is likely to have heard of Neptune and be interested in this story. CaptRik (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the comments of Kaldari, although the blurb is a bit weak. Suggest:
    Analysis of images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope leads to the discovery of Neptune's fourteenth moon.
    or something similar. Pedro :  Chat  13:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with playing up the method of discovery in the blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question. I'm leaning towards a weak support, but isn't there any sort of hurdle such as getting the moon recognised as a moon by the next International Moon-recognising Convention or whatever? Formerip (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I normally auto-support these kind of news, but this is the 14th moon of neptune, about 10 km in diameter... Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue with these small moons of the gas giants is that given their primaries have ring systems (and this body is in the rings system) in essece composed of moons; you are basically looking at moons all the way down to the size of dust. Finding them just depends on how hard and long you want to look. I think someone posted a link of the recently found gas giant moons in the debate over the recent Pluto posting. A chart like that would be informative as to the notability of this satellite. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Here's the Pluto discussion. Here are some of he recent gas giant (multiple) moon naming announcements:
Here are some of the most recent named moons of Saturn, note these are satellites XLIX through LII:
Saturn XLIX Anthe = S/2007 S 4 IAUC 8857
Saturn L Jarnsaxa = S/2006 S 6 IAUC 8727
Saturn LI Greip = S/2006 S 4 IAUC 8727
Saturn LII Tarqeq = S/2007 S 1 IAUC 8836
I am frankly not at all worried about the prospect of this posting. I just want to point out small moons of gas giants are pretty much discovered whenever we take a close look. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

War crimes convictionEdit

Article: Ghulam Azam (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Head of the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh Ghulam Azam is convicted of war crimes committed during the Bangladeshi War of Independence.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: We generally post war crimes convistions for notable people (as in Balkans and Africa), so this seems notable as head of a major political organisation. Lihaas (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. War crimes convictions are generally notable. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - war crimes convictions are indeed notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Issues with the POV tag need to be resolved; see the article talk page for details. SpencerT♦C 20:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - War crimes convictions are usually notable.--WaltCip (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, per Spencer the article should be improved not to have POV tag.Egeymi (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional support – Support only if POV issues are resolved in the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support there were major riots (2013 Bangladesh riots) over this case earlier this year. --Երևանցի talk 05:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note I'd really like to post this: based on support and referencing and overall quality of article (at first glance) this would be an easy post, but there's an orange-level dispute tag that needs to be resolved, and a talk page discussion currently going on regarding that tag. If that discussion can reach a consensus, please ping this page or myself, and I'll see what I can do to post. --Jayron32 02:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
That talk page is by a partisan editor on the south Asian topics. I don't see it gaining anywhere till someone (an admin) overlooks it.Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Combine this with the new nom if they're posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutrality issues need to be solved. Faizan 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the dispute in Wikipedia is itself likely to be of interest to readers, and appears unlikely to be resolved soon. This is clearly an important news item and should be listed as such. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Bupati Cup riotsEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Bupati Cup riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Eighteen people are killed as riots break out in Jakarta, Indonesia at the Bupati Cup.
News source(s): Associated Press via Inquirer USA Today

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Eighteen people were killed when trying to get out of the stadium (1,500 spectators were there altogether trying to leave the stadium) when riots broke out between the supporters of the boxer who lost the championship match at the Bupati Cup. Andise1 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a Bupati Cup article for context here. --LukeSurl t c 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bupati Cup riots is three sentences and there is no Bupati Cup article. Gamaliel (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above, a three sentence article, and no article at all about the Bupati Cup can't be posted at ITN. And really, who cares about football riots. RetroLord 10:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons given above doktorb wordsdeeds 10:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

July 14Edit


[Closed] 2013 Oznobishino bus crashEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 Oznobishino bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A truck carrying gravel collides with a bus near Moscow, killing 18 people and injuring 40.
News source(s): BBC News
Nominator's comments: Lots of English-language coverage (naturally a lot more in Russian), highlighting the well-publicised dangers on Russia's roads. --Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Casualties of this level are rare in automobile crashes. Neljack (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Not really. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, they only occur in a minuscule proportion of automobile crashes. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Deadly accident with coverage by many media outlets. However, not a terribly uncommon event. Based on the above list linked by Bongwarrior, there have been over 20 accidents in 2013 resulting in over 15 fatalities. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, no, no, no, no We need a ban on all but the most exceptional transportation accidents, such as the recent Canadian derailment. The SF airplane crash is the subject of jokes, These are simply sensational, not encyclopedic . Opposed, btw. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    What, what, what, what, what? Are you seriously trying to say that you want us to believe you live in a world where large passenger jets doing carthweels down a runway and only killing 3 people isn't something you'd call a "most exceptional" accident? Mission Twelve (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Not an uncommon event, even with this level of casualties. Might support if there was a criminal act or terrorism involved. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support Many casualties but a lot of sensation due to the video of it.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sigh how many bus/train/plane/truck and so forth accidents we posted so far this year, I agree with Medeis to an extent, we need to set some firm criteria on both accidents and disasters. Oppose common occurrence in Russia, unlikely to lead to drastic changes. Secret account 03:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a significant accident, but does not rise to the level we should be posting on ITN (we post too much death as is). I am also against "firm criteria" as the number of deaths should not be the deciding factor - something accidents that involve few deaths are more significant that those that involve many for various reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are two issues. We do need firmer criteria on just body counts. Obviously body count is not going to matter if we have a famous victim or a famous crash site. That's a separate issue of notability. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tragic but not particularly noteworthy from a worldwide context. Gamaliel (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    It says quite clearly at the top of the page, "do not complain about an event only relating to a single country". Mission Twelve (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't really matter if there was firm criteria, you'd still get what happens here - differing views based on the exact same figures. I personally have absolutely no idea what people think is "common" for Russia, even though someone has even actually posted a baseline figure for 2013. It would be a complete waste of time voting either way, especially when there are people in here who think even cart-wheeling passenger jets is not all that exceptional. Quite what one does with views like 'too much death' is also a complete mystery. How much is too much? It's clearly a waste of time discussing it, as I'm pretty sure nobody is even counting. Mission Twelve (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We're not a traffic police newsticker doktorb wordsdeeds 10:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] TelegraphyEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 17:54, 16 July 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: Telegraphy (talk, history)
Blurb: BSNL ends telegram services in India, formally ending the services in the world.
News source(s): [33],[34], [35], [36], [37] ,[38] ,[39] ,[40]
Nominator's comments: Notably covered by International media. Though not many people were using it at the time of closing it would formally mark an end to a once popular means of communication. Encyclopedic. Regards, theTigerKing  19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. Wonder how many people were using it before it closed down? Withdrawing support based on evidence presented below. Tap tap tap. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this doesn't seem to be the end of the last telegram service in the world, as our article and [41] [42] make clear. Hut 8.5 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support though without the reference to the last in the world. India is a large enough country in terms of population for this to be notable. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless supporters can explain away the reliable sources saying that telegrams will continue to be delivered in places such as Canada. Abductive (reasoning) 02:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely not the last in the world, but possibly still notable enough to post. I'm neutral for now (thought about nominating it even but wasn't really sure about notability). If anyone can explain the importance w/o resorting to the false last in world claim, please do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Last in the world would be worth posting, but I don't think ending them in one country (even a large and important one) is sufficiently significant. Neljack (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Is it rude to say "it's just another outdated business closing shop? –HTD 05:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, youth! :) --regentspark (comment) 15:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the last in the world. Even Canada counts. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 15 July 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] Typhoon SoulikEdit

