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

June 30Edit


US Spying AllegationsEdit

Article: PRISM (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Leaked reports allege that the NSA has been spying on the offices and embassies of many of the United States' allies
Alternative blurb: ​The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, describes as "nothing unusual" reports that the USA spies on EU offices and embassies.
News source(s): SMH, Guardian
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The US is expected to provide an explanation for the allegation over the coming days; the EU parliament president has stated that EU and US relations would be severely impacted if the allegations were true, and various commentators have noted that the allegations could have a direct impact on a proposed Trans-Atlantic trade agreement worth potentially billions of dollars. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Suspect the proper target article, at this time, is PRISM. It may takes days or weeks for the relation article to distill the proper information, but it is more in line with the scope of reactions to PRISM. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    I've changed it accordingly; I got a bit carried away and mentioned more details than I should in the EU-US relations article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    The matter goes beyond PRISM. It includes offline, old-fashioned bugging as well. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    I recognize it's quite possibly much larger than that, but it is a bit of a crystal ball right now. The relations could totally break down. Or in 24 hr the powers that be agree that it wasn't much and it was a blip in the overall PRISM story. For an ITN posting, the story stems from ongoing discovery of how deep PRISM runs. If, say, the EU formally disbands any US agreements, that itself would likely be a seperate ITN item that would feature the appropriate relationship/agreement article. But this facet, of the bugging, is news of itself and needs posting, and PRISM (or a larger article on the general discovery of how deep all this stuff has been) seems to be the right target presently. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    Agree. I was going to add that EU-US relations or a dedicated article would be best - but for ITN it depends on where the content gets added. If the content is added to PRISM (or a new PRISM spying controversy article, or Edward Snowden, or Edward Snowden leaks) then that is appropriate for ITN. --RA (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very serious matter that has put the EU–US Free Trade Agreement into threat. Alternative blurb provided. --RA (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the threat to the trade agreement is the primary rationale, then the blurb should be worded to reflect that, and possibly we should wait until said agreement is affected. Countries have spied on other countries (friendly or otherwise) since the beginning of time, so I wonder if this is really that shocking an event as the media claims it is. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    The threats of repercussions for the trade agreement is an example of the seriousness. But the matter goes beyond that. The depth and degree of spying (e.g. listening devices in embassies and UN offices) is shocking. While some degree of spying between the two blocks is to be expected, relations (up until now) were assumed to be friendly. Looks like it wasn't seen that way by both parties. --RA (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    In addition to that, it's alleged that 500 million emails and phones calls to and from the EU have been intercepted and according to the most recent media reports, several other allied countries, including India and South Korea were also spied on; it's that type of scale that's concerning here. Anyways, the coverage of the allegations by the media and the potential implications of this on the US' international standing could justify a separate article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to me that it's not really for us to decide how shocking or bad this is. The relevant thing is the reaction, and it certainly seems to have sparked a major diplomatic reaction in Europe, as well as getting extensive international media coverage. Perhaps the blurb should refer to the reactions of European leaders, as that is part of what makes it so notable. Neljack (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The reaction so far is noise. That's not notable. When it becomes action we can reconsider. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we already posted the original discovery, we cannot update ever time some twist of interpretation comes out in the news. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree completely with Medeis, and let's stop being surprised that spying occurs (and has for millennia), and that spied upon people express outrage each time it becomes public. Don't kid yourself that they didn't already know this was happening. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll formally oppose this; countries spy on each other all the time(even on friendly countries) and will continue to do so. If there is a specific effect (such as the aforementioned trade deal being scuttled in the future) then we can talk about that, but as Medeis said we can't post something new every time. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. There are several notable stories about spying, and we should of course post each notable distinct story, if it is notable and distinct enough (which this is). As for all contries spying, it is still notable when it gets found it. Thue (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
    Agree. Spying is not notable. Getting caught is. --RA (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is headline news in Europe. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Yarnell Hill FireEdit

Article: Yarnell Hill Fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nineteen firefighters are killed fighting the Yarnell Hill Fire, marking the largest single loss of life for firefighters in the United States since the September 11 attacks
Alternative blurb: ​Nineteen firefighters are killed, and 22 people injured, fighting a wildfire in Yarnell, United States.
News source(s): this, this, this, and this

Article updated

 --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Note – if more sources catch on to this, it should be worth noting that this is the greatest loss of firefighters since September 11. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I just re-wrote the hook to reflect that, as others will probably note that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Support I'd like the article to be improved before posting. short, but this is the best we can do at this moment in time. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Major news, and part of the wider story of the heatwave and wildfires in the South West. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Top story on BBC news currently, even ranking ahead of the largest ever fire in the West Midlands. Large numbers of firefighter deaths are fortunately not common. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Support. Same as above, 19 firemen deaths is an unusual amount. Donnie Park (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a significant event in its own right. It's both unnecessary and inappropriate to bring the September 11 attacks into this. Just let it stand on its own. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
oppose especially mention of the single largest loss of life since 9/11 sa that is purely us-centric. On a general note, this has no in the news repercussions, and on the international media (bbc for the moment, ihow long will it last?)Lihaas (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As newsworthy as the serious road traffic accidents we report around the globe. Also agree the blurb should be specific to this event only. CaptRik (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: proposed an alt-blurb too. Not sure if I've linked things correctly. CaptRik (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The alternative blurb looks good, although "United States" generally suffices (although there are others, the USA is the primary topic). I think we also link countries from ITN blurbs, but I'm not completely sure of that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Updated (alt-blurb), thanks. CaptRik (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
For the record, we do not link country names as per WP:overlink. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a very unusual number of deaths for firefighters. That said, I would suggest leaving September 11th out of it. 9/11 was such an exceptional event that trying to draw comparisons to it does not seem all that helpful. Dragons flight (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Blurb should mention this is a wild/brushfire, in Arizona. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I deliberately left out mention of Arizona in the alt-blurb as I referenced the country itself. I'm not sure what our normal convention but I don't remember us mentioning counties/regions/states etc when the country is mentioned. CaptRik (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, the wild/brushfire aspect should be included. The way the original blurb reads, without being familiar with the actual fire, makes it sound like it was something happening in New England (where there are a lot of named "Hills" within urban centers, and the reference to 9/11). At least establishing that it is a wild/brushfire doesn't narrow the geography but gives better reason to why so many have died so far. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
How to do you feel about the alt-blurb now? I clarified that it's a wildfire, linking to the main article, and replaced the location with a link to Yarnell. CaptRik (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Much better; I'd expect the reader will have a good understanding of how difficult wildfires are to contain and ergo why the lost of life here is significant. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support 19 dead firefighters is tragic, note-worthy news no matter which way you look at it (aka the ending of the blurb, no real opinion of that). --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
well I agree there was consensus but perhapos should have waited for a few more hours for the rest of the world to comment.Lihaas (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Almost 13 hours isn't enough? --Tone 16:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
This "rest of the world" nonsense only gets pulled out when a US story gets posted. For the record, the hours this was open were probably the least friendly to the Americas possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor.
Also bear in mind, I did say it was a legitimate post. HJust a general ITN standard it should wait. (and there have been ITN discussion on this)Lihaas (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
So case in point, it is NOT because of the US factor. Huh? Case in point how? This is a U.S. story, and you argued that this story needed more time to allow the "rest of the world" to comment, even though the discussion took place overnight in the United States. On the other hand, it was during waking hours in Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia throughout most of the time this was open and available for comment. So... what part of the "rest of the world" was not given ample time to comment? South America? Yes, this objection (often from you) that the "rest of the world" was given the chance to comment is limited almost exclusively to U.S. stories, and it's quite clear here no one else is miffed by this posting. -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hissene Habre arrestEdit

Article: Hissene Habre (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of Chad Hissene Habre is arrested in Senegal to face charges of political killngs and torture.

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: "first time the former leader of an African state has been tried by another" at the behest of the AU. --Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The article needs a lot of work, many controversial facts need sourcing. μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if properly updated. Part of a very long-running story. Wouldn't normally support arrest, rather than conviction, but national leaders being tried for crimes against humanity take a long time to reach the verdict stage. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 15 birds discovered in BrazilEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 21:23, 3 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: List of birds of Brazil (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A simultaneous discovery of fifteen bird species is announced in Brazil.
News source(s): Wildlife Extra, Pesquisa FAPESP (in Portuguese)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Rare and significant event, reportedly the first one since 1871. The scientific description is expected in July, but their taxa and some other data are already known. --Brandmeistertalk 17:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on the basis that the update isn't sufficient. It doesn't tell me anything useful about the species other than their genus (and none of those articles has any mention of this news) and a note on their range (that doesn't tell me which range relates to which genus, let alone species). Following the hook, I want to know a bit about each of the species and a bit about the discovery but I'm just lead to dead ends. If this information isn't available yet, then it's probably best to wait until it is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale - discovery was announced June 5. [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, can be suspended until scientific descriptions are published. Brandmeistertalk
  • Oppose - As was justly noted in the nomination for the bird discovered in Pnomh Penh, new species are discovered quite often. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but not 15 birds simultaneously. Brandmeistertalk 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, yes, expeditions are mounted to do just that. Abductive (reasoning) 17:39, 1 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] Croatia becomes the 28th member of the European UnionEdit

Article: Accession of Croatia to the European Union (talk, history)
Blurb: Croatia becomes the 28th member of the European Union.
News source(s): NY Times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The acceding date is midnight July 1, local time, which is 2200hrs UTC June 30.

Other articles to update that mention Croatia July accession in the future tense: Croatia, History of Croatia, European Union, History of the European Union, Treaty of Accession 2011, Enlargement of the European Union, Future enlargement of the European Union, Member state of the European Union, Countries bordering the European Union, Currencies of the European Union, Template:Member states of the European Union, Central European Free Trade Agreement, Balkans, History of the Balkans, Template:Foreign relations of Croatia and all the articles that the template links to, European Commission, European Parliament, European Council, Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012, Croatia and the euro, List of observers to the European Parliament for Croatia, 2012–2013, Croatian language, Schengen Area, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, European Economic Area, Croatian passport, History of Croatia since 1995, History of the European Union (since 2004), European Parliament election, 2013 (Croatia), Croatian identity card, European Patent Convention, European Parliament election, 2014, Croatia–Slovenia border disputes, European integration, 2013, European Fiscal Compact, Eastern Europe, European Union Association Agreement, Visa policy in the European Union, Single Euro Payments Area, Passport stamp, Template:Foreign relations of the European Union, as well as all other EU-related articles that mention "27 members", and there are probably still more articles including various maps of Europe.

  • Support but I what was the actual last requirement that was completed a week ago? Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Ratification by all member states. The last formality looks to have been the depositing of the German instruments of ratification with the government of Italy (see Treaty of Accession 2011#Ratification). Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Then out that into the timeline table. Nergaal (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as a major Europeaen and itnernational topic. The last accession was 2007 and it will be several years before the next one if I'm reading the Future enlargement of the European Union article right. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very significant event not only for Croatia, bur for the whole Europe. --Երևանցի talk 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, very significant event for the country and the EU. Egeymi (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant news story, particularly when you look at the number of articles this will change. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Expansion of a notable international organization; a rare occurrence. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. per above. ComputerJA () 08:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant for Croatia (minority topic). Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
ocomment there is only 1 sentence of an update "Entry into force and accession of Croatia to the EU is set to be 1 July 2013, as all 27 EU members and Croatia have ratified the treaty before this date"Lihaas (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've added a few more sentences. Mallweft (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A country becoming a member of the EU is definitely news.--Somchai Sun (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many unions exist around the world and they always add nations Nottruelosa (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There are only two comparable unions, the African Union and the Union of South American Nations. The African Union's last two accessions were in 2011 (South Sudan) and 1994 (South Africa). The Union of South American States has not expanded since its formation in 2004-2011 (depending on what you count as formation). In what way therefore are either of your points factually true? Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Look at all these international organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_organization_leaders_in_2012 I got the leaders article cause I can not find an article that says list of international organizations without leaders Nottruelosa (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • If you read the articles for those organisations you'll find that they cover a huge range of organisations that range from talking shops with no power and little influence, to trading clubs, to sports governing bodies, to scientific treaty organisations, to transport regulators, etc. You are not just comparing apples with oranges, but apples with the entire food department of a major supermarket. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Agree, Thryduulf. It's evident that the above oppose has no weight to it whatsoever. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A new EU member state is indeed significant news. Should be posted at midnight local time. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to oppose this, I agree with Nottruelosa, and saying her vote is weightless is a bit bullying, no? But the target article has been getting about 1,000 hits a day for some time now. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't there be a limit to how uninformed a vote can be before we may call it weightless? Thue (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Bullying!? You're kidding, right? In what way does my comment constitute bullying? I wasn't commenting on the editor in question at all, you make it seem as if I'm being forceful or rude in getting my point across. Here's a more detailed explanation: When weighing up the argument Nottruelosa gave Vs. the counter-argument Thryduulf gave it was clear the oppose had no weight to it, ergo why I called it "weightless". --Somchai Sun (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I am not going to argue the point. You obviously know what I meant by bullying, and if you disagree you can suggest another term for it, but the criticism stands. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Leaving aside the bullying issues, I think somebody who does not know that EU is the closest political entity to a federation without actually being one that there is out there, and that the level of integration within EU is well above the levels of any other unions out there (i.e. how many unions have their own currencies?) does not merit having their opinions receiving significant weight on this issue. Nergaal (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, Wikipedia is not a source. The number of hits is blindingly irrelevant to whether or not this is in the news. But as it happens, Nergaal is right, and you and nottruelosa are wrong - the EU is a sui generis international organisation. I'd gladly support the addition of a new state to the USA for ITN; an entire sovereign country joining the largest single market in the world gets my nod too.
  • Support Agree with what has already been said, the EU is one of the most well know organisations. Croatia officially becomes a member at 12 midnight UTC+2 (22:00 UTC) so at the time of writing in just 15 minutes. -- [[ axg //  ]] 21:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 22:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support as discussed above. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

June 29Edit


June 28Edit


World's Fastest Bird KilledEdit

Consensus not to post. (We have the Cambodian tailorbird on MP at the moment, more than one bird-related story is excessive). --Tone 16:11, 1 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: White-throated Needletail (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Unseen for 22 years, the world's fastest bird is killed by a Scottish fan.
Alternative blurb: ​Gathered crowds watch, as, unseen in 22 years, the world's fastest bird is struck dead in Scotland.
News source(s): Fox