Article: Typhoon Soulik (2013) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Soulik kills at least nine people and affects more than 160 million in East China and Taiwan.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, USA Today

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First typhoon of the year and resulted in major impact. Large population affected with significant damage; however, an unusual aspect is the lack of casualties in Fujian Province where the storm made landfall (a first according to Chinese media). --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Alternate option – Since there's already a blurb up in regards to a natural disaster in China, might be more reasonable to combine Soulik with the ongoing flood event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No. The flooding and the typhoon are not related weather events and have occurred at different sides of a very big country. --LukeSurl t c 23:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question is this likely to be the most devastating typhoon of the season? Based on my incomplete understanding, I lean oppose as if the 2013 season is like the 2012 season several more devastating storms would be expected in the coming months. --LukeSurl t c 23:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There's no certainty as to whether or not this will be the most devastating. Sure you could say that the past has shown that there tend to be other devastating storms later in the season, but there's no guarantee. I don't think going with the mindset of "is this likely to be the most devastating..." is appropriate for ITN, however. Many events of the same nature but in varying degrees of impact are included all the time, such as train accidents or bus accidents. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite. But in the same way that we don't write a blurb for every accident, we couldn't be expected to write a blurb for every typhoon (there were 25 named storms in 2012, 14 of which were typhoons). There has to be some cutoff point. This will unavoidably be arbitrary and subjective. --LukeSurl t c 00:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not often that sources indicate that over 100 million people are directly affected by such storms (total that I've found so far is 121.4 million people across three provinces). That's the main reasoning for my nominating Soulik, rather than it being the first typhoon of the year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • OK. Can I ask what "affected" means in this context? Did they need to evacuate? What was the probability of injury or property damage for these people? East Asia is a densely populated place, so I would expect a great number of people would be within the area-of-impact of many of these storms if "affected" simply means being in the storm's wide path. Personally I think that casualties and $ damage are more useful metrics.
Please don't get me wrong, I feel this is a strong nomination and you've done a great job on the article. I still just about lean oppose for reasons stated above. I'm going to sleep now, I hope this exchange is useful for others here in forming consensus on this nomination. --LukeSurl t c 00:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Completely understood :) I know you're just stating your opinion and there's no fault with that. I don't know of the details of what affected exactly means but rarely do I see 100 million show up even for other storms that have hit the same area. For what it's worth, within Fujian Province, at least 30 million people were temporarily displaced by the storm while another 2 million were evacuated in Guangdong Province to the south. I guess for easy reference of others, current tally (as of this comment) is 6 fatalities with $364 million in damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, for such an intense storm (Category 4), it's quite notable that only 9 people died. As for being the strongest, as Cyclonebiskit said, there's no way of knowing that, but as of 2010, only 6 storms have lower air pressure than this one, so it's pretty intense, and that's an average about 20 since 2010. –HTD 11:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The article does a good job explaining the extent of the damages caused by the Typhoon, even if there wasn't a relatively large loss of life. SpencerT♦C 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 02:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD Cory MonteithEdit

Posted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Cory Monteith (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Actor Cory Monteith, who played Finn Hudson on Glee dies at 31.
News source(s): CNN

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Sudden death of one of the main actors on one of the most popular (and rather groundbreaking) television series today. Of high human interest. Secret account 05:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This actor was internationally famous and here in the States his death is even breaking in on some of the Zimmerman trial coverage. Andrew327 06:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • RD is fine I guess he died full of glee? Nergaal (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
If you read the preliminary findings of his death, his battle with drug use and time spent in rehab, you might find your comment was in poor taste. Just sayin... 204.111.20.10 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A tragic death, but I think there is a difference between "star of a major TV series" and "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of television. If anyone can provide evidence that he was widely regarded as such, I will reconsider. Neljack (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that it is borderline. However, as evidentary information I'll point to Montieth being part of the cast that won the 2009 Screen Actors Guild award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series (also nominated in 2009, 2011 and 2012) and his People's Choice Award nomination for Favourite TV Actor last year. Personally, whilst I can ignore the Ensemble ones to a great extent, it is the People's Choice Award nomination which I consider to be the breakthrough as it shows individual recognition by a major awards program. Not that I would say every nominee would qualify, but certainly I think if any from the previous year's awards died then I think they would. Not really posting to argue the point, but just adding those so that you may consider them. :) Miyagawa (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Of course, one of the difficulties is that "very important" is rather vague: just how important does the person need to be? I think I probably apply higher standards for RD than most people. I guess I'd regard him as important, but not very important. He hasn't won any individual awards and I'm not convinced that he will have a major enduring impact (sadly, his career was all too short). :) Neljack (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update (for RD) The first section has a cite needed tag on it. That needs to be cleared up. Miyagawa (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD He was well-known, and the nature of his death is attracting news attention. Canuck89 (what's up?) 07:53, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - It seems that the suddenness of this death is helping it to make headlines; but the subject was indeed very well-known. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. Not watching Glee I'd never heard of him, but its clear I'm in a minority on this. It's the most read story on BBC News currently for example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. His notability combined with the nature of his death merits posting on RD. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really notable enough for the frontpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a textbook definition of what should not go to RD; in fact, this is essentially similar to a death of the longest living person, as long as RD is concerned, where the death is the news and not the life of the dead person. Either this gets a proper full blurb, or not at all. –HTD 13:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The actor is very minor relative to the entire entertainment industry (with really only one well-established role to his name). Yes, a shame to lose him at 31 but nowhere near the level of importance that RD should be reserved for. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Recent deaths space is free. -- tariqabjotu 14:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD as per Canuk89. --LukeSurl t c 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose doesn't meet any of our normal criteria, death itself is unexpected but not otherwise newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Medeis says, not sure how this guy meets our RD criteria? Can anyone expand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD. A sudden death like this is not what the RD section was intended for, and should only be for a full blurb, which I oppose as well. SpencerT♦C 19:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull "Recent deaths space is free" is not a valid reason to post. Individual does not meet DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This certainly seems to have been posted prematurely. Headlines have nothing to do with top of one's field or other notability. If anything, this seems about as notable as a low-level athlete killed in a car crash. It makes news but has no encyclopedic importance whatsoever whatever. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I really don't see the merits in pulling. Take a step back from fixed criteria, and consider whether it is better having a link to what will almost certainly be one of the most in-demand articles on the site at the moment on the main page, or some empty space? --LukeSurl t c 22:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, I don't really understand this. It has been established that the death is in the news and that people are interested in this subject (perhaps more so because it was unexpected). The article is in decent shape and is appropriately updated. And, yes, of course, Recent deaths space is free, as nothing needs to be removed to add this particular item. So, I don't understand what purpose it serves to omit this from ITN. -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Then why wasn't Joyce Brothers posted? Her article had huge interest. If you want to change the rules, that's fine, and I actually agree--I think we should have less strict criteria and a full ticker except for unusual dry spells. But following the rules matters, especially to those of us without the administrative privilege to decide otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. See an empty space, ignore the criteria, post an actor who's had an extremely limited career, who isn't top of his generation, isn't award-winning, won't ever be remembered outside his untimely demise... Still, has set a precedent that just about anyone can be posted to RD if there's a space. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. There's a bit of subjectivity to the criteria. He may not have been the pre-eminent actor of his generation, but he was extremely well-known and Glee is one of the world's most watched TV shows. This complies with our standards so far this year (someone who was in Mork and Mindy, someone who was in Harry Potter) and there is no doubt that this is a very significant death to a large number of people. Formerip (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - per Tariqabjotu and Former IP. Jusdafax 23:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD - The fact that he was not ""widely recognised as a very important figure in the field of television" was because of his age and limited acting career. He died at the age of 31, meaning he did not have the years of acting roles and experiences other actors who were older had when they died. Even though he started acting in 2004, he really began when he became one of the lead cast members of a widely watched television show (Glee)...and that was only for four years. Andise1 (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull, as User:Andise1 admits above, he did not achieve much beyond one show. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - posting it is/was correct, as the consensus appears to be in favor of posting. I am neutral/undecided based on merits alone, but would have posted if necessary based on consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull I don't understand why this was posted, he does not meet the criteria for posting. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull Doesn't meet the criteria - why was this posted? Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Let me categorically answer that question, since people seem unable to scroll up. It was posted because, at least at the time of posting, there was consensus to post, and those who supported it did so because "He was well-known, and the nature of his death is attracting news attention." and "His notability combined with the nature of his death merits posting on RD." (among other points). Now, why hasn't it been removed? Because there hasn't been any indication that we're doing anyone a service by doing so. Perhaps removing this will prevent ITN/C folks from bringing this up in future discussions, but I don't think our mission here is to prevent our clique here from making false equivalencies. -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    The argument that you used is "Recent deaths space is free", which is not a reason to post. It is better that we have empty ITN slots or a blank RD than to say "we need to fill it up with something!" (compared to DYK, which is serving a different purpose). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    It is better that we have ... a blank RD Why??? -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'd rather see a day where no one of importance had recently died then trying to fill spaces just because its empty. As noted, you create a precedence for minor celebrities to be nominated for RD. I don't have time immediately to do this but I suspect that if I searched around, I could find plenty of other notable people that died in the last few days that are more significant than this actor but that most wouldn't have thought to brought to ITN/RD to nominate, and that starts a rather bad "game" of just tossing up people that would have normally never made it to RD if it was full just to fill out blank space. It is better to not include and avoid that game altogether. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Minor people dying who got this much news attention? Probably not. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    In American tabloids, yes. In the world news? Not at all. Gone without a trace already. Filling a space because a space exists isn't one of the RD criteria I've read. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Because regardless of whether you agree with them or not, we do have guidelines as to who qualifies for ITN/RD - and this one doesn't. THere must be many minorly notable people that die every day and they don't get posted - because people don't even nominate them because they know they don't qualify. This person shouldn't qualify purely through the tabloid interest in their death. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Well, there are some people who disagree. "Tabloid" is thrown around left, right, and center at ITN/C to discredit virtually any story that's in the news that people here don't want to be. It doesn't matter what the death criteria specifically say; one of the major 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." Some people felt that was paramount in this instance, despite Monteith not being among the elite echelons of actors. I see no reason I should have ignored them at the time of posting, and I see no reason to ignore them now, when the best reason for doing so is "we have" other "rules". -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Problem is the rationale for support in most cases didn't match the RD criteria. You were supposed to assess the quality of the opinions before posting an actor who was famous for one role for a couple of years. Mere "yes, well-known" and other such tenuous non-criteria arguments are there to be acknowledged but not really meaningful in the big scheme of things. Hardly ground-breaking, hardly top of his field, not going to linger long in our minds. Amazing how challenging it was to get a world-reknowned international TV broadcaster whose career spanned nearly 60 years and was known around the globe on RD, but this was such a cakewalk, because he was in Glee. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    As I stated, one of the major 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." Those pointing out the high interest in this story were within their bounds to do so; indeed, that interest is corroborated by the 1.35 million page views this article received yesterday (in comparison with the 31,000 page views received by Alan Whicker [whose nomination didn't meet much resistance, in fact] on the date of his death). Your insistence on diminishing the interest in this story to a few Gleeks and American celebrity gossip girls is without basis. -- tariqabjotu 20:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, so we change the RD criteria to include general interest to moderately popular people, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not taking your bait; fish in another pond. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    No, nor are you interpreting drive-by fan-boy supports appropriately. I suggest you find another pond, especially since you don't like the scrutiny in this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    I am not a "drive-by fan-boy" supporter, and I don't appreciate the suggestion. I reviewed the article and the news sources and decided that it merited my support. I had never watched Glee in my life. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Come on now guys, seriously it is a sad story with his death and everything. But surely this actor has not done enough in his line of business to justify an inclusion at ITN. This is a typical "american" issue... Had he been Swedish or Romanian with the same amount of movie/series work he would not even be considered for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    I am sure these people who supported posting this are perfectly willing to support same sort of stories about some random actors in romania and sweden as well, it is only fair after all. Seriously though he is a minor celebrity whose death should not have been posted here, unless you are willing to post every other death of every other minor celebrity in every other country. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull - Lets not keep the ITN criteria different for difference cases. The news may have been reported significantly in one country but the person does not meet ITN criteria. If someone does not meet ITN criteria, nothing but exceptional circumstances should allow them to be reported. And this isnt such a case. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I keep reading that this person does not meet the death criteria. But what it says is "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". Given that the field would be TV acting and he was acting in one of the most internationally successful TV shows around, what part of the criteria doesn't he meet? Is it just that the people who regarded him as very important are not wide enough? Formerip (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There are people that I know I've seen nominated that have won awards in Television but were rejected for even RD posting (Andy Griffith comes to mind since I know I nominated that), because they aren't considered that groundbreaking or important. Being a non-award-winning star in a popular TV series is not sufficient for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Andy Griffith died in July 2012, whereas Recent deaths was introduced in October 2012, so he was not "rejected" for RD posting. -- tariqabjotu 01:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    Are you really saying that he is regarded as a very important actor out of all actors then? How about all his actor buddies in glee, are they also very important figures or why just him? In my opinion being widely regarded as an important figure in his field does not mean that it is enough to act in one succesfull tv show. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Huge show + dying young = big news worldwide. If the criteria don't recognise basic facts of life like this, then they're simply wrong. We're talking about a line on a website, not considering him for a Nobel Prize for christ's sake. If someone like Mylee Cyrus OD's tomorrow it would be up like a shot, and not a single person here bitching about this 'violation' would be able to explain how she meets the criteria but this guy doesn't. I dare anyone, anyone at all, to claim that Mylee Cyrus is widely regarded as a very important actress or singer or whatever the hell it is she does. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
And with that, I think it's time for an admin to Close this. 01:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  Done. --Jayron32 01:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Shooting of Trayvon Martin verdictEdit

No consensus to post. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:26, 20 July 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.