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This was an unexpected turn, we have a great article to showcase
  • Oppose it was one bird that died, and it is categorized as "least concerned" as far as endangerment goes. It was only unseen in the UK for 22 years, the blurb reads like this specific bird was actually the fastest. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (EC) This is not an endangered species, just rare in the UK. Further, suggest a reword of the blurb to change "fan" to "wind turbine"; I thought fan meant person. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb--the purpose of a blurb is to attract readers, I am not set on mine. An alternative might be "The world's fastest bird, unseen for 22 years, is whacked before onlookers in Scotland." μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It wasn't completely unseen for 22 years; it just hasn't been seen in the UK, which isn't part of its normal territory. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • That was reflected in my suggested altblurb by "in scotland". "Unseen in Scotland for 22 years, the world's fastest bird is whacked before onlookers" seems a bit awkward. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It isn't unusual for wildlife to leave their normal territory and end up somewhere else. I'm also only seeing this covered by Fox. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Usual or unusual, it has apparently only been seen once in the last 22 years, only to die in front of an onlooking crowd. As for the source, I chose Fox as outside Scotland. See also. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
            • I appreciate the nomination, but I am still not persuaded. Not seeing widespread coverage, nor is this an endangered species, just rarely seen in one country. I would oppose if this was the US and not the UK, too. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the species were critically endangered or previously thought extinct then there might be a story. As it stands this would struggle to make the front page of a regional specialist magazine, so it's really not suitable for the front page of a global general purpose encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Except it obviously hasn't so struggled. In addition to the British, US, and Irish coverage, and the UPI it's made headlines in Latin Italy and Denmark. (I believe the language is Danish). Except for not knowing what to call the victim in other languages, I am sure Italy and Denmark are not the only Non-anglophone press covering this. How often exactly do the Scottish kill birds that so rarely visit them? μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It has not made headlines, it has made the equivalent of inside pages on a quiet news day. Your question is a non sequitur because "the Scottish" didn't kill it - it flew into a wind turbine. How often do birds do that? I haven't a clue but I'm guessing quite often as it doesn't make the news. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
That's like saying when Michael Jackson died it wasn't news because black men overdose all the time without it being news. As for not being a headline, how did I see it? Of course it made headlines, but not necessarily the top of the front page. Neither will Croatia's accession to the EU be top of the front page news throughout the anglosphere. We have the world's fastest bird, we have a once-in twenty years sighting, and we have a violent death in front of spectators. What's not to love? μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If people in the UK want to see this bird, they can go to its normal territory. It's only "once in twenty years" in the UK. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • altblurb added to clarify this was in Scotland, and not by a Scotsman. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. April Fools' Day was three months ago. In addition to the arguments above about this nomination's low level of newsworthiness, the proposed blurbs are so sensationalized that they would be shot down for use as a DYK hook. The really boils down to "common Asian bird, outside its normal range, flies into wind turbine and dies." --Allen3 talk 02:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What a ridiculous suggestion! Allen3 emphasises how meaningless the event is. I cannot help but feel that the nomination is simply a joke. 86.158.216.17 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Well that's just rude, perhaps you should read WP:AGF before commenting further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a tragic tale but a little parochial for ITN I'm afraid. It's not going to make any great shakes outside the locality, so not really an ITN/C. If it was the last one, then yep, but if (as noted above) there are many around, then no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is very notable and strange Nottruelosa (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Why is it notable? Birds fly off course all the time and birds not infrequently collide with wind turbines. What about it makes it significant and newsworthy on a global scale? Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It was vagrant for 22 years according to the nominator is he lying?Nottruelosa (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
        • You've misunderstood a misleading statement. The bird has not been seen in the UK for 22 years, but that is because the UK is a very long way from its range - it is seen daily year round in the Himalayas and daily during the summer in north east China, Korea, south eastern Russia, northern Japan, southern Papua New Guinea and the eastern half of Australia (see File:HirundapusCaudacutusDistribution.png). The equivalent in human terms is a South Korean tourist dying in a road accident on her first visit to Britain in 22 years. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, the story is ironic, and as an anecdote it's darkly humorous. It's also quite fascinating, and a great opportunity to post some interesting articles. (I'd never heard of this swift. Where are our birders in support?) Comments about "meaningfulness" would carry a lot more weight if we didn't post so many sports results. Its stodginess is making me begin to think that ITN would be the one guest you would not want invited to a dinner party. With this nomination we have: World's fastest bird, Vagrant not seen in 22 years, Killed before a crowd gathered to see it, By a "green" device that might as well have been designed by Saruman for all its environmental friendliness. This seems like an ideal ITN nomination for me, unless one likes ITN reading like the weekly newsletter of the International Union of State Bureaucrats and Sports Pub Crawlers. This is science, this is unique, this is cool, it should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
            • So any creature that ventures outside of its territory and is observed being killed by a crowd of humans is fair game for posting? 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
            • It's not science any more than any other creature venturing outside its normal range is, your (or anyone's) opinion of wind turbines is completely irrelevant and "animal dies outside usual range" is hardly unique either. Irony does not equal newsworthy, nor does dark humour or repeating the same arguments that have failed to convince others the first time. Featuring an article you haven't heard of and/or find interesting is what DYK is for not ITN. Your opinion on other stories posted or not posted is also entirely irrelevant to whether this nomination is newsworthy or not, and as basically everyone except you agrees it isn't for the many reasons expressed. If there are any birders here (I haven't a clue) then the evidence is that they don't consider it worthy of global front-page news either. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
              • So, it's your opinion Thryduulf, that my opinion is an opinion? Whose opinion is it your opinion that I should give when I express my opinion? Yours? And yes, 311dot, next time the biggest bird or the smallest bird or the heaviest flying bird or the bird with the widest wingspread is found in the next continent over after a 22 year hiatus and then killed in front of onlookers gathered to see it, I will indeed support the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This just isn't in the news. I really had to search for it, even on the BBC's 'Highlands and Islands' section. This is a ridiculously trivial story, and I can't imagine circumstances in which we'd post it. Anyone still unclear on the difference between a fan and a wind turbine is welcome to read the relevant articles. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm clear on the difference, but saying something was killed by "a Scottish fan" suggests to me that something was killed by a person, not a piece of technology. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 1 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] News Corp splitEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 21:22, 3 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: 21st Century Fox (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Media giant News Corporation splits into two companies, creating 21st Century Fox.
News source(s): LA Times

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: The splitting of the world's 2nd or 3rd largest media company (with a vast international footprint), valued at $75 billion, is a big deal. This is a rare chance to get some woefully underrepresented business news on to the front page without resorting to posting a scandal/criminal case. This was a huge business story when it was first announced; of course ITN prefers to wait until the deal is completed, which is now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I am to all business news that doesn't involve some other notable story with impact on readers who don't work for the companies involved. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support With respect, this clearly has a wider impact than just affecting employees of News Corp. It is a very large, influential and high-profile multinational. Neljack (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The blurb seems to list only 1 of the 2 companies formed. It should list both or use different wording to clarify exactly what is happening. SpencerT♦C 05:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The second company will retain the News Corporation name; I'm open to suggestions on wording. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It's the split of News Corp that is the story, not the names of either of the two new companies, even though 21st Century Fox is validly big local news for the LA Times. Is that guy who squatted the domain smiling now, or is he just a myth?
How about: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is split into separate publishing and entertainment companies.
The article needs quite a bit of work. Formerip (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's ITN-worthy or not (I find business stories very hard to judge so I generally don't), but if it is that's a better blurb than the initially proposed one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I agree that there would be a stronger case for posting this on ITN if there was some sort of other notable story involved, but the company had such a wide reach before the split that its transformation is notable. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because splitting up a very major company is something that doesn't happen every day. The hook needs work, though. I'd rather go with "Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corporation completes its split into 21st Century Fox and New News Corp.. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same people own both entities, boring business news story. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, regardless how influential they are, I don't get how deserving it is to appear in ITN as it is totally unremarkable. Donnie Park (talk) 09:57, 1 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.

Vatican money launderingEdit

Article: Institute for the Works of Religion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Three men connected to the Vatican Bank are arrested on suspicion of smuggling €20 million into Italy from Switzerland.
News source(s): USA Today

Article updated

Nominator's comments: An unusual scandal that has been brewing for a while. At the top of the international headlines today on many sites, so now would seem to be a good time to post. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose This pales in comparison with the Jon Corzine case, where the former NJ governor was just charged in connection with trading losses leading to 1$ Billion in unaccounted for customer funds, with the firm, MFG Global having accepted a $100 million dollar fine and liability to repay the billion dolar loss. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We generally post convictions, and I don't see a reason to make an exception here. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose relatively small scale as far as similar crimes go. SpencerT♦C 21:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

June 27Edit


[Closed] New pulsating starEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:13, 2 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: J0806 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A new pulsating star is found from the remains of a stellar collision in the binary system J0806.
News source(s): Science Daily Science World Report

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is a new rare star formed from a stellar collision. Even though there are tons of stars in space, I think a new star, when formed from a stellar collision, is notable enough for ITN. Andise1 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interesting for a subset of astronomers and relevant to stellar evolution models, but no wide-ranging impacts or reason for the public to care. And I'm an astronomer. Modest Genius talk 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, the article has not been updated with the new results, and is almost entirely unreferenced. Modest Genius talk 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius; too esoteric for ITN. Also doesn't seem to be covered outside of science journal/information outlets. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -per Modest Genius but I want to thank Andisel for the nomination. The article is interesting, as is the concept. But just a bit outside the mainstream. Try again! Jusdafax 10:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This hasn't been prominent in the news, and it's not clear exactly what the implications of this observation are, yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:36, 1 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] World's oldest genome sequenceEdit

Article: Evolution of the horse (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Researchers announce the genome sequencing of a 560–780 thousand year old horse using material from a leg bone fragment buried in permafrost, far surpassing the previous record of 130 thousand years and shedding new light on horse evolution.
Alternative blurb: ​The genome of a horse from the Middle Pleistocene is the oldest DNA ever sequenced, and suggests that the Equus lineage began 2 million years earlier than previously thought
News source(s): Nature Science Recorder Wired Los Angeles Times Washington Post National Geographic Phys USA Today

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The world's oldest genome sequence is a horse over 700,000 years old. Feel free to modify the blurb or provide an altblurb if needed. Andise1 (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Support but suggesting something like this as an altblurb The genome of a Horse from the Middle Pleistocene is the oldest DNA ever sequenced, and suggests that the Equus lineage began 2 million years earlier than previously thought. EdwardLane (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Science stories are always good. However, I don't see the update in the Horse article. But, if we go with the altblurb, the evolution article seems a better choice for the target one. --Tone 09:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
sounds good, I'll add that as altblurb EdwardLane (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I support this, it is a very important story. I have updated our evolution of the horse article with the new findings; see the Genome sequencing section. I also rewrote the blurb above, probably making it too long. I hope I'm not acting out-of-process here -- I'm only moderately familiar with the way things are done on this page. Looie496 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I was going to nominate this yesterday (when in was announced), but didn't know off hand which article to target and didn't feel like figuring it out - the evolution of the horse article is a great target. The main story here, however, is the record breaking DNA age (understanding of lineages is in constant flux). I suggest tightening the blurb event more:
ALT2: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse bone is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest DNA ever sequenced by a substantial margin.
Also, I would like to see a bit more on the sequencing (its one short paragraph at current) before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
'Comment: WikiProject Equine member here, a couple small thoughts. You may want to use the word "equine evolution" as opposed to "horse evolution" in the blurb; while the animal sequenced was a horse, (so that's fine there) the evolutionary discoveries are relevant to the entire equus genus, (donkeys, zebras, horses...) not just the horse. The edit to evolution of the horse article is fine from this side; we have a link to the evolution article within the larger horse article, so probably will have few changes there for the immediate future. Montanabw(talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I fear that "equine" will be a hard word for lots of main page readers. Regarding the length of the edit, I'm reluctant to add more right now because generally in science articles we try to avoid "recentism" -- it's already a bit contrary to policy to add this material before it has had a chance to be grokked by the field. This is an area where one has to find a compromise between the requirements of stable scientific articles and the requirements of current news. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The article has enough sentences for an update, but only two references. It shouldn't be hard to reference the other sentences. As for "equine", we should not dumb ourselves down. The word is certainly familiar to minimally educated native speakers and we can simply pipe to the appropriate article if it matters. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok I added a third ref - think it might be 'ready' except for agreeing a blurb, I'd be happy for the posting admin to sort that out from the various bits proposed EdwardLane (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready updated and unopposed. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Which blurb is prefered? I see some blurb-related discussions, but it's not clear which one is preferred over the others. SpencerT♦C 05:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the first blurb is way too long. Otherwise they're all equally clunky. ThaddeusB's attempt is pretty good, but maybe;
ALT3: DNA from a Middle Pleistocene horse is successfully sequenced, becoming the oldest genome ever sequenced. Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well I can support that, though obviously I favour my 'clunky' blurb slightly, but not because of the wording (for which I think Abductive has done a decent job), rather that I think that all the articles :genome, Horse, Middle Pleistocene, DNA, Whole genome sequencing, Equus_(genus) and obviously Evolution of the horse are quite decent interesting articles compared to some of the 'just slightly better than stub' things that can sometimes get posted, and so they might 'deserve' the chance of front page billing. If the particular variety of prehistoric horse that was sampled has an article(presumably it does?) I'd have liked to have linked to that too. I just added a link to permafrost in the other blurb above in case the posting admin does choose to go with that (however unlikely). Anyway that was the thought, I was trying to squeeze the nice links in. EdwardLane (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'd rather have it posted with any of the blurbs now than to wait for the perfect wording - they are all factually correct. Here's my try: "The DNA of a 560–780 thousand years old horse is successfully sequenced". I like Abductive's version though. Narayanese (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT3. SpencerT♦C 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Mongolian presidential election, 2013Edit

Article: Mongolian presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj {pictured) is reelected as President of Mongolia.
News source(s): Associated Press via Idaho Statesmen

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.

 --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support once updated with more than a sentence - presidential elections are very ITN regardless of where, and it seems like this was a landslide for the victor, so even more reason for it to stand out. Charmlet (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Oopsie :) Regardless, ITN/R. Charmlet (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • My mistake, I had transposed the second candidates figures. A fair bit of expansion has been done to the article since the initial nomination. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I was pleasantly suprised by the quality of the article. Let's get the results in a table then we're pretty much good to go. --LukeSurl t c 10:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The result is in a template which is transcluded to elections in Mongolia should anyone want to put forth the effort. It is missing the % participation but I couldn't find that yet. I have no Internet short of my phone right now but can get to it in the morning if it isn't done by then. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • i have managed to transclude the template. Will clean it up when I an at a proper computer. Nice to see we now have a picture of all three candidates now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good now. Posting. --Tone 13:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Is it re-elected or reelected? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not sure, reelected doesn't come up on spell check. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • A google search shows that both are widely used on en.wp pages, but the hyphenated form is used much more often (roughly 32,000 hits vs 12,000 hits). Wiktionary marks the hyphenated form as an alternative spelling of the unhyphenated, but Firefox's British English dictionary knows only the hyphenated form (this isn't conclusive though as it also objects to words like "signage"). In summary therefore I'd say either is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

June 26Edit


Death of Marc RichEdit

Article: Marc Rich (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/business/marc-rich-pardoned-financier-dies-at-78.html

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: one of the most successful commodities traders in history, inventor of the spot market for crude oil, was a most-wanted fugitive sought by the US government for nearly two decades, recipient of one of the most controversial US presidential pardons --Dezastru (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Question. Which of the three RD criteria are you asserting Mr. Rich meets, and can you explain how he meets said criteria? Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Rich qualifies under criteria 1 ("The deceased ... had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region") and 2 ("The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field"). (1) His activities in the oil industry had a huge impact on economies of both Israel and Switzerland. (2) He was widely regarded as one of the most influential commodities traders in history; he was dubbed "the King of Oil" and "the King of Commodities," and he has been credited as an inventor (some say the inventor) of the modern oil trade.
"It's been a long time since we've heard from Rich but his influence hasn't faded." Marketplace
"Billionaire Marc Rich, who invented modern oil trading" Reuters
"Rich and Green were the first traders to use short-term purchases, now known as the spot market, to make big money, quickly. Buying large volumes when the price was low, they were able to control the market when prices rose." Washington Post
"'He actually bought and sold the earth's crust. Everything in your iPhone, your computer and your light bulb, Rich was involved in buying, selling and delivering,' said Copetas [the author of "Metal Men: How Marc Rich Defrauded the Country, Evaded the Law, and Became the World's Most Sought after Corporate Criminal"]. 'He invented the spot oil market and he's the only individual in history to have successfully manipulated OPEC, the oil companies and ultimately the price of oil in the United States and the United States government.' ...
'And if the federal prosecutors had caught him at the time, they were ready to slap him with charges of treason that would make the kerfuffle over Edward Snowden look like a spat between two gerbils,' said Copetas.
Many of today’s biggest oil and metals traders trace their roots back to Rich, who expanded the spot market for oil in the 1970s, wresting business away from the world’s biggest oil companies." Financial Times
"Rich and Green were the first to pioneer the spot market (goods for immediate delivery) for crude oil, and they exploited it to realize quick profits. Due to his great success in the field, Rich was dubbed the "King of Commodities." Haaretz
"he deserves credit as one of the greatest creators and sharers of wealth in business history.
His most visible legacy is Glencore Xstrata, one of the world’s largest natural resources companies. Glencore was formerly Rich’s private holding company: Marc Rich + Co. Trading houses following in Rich’s footsteps are now a key part of Swiss growth and prosperity. A third of world trading in petroleum is handled by Swiss-based groups including Vitol, Gunvor and Mercuria.
Today’s world oil markets are partly the product of Rich’s vision." Financial Times
"'Marc Rich at one time in the mid 1970s was crucial to Israel's survival because after the Yom Kippur war they were cut off from the oil supply,' said Ammann. 'Israel really had to fight for their oil and they bought it from Marc Rich.'
The Israeli state never forgot this his help. With a lobbying campaign underway to scratch him off America's most wanted list, the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, and former prime minister Shimon Peres made personal pleas to Clinton on his behalf to secure the controversial pardon." The Guardian
Apart from those two specific criteria, Rich was notable as "the world's most wanted white-collar criminal" for nearly two decades. When US President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, Rich was on the Americans' "Ten Most Wanted List," alongside Osama Bin Laden.
"[H]e was called the world's most famous fugitive." NYT
"Following his indictment, he would become one of the world's most famous white-collar criminals." Forbes
  • Support this is a weird but good borderline case. He can be considered the richest fugitive ever to buy a pardon as a minimum qualifier. μηδείς (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - death update is insufficient (2 sentences). Kind of a weird situation where people aren't likely to come out with "I'm sad he died" reactions in droves, but I imagine there has to be at least some of reaction out there. If the update can be expanded with reaction or in any other way I could support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
If his death is important, it will not be necessary to wait for "he was such a huge influence" quotes. There are always the "on news of his death, The True Fork Times called him the greatest of the..." quotes. This is a borderline nomination that needs a good update. μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of what more would need to be added to the death update? He was 78, so his death from a stroke wasn't really a surprise. Dezastru (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You have just posted a whole bunch of stuff above (you should sign it) which is presumably commentary from the last few days. Copy some of those into the death section saying. On his death, the Financial Times said "yatta yatta yatta" for a few papers and it will be quite good. μηδείς (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Clinton's pardon of Rich was highly controversial at the time, which was the final hours of the Clinton presidency. Clinton later said he regretted the pardon for the damage it did to his legacy, seeing as Rich was a major contributor to the Clintons. Not our usual ITN RD but significant as a reminder of a highly awkward period. Agree article needs a better update, I may be able to look in on it. Jusdafax 19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per explanation given. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Pardon or no pardon, he was a famous figure in a globally significant field. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Gliese 667 C planetsEdit

Article: Gliese 667 C (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least six planets, including three planets suspected of being habitable, are found orbiting the star Gliese 667 C.
News source(s): CNN Fox News European Southern Observatory

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Multiple planets have been found orbiting around Gliese 667 C, a red dwarf star. Three of the planets found are habitable (according to the Fox News source). The CNN source and the European Southern Observatory source say the planets may be habitable. If anyone has a different idea for a blurb, feel free to make an altblurb. Andise1 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Question: Are the habitability claims reported in scientific sources or the original journals? What does the specific original wording say from the people who actually made the discovery and/or are recognized experts in the field? --Jayron32 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The planets exist within the (theoretical) habitable zone. It is impossible to say whether the planets are actually habitable with current technology. I do not believe such discoveries are rare anymore, but this one has generated a lot of press coverage, so I'm on the fence as to notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with ThaddeusB, I would like just a bit more. Abductive (reasoning) 03:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      • A bit more what? Are you asking for more sources about this news item? (I am just trying to understand what you want more of.) Andise1 (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree in asking "more 'what'?". If you specify, it should be available. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
What make this discover any different than all the previous times they've said an exoplanet is in the habitable zone. The answer is, it seems, nothing. Abductive (reasoning) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Incredibly well updated article, very notable first discovery of more than one habitable planet orbitting a star. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW, Habitability simply means a planet is the right temperature (32 to 212 degrees) that its oceans never over- freeze or boil. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Exoplanet discoveries are fast and frequent these days. And these planets are suspected to be 'super-earths', so there's no reason to suspect they're habitable; they can easily have no atmosphere at all, or a toxic atmosphere, or punishingly high surface gravity. There's no guarantee that water is even present - only that if it is, it remains liquid. Nothing stands out here. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - habitable exoplanets are not uncommon these days, but three of them in the same system is really rare. Even our solar system has only two (Earth and Mars). Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support - the press coverage was substantial and the update is very good. That is enough to get me to weak support after thinking it over. Additionally, it is the first "3 at once" discovery so that helps a bit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready only one oppose, very well updated, a credit to the project; to us; ready, now.
  • Oppose, without some sort of water signature I can't support these exoplanet postings. Abductive (reasoning) 13:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - If mankind should begin exploring other star systems someday, these nearby planets will be some of the first to be visited. Significant story of interest to all humanity. Great article and update, and putting our best foot forward on the Main page is always a plus. Let's post it. Jusdafax 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting per consensus, though I'm slightly weary of all these star articles blowing up ITN lately like Alex said above. Secret account 22:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The next one better have something more than "in the habitable zone"... Abductive (reasoning) 05:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, the next one will be "scientists discover first alien planet to legalize gay marriage defeats Manchester United". μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward SnowdenEdit

Consensus not to post at this point. --Tone 09:41, 27 June 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.

  • Note: This is posted on behalf of User:sca, who was having difficulty doing so. I express no opinion on the matter myself.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 22:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Article: Edward Snowden (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russian President Vladimir Putin says Edward Snowden, who leaked information about secret U.S. and British cyber-surveillance, remained in the transit area of Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport and would not be extradited to the United States.
News source(s): http://http://uk.news.yahoo.com/putin-says-snowden-russian-airport-signals-no-extradition-145947113.html#NrEVw54

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major international political story. --User:sca
  • comment. I think we do need something about this story, but I'm not convinced that "man stays in airport, nothing happens" is the aspect of it we want to feature. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a more suitable candidate if/when he finally is extradited. This news is a bit too incremental for my tastes, although I admit that there seems to be a huge level of interest in the whole saga. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Thryduulf. "Man does nothing" is not a good update. This could be revisited when he is granted asylum or extradited to the US. Resolute 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We posted the leaks. The information leaked was the story. Snowden is of no interest himself otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. It should be clear that Snowden is not in Russia, no one has seen him in the transit area. The most logical explanation is that he went back to China (Hong Kong or perhaps Shanghai) on Monday when all those journalist were on that flight to Havana. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only next ITN item I can see about Snowden is either his capture by the US or allies, or affirmation by a country that he's gotten asylum in that he is there. Anything else is highly speculative. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't need to post every step in this process. If he is captured or gains asylum, then maybe. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 27 June 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.

Sergiy StakhovskyEdit

Consensus not to post. --Tone 09:42, 27 June 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: Sergiy Stakhovsky (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Sergiy Stakhovksy wins over Federer at Wimbledon.
News source(s): [2]

Article needs updating
 Nottruelosa (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose many top seeds fall in many tournaments every month of every year. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We post the finals only, for obvious reasons/ --LukeSurl t c 20:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment You say that both articles need updating yet you only link to one article. You also spelled Wimbledon wrong (which I corrected for you). Andise1 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It is not the finals but a world record as someone as low as Stakhovsky (around 130) won over the top 10 before during the second wimpleton / or equivalent round.Nottruelosa (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sharapova was beaten by world number 131 Michelle Larcher de Brito today. Nadal was beaten by world number 135 Steve Darcis on Saturday in the first round. Need any more? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • It may be a record, but even so it is essentially trivia at this point. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. ITN isn't a sports ticker, we should only be posting the result of the finals and anything truly extraordinary (e.g. if the record for the longest match is broken or something). Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We don't post interim results from the Olympics, much less Wimbledon. The eventual singles champions will be posted. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just trivia; if he wins the whole thing, that will get posted. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 27 June 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] Cambodian TailorbirdEdit

Article: Cambodian Tailorbird (talk, history)
Blurb: Cambodian Tailorbird, found in Phnom Penh, is identified as a new bird species.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A new bird species. Kind of rare story, especially if the bird is found in a densely populated area. The article needs some work, though. --Tone 13:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's not a rare story at all. Just try googling something like "new bird species discovered 2012". Formerip (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Haha :) Well, there's Bird species new to science described in the 2010s that says that there are around five new species discovered per year, some of those extinct. However, this one had a particular interesting backstory, I thought it could be a nice science story on ITN again. Also, TFP regularly features birds :P --Tone 15:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
That table doesn't look very reliable - the numbers are completely unsourced. Even if it is accurate, it says 22 new species of bird have been discovered so far this year. 22! Formerip (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I like that we have a proper good news story and one that should interest folks around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A discovered of a new living bird species is rare. (The above discussion largely missing that most newly named bird species are extinct.) The discovery of a new animal species of any kind within a major city is very rare. Combining the two, this is an extremely rare situation well worth ITN coverage (when the article is built up beyond a micro stub). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
For goodness sake. I wouldn't tell you it's not rare if it was rare. Here's a few more examples of it happening in June 2013, which I just Googled in about 20 seconds: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Rare is a relative term. Looking at the last 15 years, the average seems to be in the 4-6 range, which is rare in my book. In any case, how many species can you find that were discovered living in a city of 2 million people form the last 15 years? That is the basis I am supporting on - "just" being a new species alone wouldn't do it for me. Finding a new bird in the Amazon jungle and finding a new bird in a densely populated area are quite different situations (IMO). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
BTW, link [2] is a fossil species and link [4] doesn't refer to a new species at all, but rather someone seeing a bird they personally had never seen before. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, well, like I said, about 20 seconds. It still means that this is, at the very least, the SEVENTEENTH new species of living bird to be announced so far this month. But where TF are you getting a 4-6 range from? It seems to be at least one every few weeks. And there also doesn't seem to be anything particularly rare about finding a new species in the city: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Formerip (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
As the article on the 15 new Amazon birds makes clear, that itself was quite an exceptional event ("It’s been 140 years since as many new Brazilian bird species were described at one time."). The 35,000+ entry (include subspecies) IOC World Bird list shows 3 extant new (full) species for 2012, 4 for 2011, 4 for 2010, 9 for 2009, 7 for 2008, 7 for 2007, 6 for 2006, 5 for 2005, etc. Looks like 1998 was the most recent year with more than 10 (11). I went back to 1980 eyeballing it and didn't see a single year where there were 15+ new species (a couple years had more than 15 new subspecies though).
As to the city examples, you list a bee (hardly the same thing as a new vertebrate), a NYC frog (which was posted on ITN I believe), a dolphin (obviously not found living within the city), a shark (ditto), and an ant (like the bee, not as surprising as a vertebrate). --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Mercifully, no we didn't post the New York frog because, all said and done, it was just someone discovering yet another frog. The dolphin was indeed found living in the city, and the shark was found dead in the city. Formerip (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You are correct, it wasn't posted (a different frog was around the same time, which is what I was probably thinking off. The NYC frog had approximately the same support and opposition, which the opposition being partially based off the lack of name/article for the species... OK the dolphin was technically living in the city (its bay), but it wasn't living undetected amongst a dense population of humans which is obviously what I meant. A shark being caught it the ocean and found in a fish market is hardly a similar situation at all. Insects are poorly described in general (as few as 10% of species have been described), so finding new insects in a city is not nearly as surprising.
Let's say the frog and the dolphin count. That means 3 vertebrate species total have been discovered in a city since 2011. That is certainly a rate (1/year) that I would call very rare. I think we can afford 1 such story on ITN per year - we have about 1 per week on a natural disaster, for example. Furthermore, the frog and dolphin were only distinguishable via DNA testing which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't mean that three vertebrate species total have been discovered in a city since 2011. It just means I was able to find three on Google in 20 seconds flat. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support significant new bird and mammal species discoveries are infrequent enough to be notable. The article is woefully undersized, for the three paragraph minimum however. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose New species of animals are dound all the time what makes this so important. Nottruelosa (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference between any random species (of which there truly all many) and a high order vertebrate (of which there are few discoveries). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
New species of birds are not found all the time, and not in major cities. Of new animals, about 20,000 a year are described, almost all insects, and one or two are birds. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just remembered to actually vote. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support new species of vertebrates found in major cities is a very rare thing. It is the combination of both factors that leads me to support, either in isolation I'd probably not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, aside from gimmick of being found in "the outskirts" of a city, nothing unusual. Also, story has absolutely no lasting scientific impact. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is now updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready; supported and well updated. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Kevin RuddEdit

Articles: Kevin Rudd (talk, history) and Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former prime minister Kevin Rudd (pictured) wins leadership of the Australian Labor Party against incumbent Julia Gillard, becoming Prime Minister of Australia.
Alternative blurb: Julia Gillard resigns as Prime Minister of Australia after losing leadership of the Australian Labor Party.
News source(s): New Zealand Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, ITV, ABC