Nominator's comments: Conclusion of what has been a very high-profile trial, at least here in the United States. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Opppose A badly botched political trial, with a local judge incompetent to offer felony murder, and who admitted the victim's marijuana use as justifying his murder. Meanwhile the Bulger and various other murders were of far greater notability. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I don´t know what you´ve been smoking, but the judge said nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.88.105 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose just another media-made sensation --Երևանցի talk 05:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Good luck This story was ferociously shot down in April 2012, when Zimmerman was charged. Part of the reason for that was because it was not at the verdict stage, but that was only a small part. As you're starting to see already, a significant number of people see this whole thing purely as a media circus. Indeed, while coverage of this story was non-stop on U.S. news networks during the trial, I'd submit that the interest in this story was greater in the leadup to Zimmerman's arrest than in the leadup to Zimmerman's acquittal, and therefore we missed the boat on posting the important element of this story. The sole piece of evidence I have to suggest otherwise is the astronomical number of page views the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article got yesterday. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I have been watching this case and been keeping up with it, I have to agree with Yerevanci that it is just a media-made sensation. The main reason for the large amount of page views is because this case has been in the news quite a bit. A lot of innocent people are killed everyday in places like Chicago, Illinois and those shootings are ultimately no different. The only difference is the shootings in Chicago only get local coverage (excluding the Hadiya Pendleton shooting) whereas the shooting of Trayvon Martin gets national news coverage. Andise1 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support This case wasn't an ordinary "media-made sensation" trial like a Casey Anthony or a Michael Jackson, or any missing white woman syndrome here. It was high-coverage for a reason here, with the result likely heading to the higher courts, but I'll say from a judicial standpoint one of the most important state trials so far this century. With the result, it has serious implications in the United States, especially when it comes with the controversial issues of killing or hurting someone in self-defense as there is no clear definition on where that issue stands and to a lesser extent race relations and stereotyping. Secret account 05:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    The US principle of double jeopardy makes it nearly impossible for the state to appeal a not guilty verdict (generally they have to show something like jury tampering or witness coercion). As a result it is very unlikely there will be any appeal. This case is almost certainly done. The result might lead to legislative action to update the laws, but that is entirely speculative at this point. Dragons flight (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if there's rioting on the streets, otherwise, meh. –HTD 06:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sensational murder trials that get lots of attention in the country where they happen are quite common. They are largely of national interest and have little wider impact. It would take something highly exceptional for one to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is still pretty localised domestic news. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I really don't see how this is considered all that notable, at least outside of USA. If you really want a trial in the news, there was few days ago when Sergei Magnitski was posthumously convicted of tax evasion in Russia. I don't think there is a big controversy that Magnitsky trial is more notable out of these two. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, just another murder case. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, I don't think it's just another murder case. There's a whole lot of stuff there about gun control and race relations. But these all figure in localised forms specific to the state of Florida. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The blurb would have to explain its relevance for the main page. The verdict, as far as I can tell, concerns just another murder case; exactly as the blurb formulates it. Should the verdict have any consequences, then perhaps some of these could be significant enough. But this particular verdict alone isn't. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd guess WP:NPOV rules would bar a blurb essentially saying "ZOMG AMERICANS WERE HOOKED ON THIS TRIAL" or in a widely televised criminal trial...". –HTD 12:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons given above. If there are effects resulting from this(riots, etc.) we can revisit the issue. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, there were a thousand or so people protesting here in Oakland. Kaldari (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Top news in English language media, not only from the US but also BBC, Independent, Irish Times, CBC, ... Therefore the "only domestic, only national interest" claims are not true. ITN is designed to help users find articles whose subjects actually are in the news. It is unimportant if Wikipedia editors agree that this should be in the news or not. --RJFF (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
According to this list it is one of the purposes of ITN. It's not our job to mindlessly reflect various publications, we make our own evalutations on what we choose to put in our news section. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that media empires and ulterior agendas do exist, we cannot simply post every headline news that's in the papers. Wikipedia is an independent force and is under no obligation to report on the main page everything that's making headlines nor should it. Last thing we need is another website subjected to sensationalisation created by the media for financial purposes. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per RJFF. There are a lot of wider implications here: the "Stand Your Ground" law, Florida and US race relations, the nature of gun laws, the irregularities of the trial, the ongoing repercussions and the overwhelming news coverage. I usually ignore items I feel are tabloid in nature, but this story is iconic, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 12:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Then these things need to be implicated by the blurb, and any impact this verdict is thought to have must not be mere speculation; but generally accepted to be real. If it is not thought to change anything or reinforce status quo beyond what is normal for a verdict of similar sort, it is just another murder case. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present time. The case, regardless of how the verdict was to be handed down, was certain to face additional legal challenges, and it looks like there will be, at least as a civil case. It is an importance case about race and stereotyping but the impact is unclear yet. (And while fortunate we didn't have riots like the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the fact there wasn't any makes the impact of this case for ITN less likely.). --MASEM (t) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Secret said it well. Anyone in here who claims this was just another murder, or it's just a media hyped story, really doesn't know anything at all about American society. The reasons why this case has been followed with such interest, and generated so much controversy, are beyond obvious. Some people have already listed them, but it's frankly disgraceful people even need to do that to counter such obviously false grounds for opposition, such as this completely made up claim that it's only been a domestic story (and even if it had been, right at the top of the page it clearly states, "do not complain about an event only relating to a single country"). Mission Twelve (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, because kids don't get killed in other countries, right? Media made it a huge deal from nothing. The US is a country if 300 million and I'm sure racially controversial murders take place every week and media happens to choose the "best" ones. --Երևանցի talk 18:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Trayvon Martin is the only US citizen to be murdered in recent times. Jesus Christ. Why is nonsense like this even tolerated here? Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. We really need to stop refusing to put obviously notable stuff on the main page. Was it a media-made sensation? Maybe, but who cares if it was? It was definitely a major news story, and every news outlet in the country considered this to be very very newsworthy. We're an encyclopedia; we're a tertiary source. The secondary sources' opinions are already in. Just like they were with DOMA, just like they were with countless other huge stories that either didn't make it onto the main page, or barely got enough !votes to. Let's stop second-guessing the media to support whatever biases we have about what warrants news coverage (I forgot that The New York Times is a "sensationalistic" source), and do our fucking jobs. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not so much that this is a notable story, but its consistency with other trial cases at ITN. Everyone fully expects more court efforts to come about so there will be more legal challenges and thus this isn't the end of the story. The acquittal doesn't change anything about common law nor change anything about race in the US (since it was limited to Florida). It didn't cause the riots that some had suspected with the acquittal. Ergo, it's not as a major a trial result as we would normally want to see before ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
      • "More court efforts"? Huh? Under double jeopardy rules, this is almost definitely the end of any criminal charges against Zimmerman. And I don't think it has to be a major trial result. It's a major trial, and it's as relevant now as it'll ever be. If there are Constitutional challenges against Stand Your Ground, or legislative efforts, then we can cover those separately. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The killer can be sued civilly for wrongful death and under federal civil rights charges as he killed his victim acting as a town watchman with tacit approval of the government. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
          • And there's word this morning that there may be federal hate crime charges placed against him. Clearly the legal battle is not over, even if there's no criminal penalty. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional support since this is the final verdict on a very high profile case, but only if this leads to a large public reaction or some sort of protests. SpencerT♦C 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – Sadly the media is taking this and running a muck with it. It's become far more notable than it really should and has taken a spot as major news. People want to know about this and everything behind it. Just look at social media outlets, they exploded last night when the verdict was announced. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This has become international news. It was on the national news in Australia this morning. Elements that make it notable internationally are the carrying of handguns (something about America that's seen as weird elsewhere) and the race issue (seen as an American thing too, though Australia hasn't been too kind to its original citizens). Protest marches are being reported. It seems from some of the posts above that some would just like it to go away. It hasn't. It's big. And I doubt if it will be the end of this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The story is definitely "In the News".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I didn't post when this originally came up because I expected this to be thrown down, as per conventional opinion re: overly sensational trials. This is, of course, no different. It is a relatively basic murder trial blown up by the American media to turn into a racial frenzy bloated with misinformation and conjecture. The only reason I see why we would post this is due to mass protest, which was the reasoning behind other trial outcomes, something that did not occur here. With that said, it would be foolish to entertain this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    And your qualifications for making statements like "relatively basic murder trial" are what exactly? It strikes me that if you have a "very basic murder" case on your hands, you don't let the guy walk free until public pressure forces you into a very public reversal. And you don't then fail to even get a conviction for manslaughter if what you had was a "very basic murder" case. If people can call the attention over this trial simply a product of media hype, then I'd be amazed that they would even consider public protests of any interest at all, such a delusional outlook on the world would seem to go hand in hand to me. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose media, special interest and political sensation... the only reason it is so prominent in the news.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Historic outcome with important political repercussions. I would also like to express my concern that a white and middle class userbase on Wikipedia cannot understand, and perhaps resist understanding, the importance of this decision for people of color. Owen (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