Both articles updated

 -- Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm supposed to put in the updater field. I'm sure someone here knows, so feel free to fix that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Wait - it's not 100% clear that Rudd will be the next Prime Minister. It's probable, but there's also a chance that the independents will back Tony Abbott. Constitutional crisis looms.... The Age. So wait until we actually have a new Prime Minister to add. Worldwide readers don't care who the leader of the Australian Labor Party is, but once we get a new PM, then it's front-page-worthy. Adpete (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: p.s. whether or not he becomes PM tomorrow, he is the 26th PM of Australia. Australian convention is to count them only once. Adpete (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Thanks for that. I'll just remove "the," in that case. To the larger issue, I suppose we can place it on hold for 12-24 hours, then? International news sources seem to be reporting Rudd's return as a given, but you're right to point out that it's a bit more complicated than that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think a clear-ish picture of the forthcoming chain of events is emerging. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting now, minus the bit about him becoming PM (until he is sworn in). A sitting PM getting axed by her own party is newsworthy enough to post right now. The blurb can be updated if (and, I assume, when), Rudd is sworn in. We should definitely not do nothing until Rudd is sworn in. It would be silly to wait with the ticker blank given that the wait could be almost 24 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A rare event; the rough equivalent of a US President losing their re-election bid in the primaries. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Way too premature at this stage. He has simply won a leadership challenge within the party. He still must go through a confidence motion and win support of independents, as the party does not carry a majority in parliament. There's a chance, remote as it may be, that he may not become PM. --Dorsal Axe 10:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Question - Just curious, since this is my first time ITN'ing anything, but what happens if I change the blurb to cut out the PM bit?
  • Wait until there is an official change in PM (which is, technically, a matter for the [[Queen/Gov. Gen.). --LukeSurl t c 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait. The BBC News article says "Ms Gillard must write to Governor General Quentin Bryce stating that she is resigning as prime minister before Mr Rudd can be sworn in." and implies that she has not dome so yet [12]. If so then she is technically still PM and it's just a change of party leadership, which is not ITN-worthy. A change of Prime Minister on the other hand certainly is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Gillard has resigned. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I will support a blurb announcing Julia Gillard's resignation as PM following the leadership challenge. However it is still not 100% clear who will succeed her. --Dorsal Axe 12:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I added a blurb on Gillard's resignation to the "altblurb" field. Sorry if that's out-of-process or something. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks good to me. --Dorsal Axe 13:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, once we have confirmation that he's been commissioned by the GG. From what was said at Gillard and Rudd's press conferences tonight it can certainly be inferred that Rudd has been given the official big tick, and the press is reporting it this way, but it won't hurt to be sure. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Support on significance for posting the resignation now, with an update when a successor is named. There's no reason I can think of why we can't do it that way. The resignation has been confirmed reliably, though information is a bit light in the Julia Gillard article. Is there a better bolded article or can we get that one a bit more expanded? If we do that, we can go with the alt-blurb now and expand as needed later. --Jayron32 13:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait I think I remarked something similar before when it came to something in Israel a long time ago. Julia Gillard losing the leadership vote is not significant enough for ITN nor her resigning as PM as a consequence. A new Australian PM would be, but that hasn't happened yet and it is unclear precisely who it will be or whether it's even going to really happen now as it's also possible that an early election will be called (for example, if sufficient independents demand it both leaders and the GG will have no choice, or even if they support Abbot he may just ask the GG to dissolve parliament) and I don't think the calling of an election even in these circumstances (not that far from the elections being expected and one of the reasons formthe challenge is to improve their chances or at least try to mitigate their losses in the election) is significant enough for ITN. This isn't 1975, yet whatever some random articles may say but a resonable reality of a minority government. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to posting Gillard's resignation now and then updating the blurb when a new PM is appointed. --LukeSurl t c 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb. Resignation as PM and losing party support while in office is significant in governance of a country. Rwos (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once Rudd becomes PM. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as soon as he's confirmed as PM. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb. This could be Australia's only shot at a posting all summer and a prime minister resigning is enough. We don't need to wait to see what happens next and, as has been pointed out already, what happens next may turn out not to be ITN-worthy. Formerip (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
*Comment It is not summer in many parts of the world, including the southern hemisphere. Gfcvoice (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Which article(s) are being proposed for bolding (i.e. which have the best updates)? --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support regardless of how unlikely it is we'll hear of Australia again before Halloween. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It has been announced that Kevin Rudd will be sworn in as Prime Minister by the Governor-General in approximately one hour (at 9:30 a.m. local time or 2330 GMT/UTC): [13]. This is an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented situation - a Prime Minister who was ousted in a party coup has then ousted his successor in another coup to get his old job as PM back. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready sworn in. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, can someone confirm that source? The video's giving me issues. It says "is" but may mean "about to be". μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
According to The Guardian's liveblog, the swearing-in has not taken place yet. I'll keep an eye on it and update here when that changes. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay - The Guardian says it's official. Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Australia. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Sworn in - it's official [14]. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] SCOTUS Decision on Defense of Marriage ActEdit

Articles: Defense of Marriage Act (talk, history) and United States v. Windsor (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Unites States Supreme Court decides that portions of the Defense of Marriage Act, limiting federal benefits to opposite-sex marriages, are unconstitutional in the case United States v. Windsor.
News source(s): BBC

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Nearly any way this is ruled will be important in the US, even if there are a number of subtleties or even a partial decision. It is possible that the decision is determined to do effectively nothing, but this seems very very unlikely. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose. For better or worse (and, quite possibly, for for richer or poorer), we've developed a pattern of rejecting stories about gay marriage that do not represent a first in international terms, which we should hold to. If there's a significant way in which this turns out to be a world first, then I'll reconsider my vote. Formerip (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait. The significance of this really depends on how widely the court rules. However unless it makes very large changes to the federal situation (i.e. more than simply the apportionment of federal benfits) I can't see this being significant enough for posting. --LukeSurl t c 17:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FormerIP's comments, and given that repeal of the law would actually have very limited effects. It would not actually establish or institute gay marriage where it does not exist. The Voting Rights Act decision will have much greater real world impact. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If SCOTUS came down with a decision that gay marriage is a constitutional right, then maybe that would be worthy of posting, but that is unlikely. The limited scope of any likely decision(there should also be one on Prop 8) means that it probably isn't ITN worthy. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Partial support if merged with Hollingsworth and Shelby rulings. Sceptre (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment DOMA declared unconstitutional under equal protection of the constitution. Tehre's another case still pending now... --MASEM (t) 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Making it clear that not all of DOMA was determined unconstitutional, more direct that parts regarding federal benefits were. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment BBC source: [15] -- 14:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The other case, whether the lower court's decision on California's Prop 8 (state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage) which declared it unconstitutional, was held in no standing by SCOTUS (in light of the above) leaving the lower court ruling in place. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This ruling has created a precedent that will make it impossible to stop gay marriage from becoming legal everywhere in the US. While the game isn't over, it is now just a formality to go to checkmate in a few moves. Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support major news, I'd be okay with merging a bit on the Prop 8 ruling into one ITN blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: BBC News and The Guardian describe it as "historic " on their respective front pages. Although it'd be nice to somehow include all SCOTUS rulings from this week in one blurb - if anyone can manage that. SPat talk 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to make it clear for non-USians that are considering this for ITN: the ruling basically strikes language from DOMA that would have denied federal benefits to legally-recognized same-sex couples as long as their marriage was done in a locale (including a foreign country) where such is legal. That itself is appearing less important than the fact that the DOMA parts were rejected on the basis of the US Constitutional clause of "equal protection" and thus limiting rights to just the opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. This decision does not explicit makes same-sex marriage legal across the US, but makes it federally recognized under Constitutional protection. As such, the next major action that most analysis are saying is that any state that block same-sex marriages will see their laws challenged on the basis of this SCOTUS ruling that is based on the equal protection clause in the Constitution. Nothing has made these state-level laws unconstitutional directly, but these legal challenges will likely set out to show that. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This does not establish any nationwide position on the subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support What the US does on key issues is significant. Thue (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Losing financial benefits because of civil status is newsworthy how again? It's not like we're talking about SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage across the US. Documenting every single precedent along the way diminishes it IMO. Save the LGBT advocacy for when it actually happens. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per most of the reasons already outlined above. Much more significant events on this issue i.e, France, were voted down here. Hard to say why this deserves special treatment.--85.210.109.22 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A moot move by SCOTUS, which is only about some particular aspects. It's not the same as federal recognition of same-sex marriage in the United States. Brandmeistertalk 18:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A "historic ruling" in the headlines around the world. Opposers reasoning lacks weight and fails to convince me. An ITN-worthy blurb with mention of DOMA and Prop 8 should be posted asap as vital... and putting up a new species of bird in Cambodia instead makes a mockery of the very function ITN has on the Main page. Jusdafax 18:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
what did the bird ever do to you? -- Ashish-g55 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
And Cambodia for that matter.--85.211.126.62 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Initially i was unsure about this but this is getting more attention than i would have expected. The ruling may not be legalizing same sex marriages country wide but it might as well could have... ill support it. -- Ashish-g55 19:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Doesn't make it legal everywhere, but it really paves the way for federal recognition. A major international news item per Spat. A larger federal ruling than anything before. 72.130.52.73 (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly how to measure these things, but I'd suggest it is not as large as the federal ruling legalising gay marriage in Brazil two months ago, which we declined to post for lack of worldwide impact. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
While I'd argue for inclusion of both Brazil and US rulings, the US ruling affects twice as many people, more if you consider the "ripple effects"-- the US accepts 1 million immigrants a year-- and bi-national same-sex spouses of US citizens just experienced a major change to their immigration status. That's a worldwide impact.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I just thought I'd point out that 'international significance' does not seem to be a disqualifier for many other articles posted on ITN. Just to name a few current ones: Silvio Berlusconi scandal, floods in Canada, there's even one about North American hockey. So to suggest that this news should be disqualified for lack of international significance seems wrong to me, especially since it probably has much more significance than hockey. Samuel Peoples (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is nowhere nearly as significant as it would have been if the SCOTUS had ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. In fact, they refused to tackle the question; this ruling basically overturns a ban and a 1996 bill, but makes no real headway in terms of marriage equality. Surely France's ruling two months ago would have been a better choice. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Federal benefits to SSM couples is huge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Although this decision isn't an international agreement/whatever, it will have a lasting effect in the United States, and this could easily be a step towards international action. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Really? This procedural ruling from SCOTUS could have international impact? What about the actual legalisation of same-sex marriage by several nations recently? I suggest you look again at WP:CRYSTAL. Claiming that SCOTUS has international influence where the actual elected government of France doesn't looks like a pretty insular view, smacking of American exceptionalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think many of us supporting this ITN item would have supported the French news items as well. But let's be fair-- the US has 5x the population of France, and let's be honest, the US is substantially more influential than most nations. Federal government recognition of SSM has immediate consequences for people globally-- via immigration decisions and diplomacy. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice of all those people who 'would have' supported the French story to go and find other things to do when it was actually under discussion. France is more influential than most other nations, too. But crucially, the DOMA decision does not enable one single same-sex couple to get married - it's all about the inter-state effects of doing so. The separate striking down of the appeal on CA Prop 8 (for lack of standing) has a more direct effect on same-sex marriages, but that's not a whole nation. Seriously, this is looking like a particularly nasty instance of US-centrism here. I don't say that often, but for some reason, I seem to say it a lot about LGBT issues. The hopeless fragmentation of the US's civil rights law, and the limitless arcanity of its judicial procedures, are not the fault of the 95% or so of LGBT people who live in other nations. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's certainly a complex issue, but the decision has gotten extremely broad attention both in and out of the US.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a country legalising same-sex marriage is not significant enough to post (without more), which seems to be the current position here, I don't see how this ruling - which doesn't even go that far - can be important enough. Neljack (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I listened to a story on The World, (a show jointly produced by Public Radio International and the BBC) which specifically aimed to discuss the international impact of this decision, it miught be worth looking at what they had to say about it [16] Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per NelJack, FormerIP, and especially 331dot.75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a world power who had an act on the books that has now been determined to be against their founding principles. This isn't about the gay marriage aspect of it, this is about the repealing of DOMA by the SCOTUS after 10+ years on the books as a landmark decision in countries that explicitly define marriage. Regardless, I see a lot of opposes such as "well we didn't post this so we can't post DOMA" which is just plain crap. This is in international news, and it is "in the news". None of the opposes have denied that this is in the news, just that it's not big enough. Charmlet (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I was discussing the ruling with friends (non-editors but frequent readers) who went specifically to the Main Page to find the link to the United States v. Windsor article, expecting to see a blurb on ITN and we were all shocked that there wasn't anything at all here considering the international attention this is getting. Instead, we are still featuring stale news about the Stanley Cup that has been over for a couple days now and is certainly no where near the historic level of the Supreme Court decision. People are coming to Wikipedia to find out more information about this decision and implications with it being so widely broadcasted. This should have been posted several hours ago. AgneCheese/Wine 03:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
If you think ITN truly serves readers' interest like that anymore (if it ever did), you're mistaken. Calidum Sistere 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. As an editor (though I don't participate at ITN often), it is easy to get tunnel vision and insular. It was certainly a bit jarring to be looking at the Main Page today through the eyes of several readers and seeing how it was clearly failing our readership at this point. We (the readers and I) took it for granted that a dynamic medium like Wikipedia would be on top of something so monumental and internationally newsworthy. We were all obviously wrong. While I can peak behind the curtain at the ITN process, readers like my friends will never stray to pages like this and will just be left bewildered and empty handed when they come to the Main Page expecting Wikipedia to be covering something that nearly every single major international news source is covering as an historic event. [17] [18][19][20] [21][22][23][24][25][26] AgneCheese/Wine 04:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
If they wanted to find the article, they could do what I often do. Come here to this page. If it is not in ITN it will be on ITN/C. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Especially in light of the case being decided under Equal Protection (rather than Federalism), this decision will have global ramifications. E.g. this directly impacts the immigration status of the spouses of American citizens in same-sex marriages. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Let's have a sense of perspective here, please. Does this ruling establish gay marriage in the United States? It does not. In the global movement to gay marriage, this is a very small step, considering that many other countries have already gone the full distance. In anycase, even if this was something that established gay marriage, it has a fair chance of not being notable enough even then - with other countries, we've stopped posting news like that because it's becoming rather routine now. At the end of the day, this is domestic news, which is of relevance to one country, and it's news that only opens the door to maybe having gay marriage sometime in the future. That's not ITN material. Redverton (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Given the tremendous attention that this Supreme Court decision is receiving in the United States (together with the other decisions on voting rights and affirmative action), it seems incongruous that the only U.S. item on Wikipedia ITN is about the National Hockey League championship, which is a topic of pretty limited interest here. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - While I know this is a story with a greater deal of US interest than international, I think it is a watershed moment in this specific legal framework. It is not just a case, it is a fairly massively shifted paradigm. I think it meets the criteria for general notability. It doesn't have to be the complete answer to the gay marriage question just like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon wasn't the last step in space exploration. But it was a pretty big leap, just the same. In relative terms, it's certainly more important worldwide than the discovery of a new bird species, and this is from an avid birder. The story is not just that we had a ruling on same sex marriage...the specific heated context, the vast shift in social attitude and the historic nature of the context surrounding the case make this internationally notable. Being first is irrelevant in that sense. If you took all the major newspapers from the english speaking world yesterday, I guarantee this would have had more front age hits than the majority of the topics that are currently listed on the front page. It seems ludicrous to argue semantics when no one could legitimately claim this is not notable. Every major media outlet would beg to differ. I don't recall seeing any coverage of a new bird species, on the other hand.204.65.34.238 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems that ITN has room for posting a piddling nothing story of a new bird species being discovered (without consensus), so it must have room for this. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • United States v. Windsor should be the bolded article, right? --LukeSurl t c 23:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The post on ITN reads "...limiting federal benefits to opposite-sex marriages". Shouldn't that be "same-sex"? Samuel Peoples (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Bit of an ambiguity in English there. Depends if you read it as "benefits to opposite sex-marriages were limited" or "benefits were only given to opposite sex marriages". Perhaps we could change "limiting to opposite-sex" to "restricting to opposite-sex". --LukeSurl t c 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Tweaked, should be unambiguous now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

June 25Edit


The Supreme Court of the United States rules on Voting Rights ActEdit

Articles: Voting Rights Act of 1965 (talk, history) and Shelby County v. Holder (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a 5 to 4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (signing pictured) is struck down as unconstitutional.
News source(s): CBS News

 DecafGrub47393 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Link should be to Shelby County v. Holder, the case decided. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose SCOTUS basically told congress, go back and work out Section 4 with today's facts and figures. The act is still otherwise fully a law, and while I know in the US there is concern that party politics are going to come into play to bias voter figures, it is not too much change from the status quo. As such since it only affects the US (its voting policies do not extend to other countries), there's not really a good reason to include. (that said, depending on how the court rules on DOMA tomorrow, a combined blurb may b possible) --MASEM (t) 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Interpretation of US law in the US; the actual preclearance requirement was not struck down (though Thomas wanted to) but Congress was instructed to make a new map with new data to base the requirement on. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support a much weightier story then the gay rights ruling, and great from an encyclopedic point of view (SCOTUS has been hinting since the 1980's that these measures would some day become unnecessary), but understandably arcane to our non-citizen readers. Actually, maybe that's a good reason to support? μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - It was a landmark and highly contentious ruling, which struck down the key provision of the law. It was also the top story on every U.S. network newscast today. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Personally I'm very interested in this, but as Masem and 331dot note the ruling is narrower than it might appear at first. It also only affects certain parts of the US; the majority of the country was not covered by the preclearance requirement. Neljack (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Big story in the news to do with civil rights and voting. This story resonates widely and has symbolic implications. Article decent for a C class. Jusdafax 09:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose SCOTUS rules that state voter requirements are outdated, not wrong outright. Don't see what the rammifications are. 31.220.250.57 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - The ruling strikes down the key provision of one of the most well-known pieces of legislation in US history. This ruling has national implications: for one, voting changes blocked by the courts under Section 5 established precedent as to the validity of similar legislation under Section 2 of the Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution, all of which are national in scope. Furthermore, although the coverage formula did not cover every state, this decision literally affects tens of thousands of counties, cities, and towns, as well as many states that were not directly covered but who had covered counties that essentially brought the state under preclearance due to a uniform state election code. As noted throughout the news, this decision will have strong political and electoral ramifications for racial minorities and thus race relations in America; now, the burden will be on private plaintiffs to challenge election policies that could have the effect of minimizing or eliminating the voting strength of racial minorities. Many of these contentious policies have already been reinstited in the formerly covered jurisdictions, such as Texas's voter ID law. Finally, the historical significance of this act is sufficient for inclusion in the news; preclearance and the Voting Rights Act itself was the culmination of decades of work by the US Civil Rights Movement to undo a century of Jim Crow laws that denied or diluted racial minorities' right to vote. This case marks the end of this chapter of US history. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is an important milestone in the history of disenfranchisement of black voters in the US. Justice Ginsberg herself said that the move "strikes at the heart of the nation’s signal piece of civil-rights legislation." The current Congress seems unlikely to settle on a new map and while Jim Crow laws may not reappear, this is an important development for voting rights in the Deep South. Gobōnobō + c 03:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Masem and 331dot have pointed out already, the impact of this ruling has been wildly misreported. Basically it's, this is wrong, go back and do it again and it's fine. Hardly groundbreaking, is it? Redverton (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Lau Kar-leungEdit

Article: Lau Kar-leung (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter Twitch Film Mtime Kung Fu Cinema Den of Geek

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: Lau Kar-leung was a famous Hong Kong director and Martial Arts master. According to Twitch Films, "In a career spanning more than 60 years, Lau starred in - and provided action choreography for - more than 70 films." Twitch Films also says that Lau Kar-leung "directed more than 25 feature films himself." According to The Hollywood Reporter, Lau Kar-leung is "a fourth-generation direct disciple of martial arts legend Wong Fei-Hung." He has worked with notable people such as Chang Cheh and Jackie Chan during his career. At the Hong Kong Film Awards, Lau won the award for Best Action Choreography for the film Drunken Master II in 1995. He also won the lifetime achievement award at the 2010 Hong Kong Film Awards. In 2005, he won a lifetime achievement award at the Golden Bauhinia Awards. He has won two Golden Horse Awards for his films Drunken Master II (in 1994) and Seven Swords (in 2005). Andise1 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment not much on his death or the reaction to it, which is probably needed for someone who's not that well-known across the rest of the globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RD of Richard MathesonEdit

this is a duplicate nomination--please comment and vote in the original nomination below
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: Richard Matheson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Writer Richard Matheson dies at age 87.
News source(s): BBC News

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: Noted writer of science fiction, fantasy, drama, etc, very prolific. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the "tribute" section is badly written and entirely unreferenced. Otherwise a notable author. Although not sure what he has over James Herbert who didn't make it to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed that section; there was nothing of importance in it anyway. Matheson was far more important than Herbet -- numerous novels made into major movies (most notably I Am Legend (novel), filmed three times), major life achievement awards, Science Fiction hall of fame, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 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] Change of leadership in QatarEdit

Article: Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani abdicates in favour of his son Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.
News source(s): (France24), NBC News

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Abdication of a reigning monarch in this area of the world is quite unprecedented Hektor (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. A change in head of state is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support. Abdications of reigning monarchs in countries where they have a constitutional role are not common anywhere in the world. ISTR we posted the abdication of Beatrix of the Netherlands so there ins't a reason not to post this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Cam e here to nominate. Definitely worth posting per ITNR as well. Except the page has NO update and is short of sources.Lihaas (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. When a cleanup has been made, this can go up on ITN. --Tone 11:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Support, since it is clearly notable. Egeymi (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR. We would unquestionably do this for a ceremonial monarch, so it makes sense to do this for a monarch who actually runs the country too. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the significance of this will be lost on most readers. It's not just a change of head of state, it's that an abdication of this type is rare as heck. How we sum that up in a blurb (and per Lihaas, it needs updating etc), I'm not sure, but given a reasonable shakeup and a suitable blurb, I could support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I have updated the article to the point where I am confident it meets ITN standards, but please do let me know if article quality concerns remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Chicago Blackhawks win the 2013 Stanley Cup FinalsEdit

Article: 2013 Stanley Cup Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Chicago Blackhawks defeat the Boston Bruins to win the Stanley Cup.
News source(s): CBC

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: Final of Big Four North American Sport, International Interest in Hockey, in WP:INTR. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, per WP:ITNR. Prose underneath final game has been added, roster sections have been updated. Canuck89 (chat with me) 03:40, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to see a bit more expansive game 6 summary (one similar in length to what the other games have) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Summary has been expanded. Canuck89 (have words with me) 04:51, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Update looks sufficient and the finals are ITNR. Marking Ready (though as a Bruins fan I'd hope this never makes the mainpage. Calidum Sistere 05:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted, update looks good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

June 24Edit


[Posted to RD] Mick AstonEdit

Article: Mick Aston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: British archaeologist Mick Aston dies at age 66.
News source(s): BBC News

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: Noted British Archaeologist and presenter of Time TeamSimply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 08:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Reading his article, he seems to be notable enough in his field to be posted IMO. We don't see many archaeologists. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Wait. Yes he absolutely meets the RD criteria as far as I am concerned (lifetime achievement award, almost certainly the most notable archaeologist in Britain) but there isn't enough detail about his death available yet. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Support It seems that exact details are not going to be immediately forthcomming, but the article has been updated (kudos to The Rambling Man), so I don't see any reason to hold off any longer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Having met him I felt compelled to come here and lend my support for this nomination. He was a staple of the British archaeological scene. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I appreciate that he won't be well known outside of Britain, but I would argue he's been a major player in his field and is helping bridge that to TV and his contributions to historical knowledge itself is significant. Time_Team#Other_formats shows the TV program itself has been exported abroad if anyone has regional notability concerns. CaptRik (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD assuming his article is updated with a couple of sentences about his death. I can't see anything at all in the article itself (other than the past tense) to suggest he's passed away. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 22:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull, here is a case of somebody known only locally, and only from television. There are a lot of experts and specialists on television documentary series. What awards did he win? Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
    • He was more than just a specialist on a documentary - he was co-creator, site director and archaeological consultant for 18 years of the programme's 20 year run. He received a lifetime achievement award last year for his role in popularising archaeology and his distinguished academic work. He has been widely described as the most notable archaeologist since Mortimer Wheeler (died 1976) (e.g. [27]). As noted above, Time Team is not just a local TV program, and his death was reported in Australia 1 2, New Zealand, Nigeria [28], USA and likely elsewhere. Several of those are copies of British articles but papers don't do that for every TV expert that dies. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Silvio Berlusconi convictionEdit

Article: Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is found guilty of paying for sex with an underage prostitute
News source(s): Sky News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Details just emerging, but is sentenced to 7 years and banned from hlding public office. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose He has two more appeals possible. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. That's not a reason, Medeis. We often post significant criminal convictions and appeals are always possible (even though at least one is a racing certainty in this case), but not guaranteed to be as newsworthy. Formerip (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a reason, yes, there are plenty of criminal matters we have had nominated and not published because they had not reached final appeal, and no, appeals don't go on indefinitely, he has two per Italian law. There is no encyclopedic interest here. μηδείς (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It doesnt matter if he has appeals or not. Those appeals will take years and given who he is, even after the appeals he may never see inside of a jail cell. Him getting the jail sentence is the story right now and should be posted regardless of future appeals. -- Ashish-g55 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Per Ashishg55. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with the option of adding in the (threatened) collapse of the ruling coalition to the blurb if that happens. Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We would never post any convictions if the fact that appeals hadn't been exhausted disqualified them. This is in the news now and is notable now. People understand that defendants have a right to appeal convictions. Neljack (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Fine, "Pending appeals, Berlusconi is sentenced..." But he's not yet been remanded to prison, has he? I'll be quite happy to support a "Berlusconi begins serving..." blurb next decade, when it happens. But a sentence in Italy is like a hurricane season forecast. In the meantime this is no where near the top of the news, nor objectively (as opposed to ideologically: ..."given who he is...getting the jail sentence is the story right now and should be posted regardless") important. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. LFaraone 00:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Um, can we change the title of the target article to something less evocative, like "2013 Silvio Berlusconi conviction"? There have been concerns over whether BLP would extend to "calling" this girl a prostitute, and why we'd need this in the title of the article I know not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, please note the target article is still called "charges", not "conviction". I've started a WP:RM about it, as the title is clearly inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • A court has made a finding of fact; this man paid for sex with an underage girl. The abuse of public office charge stems from his browbeating the police into releasing her, so it is a consequence of the first fact. So there is no way Berlusconi can sue anybody for libel. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
      • You missed the point. Charges have now become convictions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Gary David GoldbergEdit

Article: Gary David Goldberg (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety The Hollywood Reporter Huffington Post

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: Gary David Goldberg was the creator/producer of Family Ties, Spin City, and Brooklyn BridgeAndise1 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. Though he created some well-known TV shows, I don't see which of the RD criteria he meets. His article doesn't give much of an indication that he was notable in his field(comments from others saying he influenced them, awards, hall of fame, etc.) 331dot (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - He's definitely notable, but his death unfortunately is not worthy of ITN inclusion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Bobby BlandEdit

Article: Bobby Bland (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): WREG Memphis Memphis Rap

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: Bobby Bland was a blues and soul singer. He was one of the original members of the Beale Streeters. In 1981, he was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1992. He also received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1997. Andise1 (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Bland played a major role in the history of blues and R&B music. His numerous hits helped define an era and his distinctive voice was unforgettable. Has won all the big-ticket music honors. Jusdafax 04:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I've never heard of him (not my era or style of music) but with two hall of fame inductions and a lifetime achievement award it's clear he was a very notable person in his field. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose/not ready on article/update quality - the article is short and not well referenced. One sentence on his death is not sufficient to meet ITN update standards. If article quality is improved, I could support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Agree with ThaddeusB. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom, Jusda, and Thryd. Contrary to IP 76, the article is much improved since ThaddeusB's qualified oppose. ThadB, has the article improved enough yet? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
My oppose was qualified also, which is why I said I agreed with Thaddeus. There have been some minor improvements since Thaddeus posted, but overall, the quality of the article hasn't changed much. The Biography section is significantly undersourced and one source is relied on too heavily. When this thread started there were 12 sources. Since then, just three have been added, primarily to verify the death. And the death content itself hasn't expanded much. So my concerns, like Thad's, are based on the the totality of those issues. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree - The career section is modestly improved, but remains at least half unsourced (likely closer to 2/3rds). The death material meets the bare minimum, but is insufficient in light of the overall article quality. Either the death material needs expanded substantially or the article needs to be well sourced for me to support. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Some further updating now done, with refs - will probably do some more today and tomorrow. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - major figure within his genre. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - as per Ghm. Article now improved by him. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Very important musician. Article is in good shape now, thanks to Ghmyrtle. --Orlady (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted, although it will probably be a very short stay, unfortunately - it is currently among the oldest items in the template. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