As an outstanding expert on American society, please share with your views on how "important" this case was for "people of color". --Երևանցի talk 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Obama commenting for the nation for "calm reflection" and not violence is a start Secret account 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It doesn't take much effort to infer (either through your personal knowledge of the case or some brief research about it) that he's referring to the idea many have that this case, and the verdict, highlights the racial inequity existent with the American justice system. In other words, the perception is that had the races of the victim and the killer been reversed, the verdict would have been different. Or, going back even further, had the victim not been black, the confrontation that led to his death never would have taken place. These undertones have existed throughout this saga. Some would argue these perceptions are with basis, while some would argue they are without basis. Obviously, one does not have to be black to feel these concerns are with basis (and you don't have to be white to feel they are without basis), but I feel it's perfectly reasonable for Owen to suggest that a predominately white set of people (in aggregate) might be less likely to sympathize, and certainly empathize, with black people who feel the system is against them. And, because of that, he might feel such a set of people might be less likely to see the value in this story than a greater, more diverse community would. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Whites, Blacks, Asians, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Pashtuns, Arabs, Cherokee get killed also, don't they? Why make it a huge deal? Again, this case is simply a media-made sensation. As Morgan Freeman once said, if you want racism to go away stop talking about it. --Երևանցի talk 04:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOT#FORUM. SpencerT♦C 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evidence supports that Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon because of his race, additionally Zimmerman is not white, he is Hispanic. Some of what you have said may be true in spite of that information, and you can probably thank NBC for the doctored transcript and the media in general in their attempt to make Zimmerman a white devil. Arzel (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Arzel, this is a ITN nomination to decide whether the article belongs in the main page, not a place for what you thought of the case in general. That comment is inappropriate here, see WP:NOT#FORUM. Secret account 04:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are two separate questions. Is this an important case/verdict? Is this a well-supported/justified/motivated nomination according to existing policies and values? I happen to think it's the most important criminal case from a sociological standpoint since OJ. I also think it is a bad nomination according to our policies. We don't push the news. We don't help the encyclopedia by making it a tool of other agendas. There may be a lot of popular interest. But we won't improve the project by posting this. A week from now this will be stale. What will WP have benefited during that week? μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Media went out of their way to sensationalize this case (including doctoring audio conversations etc...). As an encyclopedia which ITN is part of, i dont think we should be doing the same. The case as it stands was made to look about racism by media and if we were to look at facts alone then its not much more than random shooting in one country where guns are problem to begin with. I dont think this serves any encyclopedic value. -- Ashish-g55 14:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    Why don't you suggest deleting the article then if you think this was just another murder? What a load of utter rubbish. The media covered it because people were outraged and it generated massive levels of controversy. Why do people like you have such a problem with that? Anyone who can read an article like State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman and say they didn't learn anything new, is a liar. If law professors and judges can debate the various issues this case raised for months on end, then I'm damn sure some random Wikipedian doesn't really deserve to be considered a better arbiter of whether or not it was just another trial. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    The case is what it is due to media and nobody can deny that. For ITN purposes yes it was another trial. My note was meant for ITN and ITN alone and has nothing to do with the article or the case itself. ITN does not and should not post every single case that media loves to talk about was the point. -- Ashish-g55 14:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    I can deny it, and I do deny it. You are basically ignoring all the facts about the case just to make a pathetic protest here about the way the media works, which you seem not to like, for whatever reason. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose storm in a teacup. Not unlike bigotgate, an article that was deleted. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    In case anyone isn't aware, this guy really did just compare the huge and long running controversy over a murder trial which has sparked protests across the US, to the complete non-reaction in the UK to Gordon Brown torpedoeing his already failing election bid with a mildly offensive remark caught in an open mic incident. Comparing the two is really quite ridiculous. It's borderline trolling. Infact, no, I'd have no issue with calling this a bone fide attempt to troll. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless Wikipedia reanalyzes its treatment of court cases ITN - There is something seriously inconsistent about the community 's decisions concerning whether and which court cases should be ITN. The Supreme Court of the United States guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark piece of legislation that was the crown jewel of decades of struggle in the Civil Rights Movement, and the decision to strike it down will effect literally millions of people for generations--and hardly anyone posts on its ITN nomination. Now, one person is found innocent of murder in a Florida trial court, and all of a sudden people are interested in talking about the "importance" of court cases being ITN? I do not mean to diminish the significance of Zimmerman's case in any way, because it's clearly important and has generated a great deal of discussion about racial oppression in the United States, and on that basis I would probably otherwise support it being ITN. But unless some objective criteria and not simply "I personally feel like this case is important, but this other case isn't" can be established to help guide the community in determining which court cases can make ITN, then I'm going to oppose this nomination. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
    How does that even make sense? Nobody is going to create objective criteria for how we measure the importance of court cases just because you have a strop here about an unrelated case not being discussed enough (and really, Supreme Court decisions affecting millions of people? Isn't that what they are there for? And aren't there a few million people in Florida alone? Literally speaking). Despite the fact you claimed otherwise, your intention is quite clearly to diminish the significance of this case if you are willing to oppose it unless someone acts on demands that nobody is going to take a blind bit of notice of. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    It makes perfect sense to suggest criteria and to object to cases being placed willy-nilly as ITN items in the absence of criteria. That is the conversation I am hoping to start. You are free to make guesses about my intent, but that's missing the point entirely. And it's not really just Shelby County, it's any number of landmark cases that are routinely disregarded as ITN. If a landmark Supreme Court case can be disregarded by Wikipedia as an ITN item, then there is little reason why cases that are neither landmark nor Supreme Court should be included, irrespective of how significant they are (which this case is, as I said, pretty significant). If you would like to actually have a conversation about criteria that can help guide the community on this issue as I have suggested, by all means let's begin; otherwise, I will not take a "blind bit of notice of" anything you have to say. Alternatively, if what you are trying to say is that this is the wrong forum to voice this concern and nobody will take a "blind bit of notice of" it here, perhaps you (or another editor) could kindly point me in the right direction. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    It makes no sense at all to oppose this nomination just because you want to have a conversation about future policy. You might think there is "little reason" to take notice of cases which aren't landmark or Supreme Court decisions, but just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Especially not when the whole world quite clearly is taking notice of it, and it is having ramifications and consequences over and above what normally happen for even landmark or Supreme Court decisions, a basic fact which cannot simply be dismissed by the nonsense being talked about by others about this all being just 'media hype'. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, you must have missed this part: "If you would like to actually have a conversation about criteria that can help guide the community on this issue as I have suggested, by all means let's begin; otherwise, I will not take a "blind bit of notice of" anything you have to say." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    How did I miss it? I said quite clearly, it doesn't make any sense. If you don't want to justify your opposition of this trial with reference to the actual trial, then go right ahead. I'm sure it will improve the reputation of ITN no end. Mission Twelve (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    The US Supreme Court decision that was not posted lost out mostly because people felt that the gay marriage decision to follow was much more important. I would say that one should nominate court cases with as many secondary sources that one can find that say that there will be lasting impact. Point out encyclopedic content too. Abductive (reasoning) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    That was my point above as well... where is encyclopedic value in the case (which got a fairly rude reply)? was this a landmark case that impacted a law? ITN should not post every case that goes into media frenzy. at the end of the day this is an encyclopedia not CNN -- Ashish-g55 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    The encyclopedic interest here is obvious if you bothered to read some of the media coverage or even the Wikipedia article - the long delay before there was even an arrest, the debate over 'stand your ground' and racial profiling, the disagreement between federal and state courts after the verdict, the protests and other policical reactions, etc, etc. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    All contrived and will probably go away after a week's time. Come now, we don't mindlessly follow whatever current events the media throws out there; we didn't do wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    WTF has Anna Nicole Smith got to do with this? If you want to play that card, you could at least name an actual trial verdict that wasn't posted. How do you "contrive" a debate about racial profiling/stand your ground/judiciary conflicts? The only people being mindless here are those claiming this is all just media hype, burying their heads in the sand about why the actual facts of this case are being seen as such a big deal by the public, media, politicians and prosecturs. The people saying this will go away in a week, were probably the same people saying it would go away a day after the verdict was announced. They're either delusional, or are trying to get Wikipedia to wrongly ignore this obviously notable trial verdict for their own personal reasons. Mission Twelve (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • People are RIOTING over this! Come on, how is this not "in the news"? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
"In The News" is the title, not the criteria. I'm not sure where the line is between someone throwing a dustbin on the one hand and a riot on the other, but if it is crossed, then maybe the rioting should be nominated in its own right. Formerip (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Riots (if big enough) would be a separate nomination that should be discussed away from the result of this case... -- Ashish-g55 14:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't get that logic. There is a clear link between the riots/demonstrations and the Martin murder verdict. Saying we ahve to nominate the riots separately seems like stifling the nomination with bureaucracy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
dont need to create separate nomination but atleast the blurb should then focus on riots/demonstrations then... which to be honest are not all that big as far as i can tell -- Ashish-g55 00:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would need a line drawing. Not to "stifle" it, but because consensus is never going to be a clear without starting a new discussion. Formerip (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Encyclopedic value is negligible, this was just one giant media hype-up. And its also too late to post it now. RetroLord 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose local US news on the main page. We do not post similar verdicts against Poles, Chinese or Bulgarians. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If they made international news, as this has, because of uncommon laws in those countries, we probably would. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks like a large percentage of the oppose votes say something like "I would support if there was rioting or something". Well actually there was rioting, a few blocks from my house even. Yes, it's mostly a US story, but I've seen it mentioned in numerous non-US news sources. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly a significant event in the history of race relations in the US (whether people think it should be or not). Christopher Connor (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose systemic bias warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain that warning please? I'm not sure what you mean. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Obama has called a press conference to discuss the decision and US Attorney General Eric Holder has called for a nationwide review of "stand your ground" laws citing the case.[45] Protests have been held across the country (some turning violent in California) and more are planned for this weekend. Do you guys still think this event is just "media hype"? Kaldari (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
*yawn* Obama and Obama's lackey call for a press conference. Does that scream populism or what? Just another day in 'murica, this item is too stale to post now. KING RETROLORD 06:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Populism means you are appealing to the majority. Apparently you didn't see Obama's press conference. Kaldari (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] World's largest building opens in ChinaEdit