June 23Edit


RD: Richard MathesonEdit

Article: Richard Matheson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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: Celebrated SF writer and screenwriter: Incredible Shrinking Man, I am Legend, Duel, Nightmare at 20,000 Feet (The Twilight Zone), etc, etc. --Jheald (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - Obviously a very important author. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - major figure in his field. His work on The Twilight Zone alone would make him notable. Jusdafax 04:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (pending update) - A significant author whose works have been picked up on television and in the cinema. Was due to be awarded the visionary award at the Saturn Awards tomorrow. Miyagawa (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment' - article referencing is poor, with most of the career section unreferenced. I would also need to more than a single sentence on his death to support (e.g. reactions, "legacy" info, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the "tribute" section is badly written and entirely unreferenced. Otherwise a notable author. Although not sure what he has over James Herbert who didn't make it to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed that section; there was nothing of importance in it anyway. Matheson was far more important than Herbet -- numerous novels made into major movies (most notably I Am Legend (novel), filmed three times), major life achievement awards, Science Fiction hall of fame, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You mean Herbert? In which case, your opinion is just that, an opinion. Can you cite "far more important"? I doubt it. (Herbert had awards, halls of fame, movies, lifetime awards etc etc etc). Please try to be neutral here. And there's nothing about his death or the reaction to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once updated - highly important author and screenwriter. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. Have added a number of trubutes to page. Article should be good to go now. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good work so far, there's still a section with a maintenance tag at the top.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Should be ok now.yorkshiresky (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral - The referencing of the "career" section is still a little weak - not weak enough for me to oppose over, but also not good enough for me to support. If TRM agrees it is "good enough to post", I am willing to post. I also won't object if someone else posts it first. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nik Wallenda high wire walk across the Grand CanyonEdit

Article: Nik Wallenda (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Daredevil Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to ever successfully walk across the Grand Canyon via a high wire.
Alternative blurb: Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to highwire walk across the Grand Canyon.
News source(s): ABC News Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: No human has ever successfully crossed the Grand Canyon via a high wire before (until Nik Wallenda did). Also, unlike his previous walk across Niagra Falls, he had no tether or safety harness or anything to protect him if he fell. Nik Wallenda's walk across Niagra Falls was [posted on ITN.Andise1 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: ThaddeusB had nominated this event in the section above, a few minutes after this nomination. I have closed ThaddeusB's nom, and I am copying his nom comments below to keep the discussion in one place. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You linked to a Washington Post report. Click on it and see what the heading says. Moriori (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, different sources say different things. As I noted below, the AP (and sources that follow it such as Washington Post) say "near" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - duplicate nom removed and comment consoldated into a "support" --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC) There is some (RS) debate about whether the location qualifies as the Grand Canyon proper or not. The majority say "yes", but the AP and a few others (that don't simply repeat AP article) say otherwise. In any case, we can use an alternate wording... This is a unique accomplishment never done before in human history and a rare opportunity to get a positive story on the homepage. The event was broadcast live in 200+ countries worldwide (obviously in the middle of the night some places), so truly of international interested. We covered Wallenda's Niagara Falls walk last year and Baumgartner's skydive. Many reliable sources described this as a greater challenge than Niagara, although I would consider it roughly on the same level. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Taken at face value, I was prepared to support this. But this wasn't Wallenda's longest walk, and more importantly, it wasn't actually at the Grand Canyon,[29] although it was nearby. Yes, it's a technicality, but it makes for a much less interesting story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hardly. "Grand Canyon" is inaccurate. Perhaps something like this, or this or this for instance. Yes, there are media reports which say canyon, but we shouldn't allow their sloppy journalism to influence our standards. Moriori (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The USGS refers to the location as part of the "Grand Canyon area". It also states that the Grand Canyon formation includes the Little Colorado River Formation. [30] At least geologically speaking, Wallenda did cross the Grand Canyon. (But we obvious can use a different wording if wording is the only concern.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment A bit off topic, but could someone please fix the current events portal for June 23, as it is currently a red link. The portal link is now fixed. Andise1 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We have settle the GC/not GC issue on the article. For the one sentence (lead) version, we settled on "walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge". This I suggest:
ALT: Nik Wallenda becomes the first person to highwire walk across a Grand Canyon area gorge.
The feat is equally impressive whether he technically crossed the GC (according to the USGS he did) or a rock formation with the same properties but up river from the "real" Grand Canyon (i.e. the widest part in the National Park). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the LA Times article even states that he couldn't get permission from the US gov't to walk across GC proper. And doing it in an area gorge or near the site takes some of the "shine" off the feat. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unfortunately, I have to oppose because of the big debate about whether or not it was actually the Grand Canyon that Wallenda crossed. Without question, there are many people who mistakenly believe that it was the Grand Canyon that he crossed, rather than the nearby Navajo Tribal area at the Little Colorado 40 miles east (whether it's technically part of the GC or not). And it's undisputed that Wallenda did not receive a permit from the U.S. government to cross the Grand Canyon; park officials have been quoted in reliable sources verifying this fact. Although Thaddeus did a great job of rewording the content to address the objections to the claim that Wallenda crossed the GC, the debate will always exist. Because of all the reliable sources that say it was not the Grand Canyon he crossed, such as the Forbes story, plus the many others that strategically use the wording "near the Grand Canyon", I don't think this nomination should be supported. It was a great feat, but the dispute about the location is the pink elephant in the room. There will always be an asterisk next to the claim that Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI... the nominator's own, one-sentence source, the Washington Post story (via the AP), actually contradicts the notion that Wallenda crossed the Grand Canyon. Both the title and body say that it was near the GC. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the objections raised above. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, tabloid stunt. Abductive (reasoning) 19:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope you are not saying the stunt was a mere stunt? μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose just a stunt, not going to change anything for anyone but him. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not a world record, notability of the location is unclear, and the whole thing is a stunt. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro bus crashEdit

Article: 2013 Montenegro bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 19 people are killed after a bus with Romanian tourists crashes in Montenegro.

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 19:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - this doesn't seem notable. Vehicles crash every day.  — TORTOISEWRATH 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality grounds; also no news sources are given above. My inkling is to think that the number of casualties is not enough in this case, though they were foreigners(to Montenegro). 331dot (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Exactly the type of article we aren't supposed to have on WP per NOTNEWS and certainly not in ITN. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment interesting comment on our news that 2013 Nanga Parbat tourist shooting (with nine tourists killed in terrorist-strewn Pakistan) is receiving a lot of support, while this (with 16+ tourists killed, albeit in an accident) is receiving a lot of opposition. Just a comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If that's a question, you just answered your own—"albeit in an accident".  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment A few months ago there was a fatal bus crash in China (with only Chinese! OMG not foreigners!) and it got posted.75.73.114.111 (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Twice as many dead, but yes, that should not have been posted either. Good catch! μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the merits, the article is in no shape to be posted, as it consists of only one sentence. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment and update - 19 deaths now, the article was expanded. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Based on improved article quality, and the fact that the notification rectangle has turned red. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just doesn't reach the level of being worthy of ITN inclusion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Albania electionEdit

Article: Albanian parliamentary election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Socialist Party of Albania wins a plurality in the Albanian parliamentary election, 2013

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Winner sh9uld be Socialist Party of Albania.. Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I think the blurb should mention the winning coalition. For forming the next government, it is more important which coalition wins than which party comes first. (There is a centre-left and a centre-right bloc: according to exit polls, the centre-left bloc has won.) --RJFF (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per ITN/R. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously. --Երևանցի talk 04:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because yes.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article is a little prose-light. Formerip (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is dreadful, referencing is appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Kashmir tourists attackEdit

Article: 2013 Kashmir tourist shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nine tourists, along with their tour guide, are killed after gunmen storm a hotel in Kashmir.
News source(s): Xinhua BBC Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is the first time that foreign tourists have been attacked/shot in the province, according to Reuters. Tourists being shot and killed does not seem like an everyday thing, which is why I decided to nominate this event to ITN. Andise1 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support once the article is up to ITN standards. Calidum Sistere 06:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, casualties from multiple countries. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose nine casualties in an attack in Pakistan is not notable by ITN standards for war torn countries such as Iraq, Syria, etc. There are no expectations of international repercussions (China being Pak's best friend are not going to escalate this)Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support upon update. The notable thing here is not the number of casualties, but the fact that they were from other countries, giving the story an international scope; and in general attacks on tourists are rare. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is non-educational to provide extra-publicity to common terrorist-acts. How pathetic that while destructive stuff gets regularly posted, there isn't much chance to get an ITN on the newly proclaimed World Heritage Sites. --ELEKHHT 15:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Did you try proposing these new UN sites? Other stuff does exist, and I think, right now, new UN sites will easily be promoted at ITN, as long as the articles are up to scratch. The World Heritage Site article needs some updates I think, and then we're good to go? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Appreciate your positivism, but no, I'm tired of the outcome. --ELEKHHT 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I'll help out with the update, if required. Previous outcomes are not relevant. Boom. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • TRM is correct - previous outcomes don't matter. Also the only way to change the balance of stories on ITN is to try. Lately we have posted a number of "different type" stories that may not have even been nominated in the past. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • New world heritage sites are definitely notable. All that is needed for a successful nomination is a sufficient update. --RJFF (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Am I missing how world heritage sites are related to domestic French legislation? Post the WHS nom and see what happens. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Maybe need to read more carefully what I wrote. Also thanks for all the DIY advice, but I am familiar with Wikipedia.--ELEKHHT 01:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - terrorist attacks of this scale happen at least once a week or in Pakistan. I am uncomfortable with the idea the lives lost are somehow more important because they were foreigners. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's that foreigners are more important, but it does provide an international scope, especially in this case where the victims were from three countries. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support What makes this particularly notable is that the people killed were apparently climbers headed up Nanga Parbat, the ninth highest mountain in the world and considered extremely difficult -- many people have died attempting it. So these were not your ordinary tourists. (I should note, though, that it doesn't seem to be totally clear yet that the victims were climbers.) Looie496 (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    So you support because "killed were apparently climbers" although "doesn't seem to be totally clear yet that the victims were climbers". --ELEKHHT 16:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    Yeah, sorry. I would support anyway, but if it turns out to be correct that they were climbers then it becomes a strong support. Looie496 (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Note - The article has now been updated, and will be ready for being posted provided there is sufficient support. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: One of the headlines in many international news media. --RJFF (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this seems to be notable because the victims were foreigners, which is not an encyclopedic viewpoint. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis.  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 22Edit


[Posted] 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans and the death of Allan SimonsenEdit

Articles: 2013 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk, history) and Allan Simonsen (racing driver) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 24 Hours of Le Mans, won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, is marred by the death of Allan Simonsen.
Alternative blurb: ​In car racing, the Le Mans 24 Hours is won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, and marked by the death of Allan Simonsen.
News source(s): EuroSport

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the first fatal accident at 24 Hours of Le Mans since 1997 and the tragic death of Sébastien Enjolras. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support A tragic accident but (for our purposes) provides interesting ITN hooks. --RA (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support either RD or Blurb is fine. Article is a bit sparse, but this is top sporting news right now, so willing to overlook article sparseness for level of coverage this is getting. --Jayron32 04:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - his death is a big story, but he wouldn't be considered at the top of his field. Thus, only a full blurb makes sense. I would like to see a bit more expansive article (prose wise) before supporting so consider me neutral on full blurb at this time and opposed to RD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support full blurb. 24 Hours of Le Mans is ITN/R anyway, however running a "racing" blurb would be burying the lead. --LukeSurl t c 10:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I was going to hang on to this until the end of the race but I am going to be off before then, but as the full blurb is 90 minutes away and I am figuring that it will be another predictable Audi win unless they suffer from a horrible mechanical failure I shall propose my version of the full blurb below. Donnie Park (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support particularly the newly proposed combo-blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support combo blurb - good idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Thaddeus B. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked the blurb because we use the present tense in blurbs and because I think "fatal accident of someone" reads a bit awkwardly. Formerip (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Tagged as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm pretty sure no-one ever refers to this race as "24 hours of Le Mans". It's the Le Mans 24 hours, surely? That's what the news source calls it. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb This is what is normally simply called the Le Mans in English, no? I suggest: "In car racing, the Le Mans, is won by Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Loïc Duval, and marked by the death of Allan Simonsen. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I've never heard it referred to as "The Le Mans". Le Mans on its own is identifiable, but not The Le Mans. 24 Hours of Le Mans and Le Mans 24 Hours are used alternatively, both are acceptable. The359 (Talk) 22:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Can you point to a source that uses "24 hours of Le Mans", in English? Formerip (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
          • "Wins the Le Mans" has plenty of examples. "The Le Mans" is as common as "The El Nino" and "The Alhambra." But it seems this is a series, and the 24 hour race is one in the series? If it is just part of the series we probably shouldn't be publishing it. Personally. I know more about knee surgery or crochet, so I have no professional opinion here--just a bias towards being concise and unawkward in the blurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Speed Channel, ESPN using 24 Hours of Le Mans. "Le Mans" is a brand name given to three different racing series based on the 24 Hours of Le Mans - American Le Mans Series, European Le Mans Series, and Asian Le Mans Series. "24 Hours of Le Mans" avoids people confusing this for any of the three series. Most of your examples of "the Le Mans..." is actually just part of a title, such as the first example being "the Le Mans Series Manufacturers Championship", or in other examples "wins the Le Mans 24" or "wins the Le Mans 24 Hours". The359 (Talk) 22:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
              • In that case I would go with Le Mans 24 Hours and have changed the altblurb to fit. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • P.S. "Le Mans 24 Hours" gets 5.7M Googles, "24 Hours of Le Mans" gets 26.8M. Stephen 23:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting congrats on a well done blurb. I was wondering how someone would put all that info into one blurb, and it was very well constructed. Well done. --Jayron32 03:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Alberta floodsEdit

Article: 2013 Alberta floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Flooding in the area surrounding Calgary, Alberta result in at least three deaths and the evacuation of thousands.
News source(s): (CBC) (BBC) (CNN) (Al Jazeera)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A once in a century natural disaster in an area of Canada that is not particularly well known for massive flooding. In a city of over a million people, 100,000 have been evacuated, the downtown core of Calgary (a major economic centre that employs 350,000) has been flooded and effectively shut down, the NHL arena has been flooded to the tenth row and there is a real danger of the Calgary Stampede being cancelled for the first time since WWI. Outside of Calgary, smaller towns/cities like Okotoks and High River have been completely decimated and the Trans-Canada Highway has been washed out. It is also extremely likely that the flooding will carry over to neighbouring Saskatchewan. To fully express the magnitude of this event, CBC is predicting the output of the South Saskatchewan River will increase to approximately 2,000 cubic metres per second (Wikipedia says the norm is 280). This is a major national disaster hitting a major Canadian city which will likely result in billions in damages. --PlasmaTwa2 12:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Significant flood with a large displaced population, affecting a major city and the signature event of the City (the Stampede). Article seems to be in good shape to me. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) The article is in a good shape. Tentative support. --Tone 13:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'm sure some will say "three deaths doesn't warrant a blurb" especially when the floods in India have killed more tha 500. However, the flood has impacted a significant portion of the city, Calgary is one of the largest cities in Canada and the fallout from this flood will impact the whole province for quite some time. It's also been getting front page coverage in major news sources outside Canada (ie. CNN). -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major natural disaster affecting the centre of a major city in the regional context. Featured on the BBC news as well. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been fortunate to not really be affected, but I know many people who have. This flooding is unprecedented for our region and has been significant national news for the past several days, with widespread international coverage. Resolute 16:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, 100,000 displaced is huge for Canada. Teemu08 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It's pretty big news here in Alberta, that's for sure. I live further north and am thus unaffected by the situation in Calgary, but I do know people who live in that city. From what I've heard, the worst has likely passed. Here's hoping they can manage things effectively from here on out. Kurtis (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 21Edit