Stale; nominated too late. SpencerT♦C 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: New Century Global Centre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The world's largest building, 500 metres long by 400 metres wide and 100 metres high, opens in southwest China.
News source(s): The Age
 --HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if we've covered this before, but it has just opened according to the article I have referenced. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Something more than the current stub would help establish notability. Otherwise it is basically a bunch of smaller projects within one curtain. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if sufficiently updated & expanded. While not as high-profile as world's tallest building, world's largest building is still a pretty important record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale Article states building opened June 28. 3142 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB, with same if too. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose stale, our own article says it opened on 1 July. Not "in the news" then, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yes it is. It was in my daily paper yesterday. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you know what I mean. It's not "in the news" here if it occurred 12+ days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
A technically valid point, but does that mean that anything that doesn't make it quickly to mainstream western news services gets ignored? That's a a systemic bias that we shouldn't accept. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Then you should look to modify the ITN criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Would there really be any point trying? Would I have your support? HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please keep comments on other nominations in their respective locations. SpencerT♦C 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well it's not up to me to choose, you'd need community consensus of course, but I'd support anything that got this place a bit more dynamic and expressive. Today we've posted the premature death of an actor who essentially had a three-year career and who will be forgotten in months. Don't get me wrong, it had consensus, but in posting, the RD criteria were clearly ignored/overlooked. So I see no problem with the "staleness" criteria being ignored/overlooked in some circumstances since the precedent to completely disregard the criteria has been set. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose purely on timing grounds. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely a landmark achievement but late in the news. The article is surprisingly small as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:21, 15 July 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.