2013 Riga Castle fireEdit

Article: 2013 Riga Castle fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A major fire breaks out at the Riga Castle, extensively damaging the medieval fortress that is also the official residence of the Latvian president.
News source(s): (BBC) (RT)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Important building extensively damaged by fire, a "national disaster" according to the Latvian President. --Bruzaholm (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - is there a compelling reason for a stand-alone article? From what I see, including the material in the main article would seem to be the better way to cover the fire. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The Windsor Castle article is a very long one, also the fire article is a long one. At this point, merge is a reasonable idea, I have suggested it on the talkpage. Tentative support to post, otherwise. --Tone 12:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I've now merged the articles. The update is substantial, seems ITN material to me. Could I get more feedback before this gets stale? --Tone 05:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment seems hard to say what the impact of this is, both in Latvia and across the world. Suggest we wait until more information is available before trying to declare judgement. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - News coverage is extensive and the article quality is good now that the two have been combined. Will need more than just my vote to post though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The last BBC report I could find was from a couple of days ago where it said no-one was killed and it was unclear what actual damage had been done. Can you clarify that position which may help us understand why this should be ITN? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I supported because the fire damaged a historical building of great importance to one country and because it was one of the top few "world" stories on several websites the day it happened. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

June 20Edit


[Posted] 2013 NBA FinalsEdit

Article: 2013 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Miami Heat defeat the San Antonio Spurs to win the NBA Finals.
News source(s): Sports Illustrated

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 and a very popular sport. Andise1 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Yeah, so this just needs to be updated, namely with a summary of Game 7 and a clearer indication that this event has already occurred and resulted in a Miami win. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose ever BOOOOOO MIAMI WON –HTD 04:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. The update is there and it's ITNR. I doubt there will be any serious opposition. Also, adding the sport. --Tone 08:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm with HTD here. (Seriously, should be posted.) 331dot (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • How sneaky posting this when most of Europe was at work or school! Lol jk I trollz u. Count this as a post-posting support...--85.210.103.215 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are plenty of free pictures of (series MVP) LeBron James that could be used to update the picture. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No no no for the love of Jimbo, no. (LOL) –HTD 16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"Jimbo"? That's Mr. James to you. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Could someone please pipe the links beneath "Miami Heat" and "San Antonio Spurs" to the actual current teams, not the franchise, which means 2012–13 Miami Heat season and 2012–13 San Antonio Spurs season? Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done. And the Alberta floods have a pic, so there is no risk of a LeBron pic anymore. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I appreciate that Thaddeus is merely following a request, but this is not the way we normally report any sport event: the club article, not the club's season article, has always been the target, and I see no reason why it would not be in this case. The club article includes the present squad. The season articles are far inferior, with virtually no prose. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I thought, but could be wrong, that Bender was correct and we usually link to the season pages when available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
          • No, I don't think so. -- tariqabjotu 22:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
            • I concur, and have respectfully reverted this change. Stephen 23:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks, I will remember not to post season articles next time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Jeffrey SmartEdit

Article: Jeffrey Smart (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald The Australian Sydney Morning Herald Herald Sun ABC News The Guardian

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: The Herald Sun refers to Jeffrey Smart as "one of Australia's greatest artists". ABC News refers to Jeffrey Smart as an "Internationally acclaimed Australian-born artist". Andise1 (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean Jeffrey Smart. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose Not convinced that he was a very important figure in the field of cinema. Important perhaps, but not very important. The article also lacks citations and reads like a puff piece. Neljack (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I originally linked the wrong article, so you might want to reconsider your vote. Andise1 (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Sorry, I must have missed Bongwarrior's comment. Seems to have been a very acclaimed and innovative artist. His death is getting international attention - I found this interesting article from The Guardian: [31] Our article contains a good, in-depth discussion of his art, though it may need some work regarding sources. Neljack (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Article will need some work (more citations). In particular, the "influences" section is (potentially) OR if not cited. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is lame, it includes sentences such as "The following are a small random selection...." Many more references required, to be honest it's borderline sales brochure towards the end of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deaths: Kenneth WilsonEdit

Article: Kenneth G. Wilson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Physics World

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: Kenneth Wilson is famous for his work on critical phenomena, this earned him the 1982 Nobel Prize for physics. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support if updated with reaction to death\legacy information (one sentence saying he died in insufficient). For me, a Nobel Prize is sufficient to prove his was at the top of his field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough, and the article would need a lot of work, including explaining the significance of his discoveries in a way that non-Physics graduate students can comprehend. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update as ThaddeusB suggests. Several awards and recognition for his work, indicating notability in his field. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Notability in one's field is not a qualifying criterion for ITN, just for getting an article. μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Pardon my word choice; I meant important. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Moot - The article states that he died on the 15th, not the 20th, which means that this is already older than the oldest blurb currently in the template, and thus stale. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose regardless of the above, remove the external links and See also and the list of awards and you have a stub. And a poor one at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
SUPPORT nobel learueate. is notable enough,Lihaas (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The general consensus I have observed is that merely winning a Nobel Prize is not enough by itself, though this man has won other awards. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Should have been posted. (Probably too late now). The man revolutionised statistical physics. One of the greats. Jheald (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Article should be so much better then, and should have been nominated in time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Southeast Asian hazeEdit

Article: 2013 Southeast Asian haze (talk, history)
Blurb: Slash and burn cultivation in Indonesia causes the worst haze (effects pictured) recorded in Singapore, also affecting Malaysia.
News source(s): The Star, Channel NewsAsia Online, The Straits Times

 ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Blurb can be much better, picture should be of the effects of the haze (the haze map shrunk down to that size will make no sense to anyone reading). Oliverlyc 07:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Does the west wind have anything to do with climate change? That's you know, completely the opposite of what it should be in the tropics. The winds of that whole map are messed up. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly note the the wind indicated is ground wind. Secondly I have done my very best to copy the wind data from here. It should not be too far off. Could you tell me any specific areas where the wind directions are messed up? Thanks. Oliverlyc 08:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you did. I meant messed up compared to climate not to data issues. I once saw a wind direction probability rose of Darwin, Aus. or Cape York and the asymmetry was remarkable (it was trying to show how the prevailing wind is more reliable in the trades than the Westerlies). As slash-and-burn happens all the time in Indonesia, maybe that everything is going the wrong way now and causing is caused by global warming changing things, similar to how a warming Arctic weakened the Westerlies so much that Hurricane Sandy could cause the worst flooding in New York history? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the first time I've heard either of those theories. Any reliable sources for your research?--WaltCip (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
[32] Is something similar going on here? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed to a better blurb and picture. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See the article about the monsoon. –HTD 16:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

ALT 1: Slash and burn cultivation in Indonesia has caused the worst haze (effects pictured) recorded in Singapore to date, with the PSI hitting a record 371 in the Hazardous range. --Arctic Kangaroo () 12:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The article is decent. Ready to post? --Tone 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support if that helps, the article is in a good state. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Use the shorter ALT 2: "Slash and burn cultivation in Indonesia has caused the worst haze (effects pictured) recorded in Singapore to date" μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - picture is nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. In response to Tone, I would like to see more support before it is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be a very major event for that part of the world, article looks good. CaptRik (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Unusual but notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 Draughts World ChampionshipEdit

Article: Draughts World Championship (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Alexander Georgiev wins the Draughts World Championship.
News source(s): World Draughts Championship website RG TV-RB Ufa1 Bashkortostan Mail.ru

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 event is not covered much in English news sources, but it is one of the top events in Draughts (Checkers), so I believe that it has a shot at being in In The News. If anyone has suggestions for an alternative or better worded blurb, feel free to change the blurb (if needed). Andise1 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

How do they do it, that perfect checkers play (the 8x8 kind, at least) has been computed? Do they just force them to use suboptimal and unsolved openings? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The 8x8 board was solved using slightly different rules than tournament play use. The Championships are played on a 10x10 board, which makes it a order of magnitude more complex to solve using brute force. (It would also be impossible for a human to memorize the solution - it took computers 10 years to solve working nonstop.) Also, the opening moves are determined by a random draw in many tournaments (not sure about the championships). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose In principal I might consider supporting this, but the article on the world championship is simply a list of winners. There's no useful encyclopaedic information about the format of the tournament itself so I can't see how this can be considered for the main page in its current state (sorry!). CaptRik (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Regretfully, none of the articles are not up to ITN-level quality. Would be an interesting story to consider, otherwise. --Tone 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose like Tone says, none of the linked articles are up to scratch, we'd need some serious work for ITN. Having said that, it's a good topic and something we perhaps should consider in the future if we can upgrade the quality of the relevant items. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

June 19Edit


[Posted to Recent Deaths] James GandolfiniEdit

Article: James Gandolfini (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: James Gandolfini, Emmy-award winning portrayer of Tony Soprano, dies of a heart attack
News source(s): Variety

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: Well-known Italian/American actor, and died at 51 from a heart attack. Article needs a better update. RD only. MASEM (t) 23:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support RD, skeptical about full blurb Tony Soprano is an iconic character. The Emmy Awards put him at the top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Surprise this is the kind of death (young, unexpected) that could use a blurb. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Overall quality is adequate, but will need a good death update. As a unexpected death of a person in their prime, his death should be notable enough to generate plenty of sourcing (i.e. on the death, not just obits). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sure there will be plenty of reactions, especially from Sopranos cast and crew, by tomorrow morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: I think this deserves the full-monty when it comes to posting, so this means a blurb. CNN has practically went full boar about his death, which he won a three television Emmy's and Golden Globe's, so it is a huge deal.HotHat (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This actor should be ITN mentioned. Even though I realise that there are a "american famous actor"-syndrom on Wikipedia here we have actually an actor that deserves a mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very noteworthy actor who is deserving of a spot in RD.--Giants27(T|C) 00:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD Multiple-award winning actor, unexpected death. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD only He was famous only for portraying Tony Soprano, for which he was given all the credits and was honoured with multiple awards. This is not enough to support it for a full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD per the above reasons. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The reason for a full blurb is that his death was unexpected and under unusual circumstances. It has nothing to do with one's opinion of his acting, which I think was highly overrated. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but I don't feel he is on the same level as Margaret Thatcher (I believe the last death to get a full blurb) or Nelson Mandela (who is often also suggested as someone worthy of a full blurb), and as I understand it a full blurb is reserved for those tip-top people. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
A full blurb can also be used for situations where the death itself is notable (not syaign that applies or does not apply here, just that it is a possibility). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggested only an RD because first while a notable actor and award-winning, he wasn't a person I'd expect known across the globe, and while a stroke at 51 is unusual and tragic, it is also not unheard of. RD ticker is perfect, but I'd think a full blurb would be a lot more difficult to support. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree. His fame was narrow, all built around a single TV series. Even American TV fans who never happened to become keen on the show would not know who he was. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. For RD only, though. That should go without saying, but recentism is certainly at play. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 03:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although it was posted.Egeymi (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[Ready] Recent Deaths: Gyula HornEdit

Article: Gyula Horn (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News Reuters Businessweek The Telegraph The Washington Post euronews

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: Gyula Horn was a former Hungarian Prime Minister. He played a big role in the opening of the Iron Curtain. According to the ABC News article, "He was best known internationally for his announcement as foreign minister in 1989 that Hungary would allow East German refugees to leave the country for West Germany, one of the key events that helped bring an end to communism in Eastern Europe." The Telegraph refers to Gyula Horn as "the former Hungarian prime minister credited as one of the communist leaders who helped bring down the Iron Curtain in 1989." Andise1 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support in effect, if not image, one of the most important statesmen of the end of the last century. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The death update looks good, but the rest of the article is mostly unreferenced. For example, the "His role in 1956" section has zero refs. I can't support the article at its current state. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, do please tag it. But I won't be back to it tonight. μηδείς (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs proper referencing, including dealing with WP:LINKROT. Right now not in a good enough state for Wikipedia's main page, RD or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point the article is quite handsome and looks well-referenced. Unless there is some further defeect (in which case, please tag) I intend to mark this ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The "His role in 1956" section is completely unreferenced and is marked as such. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I have commented out that section. It looks like it was translated from the Hungarian article which read well enough to look for sources in. Had the section been addressed before his death it could have been removed entirely on BLP grounds and much would have been hard to restore. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Slim WhitmanEdit

Article: Slim Whitman (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN CBS News USA Today Reuters

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: According to his Wikipedia article, Slim Whitman "was given the accolade of a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." Also, according to his Wikipedia article, "He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum's Walkway of Stars in 1968." Slim Whitman was one of Michael Jackson's ten favorite vocalists. Slim Whitman was also an early influence for George Harrison, who was the lead guitarist for The Beatles. Andise1 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support 120,000,000 records sold back in the days before anyone knew what a billion or a trillion was. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Article will need more referencing (and preferably also some reaction to his death) before I can support on quality, but notability is there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements as outlined by ThaddeusB. The nominator and Medeis make very convincing points as to notability and importance within his field. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Never heard of him, but I'm convinced by his accomplishments – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per above, seems to fit the bill.--Giants27(T|C) 00:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 03:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
    • At the risk of causing drama, I have pulled this. The article is in poor shape with vast unreferenced blocks. Supports above are based on notability alone, with no reference to article quality (except for me & Predo who both say it is not adequate). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
      • No drama at all. Stephen 22:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is in better shape now - just a few more citations in the "Biography" section and removing the orange tag (and posting) would be warranted. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Repost the claims have been referenced or removed and the tag is gone. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Although the tag has been removed and a few [citation needed]s have been fixed, the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th paragraphs of the biography section are without any references. Thus, my concern about article quality remains - it is better than it was, but not good enough (IMO). However, I won't dispute it if someone else posts. As a point of reference, DYK requires a minimum of 1 citation per paragraph. To me, that is a good standard to have for "normal" stories (such as this one), which exceptions possible in exceptional circumstances. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It's much more helpful if one actually tags the claims in the article so they can be reffed or removed rather than mentioning them here and making one guess and have to keep revisiting the issue. In any case, I have added one or two refs to the paragraphs you've mentioned, and commented out para 7 for now, since it looks interesting but easy refs were not forthcoming. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks good, posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Uttarakhand flash floodsEdit

Article: 2013 Uttarakhand floods (talk, history)
Blurb: Flash floods and landslides in Uttarakhand and Himanchal Pradesh in India kill over 130 people and trap thousands.
News source(s): Hindustan Times The hindu Times Of India IBN Outdated NYT article