July 13Edit


[Posted] Bhutanese National Assembly election, 2013Edit

Article: Bhutanese National Assembly election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Bhutanese National Assembly election the People's Democratic Party win a majority of seats.
News source(s): Washington 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: ITN/R election. Actually quite a big deal for this little country fairly new to democracy. --LukeSurl t c 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've added a Reaction and Analysis section. --LukeSurl t c 23:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Article had been updated well - kudos to Luke for his work! Neljack (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe the article is well-updated. -- tariqabjotu 18:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've added a little bit more. To be honest, this is as good as it's likely to get. There seems to be only two AP reports from Bhutan that all the English-language reports are using. --LukeSurl t c 21:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I found this New York Times article as a possible source for more content. I'll see if I can add some stuff to the article from that later. SpencerT♦C 14:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I expanded the article with more text. Marking [ready]. SpencerT♦C 01:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

UN peacekeepers killedEdit

Article: African Union – United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Seven United Nations peacekeepers are killed in an attack in South Darfur, Sudan.
News source(s): USA Today ABC News BBC.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: According to ABC News, the attack was "the deadliest ever single attack on the international force in the country." Andise1 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Article would need a substantial section of prose on this particular attack. --LukeSurl t c 16:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] China uranium plantEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article: Jiangmen#Uranium processing plant (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Following public protest, authorities in Heshan, China, cancel a planned uranium processing plant.
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23298663
Nominator's comments: An ITN-worthy example of the role of public discourse in China nowadays. Work is needed on the article update. Formerip (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This has only been cancelled by the "local government", leading to fears it may only be a postponement. It's pretty obvious that if this plant was deemed necessary to the Chinese economy (and if as is claimed it would fuel half the countries nuclear power stations, it seems they might), then the national Communist Party will pretty obviously think nothing of overriding the local government, protests or no protests. As the article states, public protesting is not unheard of in China. It is yet to be seen if this is a watershed moment thought. Mission Twelve (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing the significance here. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

July 12Edit


[Reposted] RD PranEdit

Article: Pran (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Veteran Bollywood actor Pran dies at the age of 93.
News source(s): http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/bollywood-pran-dead-idINDEE96B09K20130712
Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Regards, theTigerKing  17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The veteran Bollywood actor had featured unanimously in ITN this year for receiving the highest Indian cinema award. He was a respected name in the Indian cinematic space.Regards, theTigerKing  17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. Clearly a significant person in Indian cinema, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests suitability for a blurb. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Obviously support on notability (for RD) - however, the orange tag needs addressed and the death section needs more than just one sentence (e.g. reactions) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose article has a single sentence about his death, no reactions, and numerous style issues like dead links, is this what we want to feature on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't post with all the dead links - it would be embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD if article is cleaned up. --LukeSurl t c 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • support RD but after cleaning up and updating article..-Nizil (talk)
  • Support for RD: I sense that one of the socks of User:Shrik88music has been on the article. Hence the mess and unnecessary statistics. I have reverted the article to possibly best version of past. But dead links still remain. Have added one comment on death by PM. Will add more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support upon article cleanup. Clearly notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked as Ready All the dead links have been removed. The artcile has a small section on his death. Tributes would definitely pour in today as he had died last night IST. I guess we don't have to make the article a tributary of sort. Lets do justice with his body of work Period.Regards, theTigerKing  02:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this is definitely updated. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The career sections are largely unreferenced (and orange tagged). Fixing dead links is nice and all, but unreferenced material is a much more serious problem than a link no longer working. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Pending citations being added - there is a lot of uncited information in the article currently. Miyagawa (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • COMMENT The website in the cite section is under construction (as suggested in the home page). Hence, the dead links. The article had the same links while it was posted in the ITN (when Pran was awarded with the Dada Saheb award). I believe we can post the article in RD for now. Could not find a replacement of the dead links in the web. AFAIK.Regards, theTigerKing  19:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    The main concern is not over deadlinks, but rather uncited information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • tags Technically, the movies that are linked to in the career section serve as primary sources, as long as he was credited in them, which seems highly likely. Tagging the whole sections is neither helpful for the article or here, individual claims that need support should be tagged. If the full ITN blurb was justified, it seems pointy to oppose the ticker at this point. I am going to remove the section tags, and ask that specific claims be tagged instead. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • As you like. Some tags added. Also, this article is very poorly written and very poorly formatted. "Various celebrities have congratulated him on this occasion...", "Amitabh was going through a bad patch in his career", "continued to cast him in pivotal roles", "Pran's performance as the negative character was very much appreciated in Dilip Kumar starrers"... do those who support this actually read the article? It's appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I've read worse--but don't tell me here, it's not my nom and I have no personal interest in the topic. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
      • This article was posted (with a full blurb of course) in April. Has the article really deteriorated so significantly since then? -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Article when it was posted, around the same quality, surprised it was posted in that shape though the article was way worse when it was first nominated in April. Secret account 04:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
          • It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway - a past mistake (posting with insufficient quality) is not sufficient justification to repeat the mistake. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it all even worth discussing now, that too for a RD where only four alphabets will be displayed? We should simply close this discussion. Also its no longer news now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The item can still be posted, it is no where near stale yet (i.e. older than the oldest blurb). I have no clue what the rest of the comment means. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready I have commented out a few claims, removed the tag from one which claimed Pran and Dev Anand worked together--the movies themselves are linked and they credit the two--further references aren't needed. LionBase1234 has added refs for other claims. At this point the article is untagged and ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT♦C 20:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man, the article looks ready now. I've done a basic cleanup on the prose, which has improved the article. It still contains a few problems, but I don't think that it should give ITN any problems. The article is certainly Ready. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pulled as the article has copyright/close paraphrasing tag that needs to be fixed. Secret account 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I spot-checked for copyvio content when I posted and I don't see the tag in the article; what exactly was the copyrighted/closely paraphrased content? SpencerT♦C 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Repost this is incredible. We have a 36,000 byte article to which someone adds a page-wide tag with no comment on talk? It should be reposted immediately unless tags are immediately added to the specific disputed claims. There is no other way to address them. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm leery about adding potentially copyvio material to the Main Page; I'll look over the article again to try and figure out what was the issue. I also asked for clarification of the tag on the talk page of the user who tagged the article. SpencerT♦C 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • This looks strikingly similar, but which came first...? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia did. From your link: ...and the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2013[3] for his contributions towards Indian cinema. Notice the "[3]" in the middle of that sentence. SpencerT♦C 14:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I see Spencer left a note for the editor who tagged the article. That editor did not give any reason on talk oredit summary for his action. A bare link on RD doesn't convey any copyrighted material, so it should be safe to restore if we don't get a response soon. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I did some investigating, and the tag was added by user Bonadea after she noted some additions by a now blocked user (editting here in good faith, apparently) were close to the source material he posted. I went through his additions and rewrote everything from scratch. Hence there's no reason at this point to fear copyvio, and the item should be reposted.
  • Reposted. SpencerT♦C 20:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Brétigny-sur-Orge train crashEdit

Article: Brétigny-sur-Orge train crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least six people are killed in a passenger train crash in Brétigny-sur-Orge, near Paris.

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment you are supposed to include references in the nomination, the BBC are currently stating seven dead with numerous injuries. In any case, we'll need to see how this develops, but it's a mild support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Oppose six fatalities, just one of those things, unless someone finds out it was a bomb or something, this isn't particularly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support subject to article expansion. I came here to nominate this. It's still very early days so there isn't much to the article yet, but it's clear this is a major incident (although the BBC are presently saying 7 rather than 10 dead) and more details will emerge. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless this develops greatly in notability (crime suspect, death toll exceeds 20, notable victim, edifice harmed) it just amounts to a sad, but routine accident, not worthy of featuring, if even encyclopedic recognition. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "routine"? This is the first significant railway accident in France since the Zoufftgen train collision in 2006. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • My position is quite clear, there is no point in us detailing every 7-death transportation accident. Why do you not instead explain what is encyclopedic about this, since the burden lies entirely on the nominator to show actual notability? μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Your position is clear, but your reasoning is not. We indeed do not write encyclopaedia articles about every 7-death transportation accident because there are thousands of such road accidents each year. This isn't a road accident though, it's a high-speed derailment of a passenger train at a busy station (which is very rare), also rare are fatal railway accidents in not just France (first since 2006, deadliest since 1998) but most of the rest of the world too - the Fairfield train crash in Connecticut resulted in 0 deaths for example. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I think Medeis has made her position clear, no point in chasing it. Six deaths in an accident in France with nothing more to report isn't that notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once article is ready. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Disasters with this sort of death toll are pretty common, and we certainly don't post most of them. I'm not seeing anything sufficiently special about it to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most people are not going to know how to pronounce "Brétigny-sur-Orge" and this has caused no traffic jams in the San Francisco area. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is something else notable about this (terrorism, criminal act, etc.). 331dot (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Query. What is the history of posting similar train accidents on ITN? Have such accidents been regularly posted, or rarely posted? Abductive (reasoning) 03:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Just like the Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 crash which was covered ITN, this is a rare and therefore notable event. The number of dead and critically injured people is similar. Cochonfou (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Plane crashes are rarer events than train crashes; we just posted the Lac-Megantic wreck. This was the first fatal plane crash of a large airliner in the US since 2001 and only the second accident involving a 777(which first flew in 1995). 331dot (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • And this is the first fatal train wreck in France since 2006. Again, these events look very comparable in magnitude to me. It is not every day that a Boeing airliner crashes, and it is not every day that a train from SNCF wrecks. Both have excellent safety records. Cochonfou (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    Comparing Template:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2013 to Template:2013_railway_accidents, it looks like train accidents may be rarer that plane accidents (assuming both templates are reasonably well maintained). Formerip (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    Notable train accidents arerarer than notable plane accidents, especially as it seems that articles about borderline notable (and frankly non-notable) air accidents are created more frequently than articles about similar rail accidents. The Lac-Megantic disaster and this accident happening so close together is completely coincidental and is no more relevant to the notability of either any more than the Asiana crash has any bearing on the notability of either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: rare major disaster, worst train accident in France in 25 years. -Zanhe (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is very similar to Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 which was posted, I will find it extremely odd if this is now decided to not be worthy of posting. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It shouldn't even need explaining really. If an air crash like Flight 214 is the bar for inclusion for disasters, then a multiple fataility train crash in an advanced western European country like France easily has the same level of significance. The intensity of media coverage is the same, that's for sure. Anyone who thinks these sort of rail disasters are just a routine part of life in that part of the world, but fatal plane crashes for modern airlines/ers in modern airspaces are extremely rare, is just completely delusional. I am amazed people even have to think about it. But there you go. This is apparently a place where a human powered helicopter is a huge achievement, but landing a drone on a carrier is no big deal, and where Wimbledon is an awesome spectacle of top level sport, but the Lions are just a bunch of exhibitionists just playing sport for a laugh. Mission Twelve (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Notable rail accidents are actually rarer than notable air accidents; the only difference being that we have an active number of editors at enwiki who believe that every incident that doesn't result in a plane landing normally is worthy of an article. They're wrong. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Fatal train crashes in developed countries such as France are rare. –Randor1980 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Rare F1 Mercedes Sells For Record £19.6m ($26.4m)Edit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Mercedes-Benz W196 (talk, history) and Juan Manuel Fangio (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A rare Mercedes-Benz W196, driven by Juan Manuel Fangio to his second Formula One title in 1954, is sold at auction for a record £19.6 (US$29.7 , €22,7)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23275089 http://www.bonhams.com/press_release/14104/
Nominator's comments: World record. Noteworthy car. Noteworthy price. Noteworthy user(s). Nice change from all the death and despair that is in ITN (that is not ITN/R) currently. Broke records for: Most valuable motor car ever sold at auction, Most valuable Formula 1 racing car ever sold, Most valuable Mercedes-Benz --Torqueing (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I doubt more than a one line update can be made for this... so oppose -- Ashish-g55 16:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds like DYK. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Medeis, would make a fine DYK, but not really ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Apart from the fact it's in the news? :) It's broken 3 world records, it's newsworthy for as long as people drive cars and auctions sell things Torqueing (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree selling an historic car for a large sum is newsworthy, but then again, so is the highest 10th wicket partnership in Test cricket which was a world record broken yesterday (along with another world record for highest score by a number 11 on his debut). It's all about how this would appeal to our global audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We have posted other auction records (on art, for example). However, I have to agree with Ashish that the inability for an extensive update is a concern. If the article was substantial improved in some way (either general expansion or finding a way to write about the auction in a meaningful way [how did it come up for sale, for example?]) I would support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Incidentally, if it's broken some record for auction, then that should be included in the blurb, otherwise it's "car sells for loads of money". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – aside from being a complete waste of money (end bias opinion), what makes this ITN material? Sure it may be something rather notable within the realm of racing and auctions, but that's about it. There's nothing outside a line of X car sold for X cash and no real world repercussions, positive or negative. As stated before, it's something more worthy of DYK than ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The same could be said for sculptures (4 February 2010) and photographs (15 November 2011), these made it for ITN because people paid "silly" money for them and you saying these are more significant to cars. Donnie Park (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Had I noticed them then, I would have given a similar oppose. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support – We had records for arts, sculptures and photographs appearing on ITN, so why can't record for cars appear or do I smell double standards, or the works of several people is insignificant to the so called expressive work of one man. Not forgetting car auction records have always been big news and these record breakers are never forgotten, thats by the public and motoring press; example Bugatti Royale (1987), James Coburn's Ferrari 250 GT Spider California SWB (2008) and Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa (2009 and 2011). Donnie Park (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "car auction records have always been big news these record breakers are never forgotten" – That's all fine and dandy, but what's so important about it? It's a car that's really expensive that has no major impact aside from that guy's bank account. I don't see any notability outside of the the car and auction world. I don't consider something that pertains to such a small and specific realm of the media as "big news," but I could just be ignorant since I don't care much for cars. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • "I could just be ignorant since I don't care much for cars" - you made your claim there, the same there as I couldn't care less much for art and sculptures either, I'm not a supporter of giving lottery and government grants to keep these arts to public hands and very very few cars received handouts. "I don't consider something that pertains to such a small and specific realm of the media as "big news,"", it may not be as big as people rioting, dying in plane crashes, people winning some big event, what about that Coburn's California, it managed to appear in Top Gear (link below), my point is to a car person, people remember these cars for a long period of time. Donnie Park (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Donnie Park. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose in case that's not clear. Get back to me about double standards when they hang this in the Louvre. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It's simply offensive when you accuse people of a double standard. I know a lot of people I often disagree with here who go out of their way not to have one. You'd have been much better off making an objective case in favor first, rather than throwing accusations. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think there are two differences between this car and an artwork. First, there have been artworks that sold for more than it. Examples include the Guennol Lioness, an 8 cm tall ancient statue, for $57.2 million, and the The Card Players for a quarter of a billion dollars. Second, art has more depth of meaning to humanity than a vehicle designed to improve a company's image. Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Then you have no understanding of the word "art" Torqueing (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, thus "art" is a highly subjective subject. What people consider "modern art" I consider messes half of the time. People also consider cars a form of art, I see them as modes of transportation. Conversely, people see anime as plain cartoons, I see it as a form of art. Perception of art differs greatly from person to person so criticizing someone for having no understanding of what "art" is basically amounts to telling them they're not entitled to their opinions. Not that I'm claiming such were your intentions, however. That's just how it appears to me. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
        • You made the same argument as I did. Artistic merit is in the eye of the beholder Torqueing (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
          • If it is art, then it is by no means ITN-worthy since it sold for so little. If it is not art, then it is not ITN-worthy at all. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Blurb at present says 20 pounds. Order of magnitude is missing. 64.201.173.145 (