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Massive floods, affecting thousands, and killing dozens. Big news in India. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: There were several articles about these floods under various different titles. They've all been redirected to 2013 North India floods now, as the flooding affects multiple states. The overall death toll is at 130. Article needs some work (better use of English) and broadening to reflect the complete scope of the (obviously very notable) disaster. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The linked article has been changed, and the death toll updated. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've reworked the entire article, and rewritten it in many places. A little tweaking might be all that is required, but otherwise the article seems ready. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - notability is obvious; article condition is now decent - the English and scope are much improved (thanks Soni). A further copyedit and a few more sources (i.e. more information) wouldn't hurt, but there's nothing to oppose over. (P.S. I'm glad someone wrote this article so I didn't have to, as I was going to nominate this if no one else did.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Obvious support. Very significant floods covering a very large area. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major news. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Question Support Does anyone know how regularly this region experiences floods of this magnitude (from the linked article the geography makes it look like it could be a regular occurrence). If so, is this story different to previous years, or has it simply made bigger news this year, possibly because of the death toll? Just trying to get a feel for things before offering an opinion. CaptRik (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
From what I know/can figure out, there were floods last year in a smaller magnitude. Other than that, I dont think there were any other floods, atleast on a major/comparable scale. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Given the geography, its quite common to have floods in this area. But the magnitude is huge this year. Last year's death toll was less than 40 or so. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, I support this. CaptRik (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Tone, ThaddeusB, The death toll has risen to 500 now. Could we have a sticky (or a reblurb), given how the serious the news appears to be? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Updated and bumped. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Death toll has surpassed 1000 (see NYT article). Needs another update. -Zanhe (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Then the article needs to be updated. The BBC has yet to get to that total, but it may be because the last update for them was 10 hours ago. However, please make sure the article is updated correctly and then we may be able to update the ITN blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, the ITN credit for the two updaters has not been given, I think. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Repinging Tone, ThaddeusB on the above. A correction of death toll, unless the official toll actually reaches 5000 as reported, would be good. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I updated the blurb to read "more than 1000" earlier today. As to updater notifications, they are rarely done by most ITN admins, but if you like feel free to give them yourself: {{ITN notice}} --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I see. I was under the impression that they were always given out, and the admins updating it was the one always giving it. Thanks for the clarification. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This item is currently at the bottom of the ITN template; I think we may want to bump this again instead of removing it if a new item is added anytime soon. This is a huge disaster, it's still ongoing, and the article is still being updated and attracting a lot of pageviews. --Bongwarrior(talk) 03:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Bongwarrior. If it's likely/ possible, the news should be made a sticky at the top/bottom of the ITN thread. Relevant newsworthy items are coming up everyday for this incident. Yesterday, a chopper in the rescue crashed, killing all 20 onboard. (1 2 3) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

June 18Edit


[Posted] Tianhe-2Edit

Article: Tianhe-2 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China's Tianhe-2 supercomputer heads the TOP500 list of the world's fastest computers.
Alternative blurb: ​China's Tianhe-2 supercomputer heads the TOP500 list of the world's fastest computers with a record 33.863 petaflops.
News source(s): Huffington Post The Hindu China Daily BBC Herald Sun

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The TOP500 is the most widely recognized list of fastest computers and is fairly widely covered by the international press (see examples above). This particular new record fastest computer very nearly doubled up on second place, making it especially exceptional. It is also a good opportunity to get a technology story on ITN to break up the usual death\election\sports. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Support if performance figure is indicated in the blurb (33.863 Pflops compared to American 17.590 Pflops is a significant difference). Brandmeistertalk 07:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Good update; we've also posted a similar item a few years ago as well. Marking nomination 'ready'. SpencerT♦C 23:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Pakistan funeral bombingEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:15, 20 June 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: Mardan funeral bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​28 people are killed while attending a funeral when a suicide bomber blows himself up.
News source(s): BBC AP via Yahoo News CBS News Khaleej Times

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This is being covered in various news sources. It is not really common for a large amount of people to get killed while attending an event (a funeral) for someone else who was killed. Andise1 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Except in Pakistan.--WaltCip (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a little facetious to have said. Anyway, I support, pending article creation. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. We need an article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not the best at creating articles, so it would be nice if someone could create an article about this incident. Andise1 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I have created an article about the incident...even if this ends up not getting posted I still feel it is worthy of an article which is why I created one. Andise1 (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose although I wouldn't have phrased it quite like WaltCip, the point is that events are going off all the time like this. We would need a separate ticker to keep up with them. This is tragic, incredibly so, but seemingly not out-of-the-ordinary for this part of our globe. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose basically per TRM and WaltCip. There is a War in North-West Pakistan, just like there is one in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Bombings which don't affect the course of the war have sadly become routine. ITN could almost turn around daily with the bombings in those four countries alone. --IP98 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 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 protests in BrazilEdit

Article: 2013 protests in Brazil (talk, history)
Blurb: Protests throughout Brazil, mainly organized by the Movimento Passe Livre, continue to grow.
News source(s): (BBC), (Al Jazeera), (Xinhua)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This blurb really functions as an update of sorts. These protests have now grown to include at least 200,000 individuals, and have received the global spotlight. They are noteworthy enough. --QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Wait let's see which way the momentum's going, we can post this as timely tomorrow if they don't die down. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support it already drew attention from the UN and Amnesty International for the police brutality during the protests. Pikolas (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's hardly anything, those bodies exist to react to protests. It's like the bureaucratic-protestant version of the military-industrial complex. It's when real entities react that we have a news story. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It is now frontpage on BBC and CNN. Yesterday, 100k protesters in Rio and 60k in São Paulo, plus many thousands more in Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte and Brasilia. President Roussef has reacted to the protests: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22961874. Someone with wiki knowledge should update the article. Thanks,201.9.176.124 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Not frontpage on my BBC, and the article (which I finally found) states 10s of thousands across Brazil, not the 100ks mentioned above. Blurb doesn't actually tell our readers what this is all about, so all in all, not a good ITN/C. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read the article I posted, it says 100k for Rio and 65k for São Paulo. The wiki article however is a mess, and I only found it via the portuguese wikipedia. Thanks for your comment, 201.9.176.124 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I tend to go for global sources like the BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe that's exactly what s/he's saying. The BBC source provided above [33] mentions that "The demonstrations are Brazil's largest since 1992" and "In ... Sao Paulo, about 65,000 people took to the streets. The largest march was in Rio de Janeiro, where some 100,000 people marched peacefully". Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The article has some sections unrelated to the event which is WP:Synth. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Chronus (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support certainly bigger than the tempest in a teapot in Sweden that we swarmed over ourselves to publish. Eurocentrism has got to stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course the "50-100 rioters" in Stockholm is more than TRM's "100k protesters" he's looking for in Brazil... –HTD 11:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, just been looking for information on this in fact. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready to post. However, I'd like another blurb. Can you suggest something like "Hundreds of thousands of people in Brazil protest against X"? --Tone 13:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article needs some cleanup; the "background" section is a mess. For example, there's a relatively poorly written section about reproductive rights (2013_protests_in_Brazil#Reproductive_rights), yet I have no idea how this relates to the protests, which I thought were about public transportation issues? This isn't a patchwork "List of social issues in Brazil" article. SpencerT♦C 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Upon a closer review, I see the 2013_Brazilian_protests#Controversial_political_climate:_March.E2.80.93June introduction to the section, which is unreferenced. Nonetheless, I highly doubt those sections need to be included, but if so, they need to be substantially truncated so their relevance is not overstated like it is now. SpencerT♦C 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I have removed the offending subsection. Accordingly, Abductive (reasoning) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Those sections aren't offensive, they are truth. I need sources for truth, true, but I'm already working on this. We had a hard life for 21 years, sometimes much harder than this (Dilma >>>>>>>>> Fernando Henrique), and even so we didn't went to the streets. Obviously social liberal movements against corrupt, rich, intolerant Evangelical preachers in our government was a catalyzer. While in part I can't give too much attention to them as it is part of Globo's and government's agenda to drive people's opinions away from the most important, as seen in the rushed vote for the "Projeto Cura Gay" for allowing psychologists to try to change sexual orientation, it is a matter of fact that seeing revoltuous mobs against those guys in the second round of the Arab Spring made many wake up that they would go to the streets to push for their wishes too. Lguipontes (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The facebook page calling for a new protest in Rio today says: "Esse movimento é horizontal e sem lideranças. Estamos seguindo o que foi decidido na plenária: só negociamos depois da REDUÇÂO da tarifa, de todos os presos políticos libertados e do anulamento de todos os processos contra manifestantes. Não há mais mal entendidos! As pautas não foram decididas por ninguém sozinho, mas por uma plenária aberta que contou com mais de 1500 pessoas! Todos juntxs! Pras ruas amanhã!"
For this reason, I think it is important to document the background of what made this eruption of protests (no, this is clearly not solely about the bus fares, it means that the protests will have no negotiation with the government before they attain this minimal ground of ours) in all aspects that make a significant minority (20%+) of Brazilians mad with their congressman. So, given that people here in Wikipedia complain this is OR, gives the article lack of clarity or whatever (Wikipedia inflexibility is inflexible, I know), we need to create more specifical articles or move them to "X movement in Brazil 2013 about issue Y" (but then I will have to do almost all the research because I'm one of the only few that speak Portuguese), put small summaries in the main one and mantain the present style, instead of just deleting altogether. You could try to build it more reasonably in its talk, where another long-term Brazilian user supported the article in the way I wrote it. Lguipontes (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Simply because something might be truthful doesn't make it relevant to a particular article. This information is OR unless there are reliable secondary sources linking these specific issues to the protest. I'm not seeing that, but please include refs if they exist. We do have articles like Social issues in Brazil where it would make sense to list these ideas, not in a specific article about specific protests. Also there's LGBT rights in Brazil (see lots more articles like that at Template:Brazilian LGBT topics). I'll make further comments on the article talk page, but article ownership is a concern when you describe these sections as "my narration" of the protests. SpencerT♦C 00:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
When I removed the subsection I did so to get the article posted to ITN, not because I disagreed that it was true or not. The material needs citations before it can be put back. Abductive (reasoning) 02:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This is being worked through on the article talk page. This is more of an issue with the title of the article "2013 protests in Brazil". The background includes other protests that occurred in 2013 in Brazil (that are mostly referenced), yet are not related to the Revolta da Salada protests currently in the news (and the focus of the article, as seen by the introduction). The article needs to be retitled to something more specific (so that other information can be in a separate article about 2013 protests in Brazil), but there is not yet a centralized agreed upon English (or even Portuguese name) for the protests as of yet. SpencerT♦C 03:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, important, massive, article has 61 refs, delay is pointless. Abductive (reasoning) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready Yes, I asked for a good faith wait yesterday, and today shows it's good and ready to go, now. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

June 17Edit


2009 G20 espionageEdit

Article: 2009 G-20 London Summit (talk, history)
Blurb: Edward Snowden reveals that the United Kingdom spied on the participants of the 2009 G-20 London Summit.
News source(s): The Guardian

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: It has been revealed that the UK has hacked the emails etc. of various high level foreign representatives. That is a big deal. This is very apropos the current G8 summit also being held in London. Thue (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support A significant revelation with potential international repercussions. Neljack (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with nominator and Neljack that this story is of major import. Article is good, but I'd be happier if their were more sentences in the update, including reactions. But those will come. I'd say update and the blurb are good enough for ITN. Jusdafax 07:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose what are reliable sources saying? Is there a confirmation from the UK gov't, like from the US gov't in the PRISM case? Just because it comes from Snowden or Wikileaks doesn't make it so - until there's confirmation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure that this warrants a big splash, spies spying on foreign politicians, that's basically what you expect from spies. Spying on the normal population (prism) was a significant story, that they have been 'revealed to have been spying at a particular place' is a bit surprising (oh a security breach), but if there is a blurb worthy story here I'd have thought it would need to wait for some real blurb worthy consequence of the revelation that spies spied. EdwardLane (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Spies will spy, soldiers will kill, researchers will research. Somewhat predictable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take note of their most interesting accomplishments. Thue (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose pending reliable sources. I've also fixed the blurb. Great Britain (while being a synonym for the UK) is an island. --RA (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] G8 summitEdit

Article: 39th G8 summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 39th G8 summit concludes with agreements on the Syrian civil war, tax evasion, and for greater transparency.
Alternative blurb: ​The 39th G8 summit concludes with the nations signed a seven-point declaration on the Syrian civil war.
News source(s): VOA

Article needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Looking at previous meetings, some people preferred to post at the open and update if anything major happened, while other preferred to post at the conclusion with a blurb that reflected the main conclusion of the summit. Since it is only 2 days long, there really is little difference and I'm fine with either as long as the article is updated. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Absolutely Opposed unless there is some subsidiary event with its own notability. Politickers politicking in plush purlieux is not news. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • This is ITNR; if you don't want it on ITNR, propose it for removal. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Important global summit that allows us to link to interesting geographical places from ITN (i.e. interesting/unusual hooks to our articles). I'm surprised this is not ITN/R to be honest. I've suggested a slightly alternative blurb. --RA (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • G8 summits are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support There are not normally this many world leaders of large nations in one place at the same time. Do we post both the opening and ending, or just when it is over? 331dot (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but at close of play. Formerip (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support at the end - nothing has actually happened at the beginning - our readers are more likely to be interested when they can read about what has actually happened or been decided at the summit. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
How in the world do you know that something actually will happen? μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it (quote from template). So, if there is a complete non event at the G8 then the update will not be significant and then it can be opposed without a crystal ball. wait until event is over then decide EdwardLane (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Something has a happend. Per the blurb the summit opened. --RA (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know if this is on ITN/R? μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Apparently G8 was one of a number of items added to ITN/R here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing to see here, unless something major actually comes out of this, it's just another meeting (only this time, they didn't wear a tie!). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it's ITN/R. If you wish to oppose it based on your own opinion rather than review the article for quality update, then you should attempt to get this delisted from ITN/R. --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
      • No need to be sorry. I have opposed it, just as Medeis has. And as you very well know, the discussion ongoing at ITN/R is now looking at redefining the whole point of these articles which have some kind of dubious "notability" candidates. But thanks for your note! (If it makes you happy, the article isn't written in the correct tense and has a maintenance tag so you could/should be opposing on that ground too, but maybe you haven't read the article... Per your conditions, your "support" is pointless, because you're saying "Support per ITN/R, but the article isn't ready". Irony?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Dubious? The item was nominated and accepted at WT:ITNR. Fortunately it's in the news and not "what The Rambling Man finds significant". --IP98 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I thought you were averse to "sarcasm"? Items at ITN/R are now being routinely opposed and not posted, regardless of their update. You know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Routinely? I know of one and that article wasn't updated so we can't even be sure the significance based opposes even mattered. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
          • You know what TRM, you're right. I'm a jeering spectator, doing "whatever it is I do". You're better than me in every way. I was wrong to doubt your reasoning, your logic, or your suggestions. It really shouldn't be "what IP98 finds interesting", but it should be what TRM finds important. You're better than everyone, certainly better than me. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. You can reply to me, and be assured that you'll have the last word. I won't be replying again. --IP98 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R pending expansion of the agenda section. You would think it's easy to find, but google let me down. The closest I could get was this: [34] --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the article has absolutely nothing about what was discussed. It's embarrassing that so many people are default "supporting" an article which has no ITN-relevant content. According to "current rules", if it's ITN/R, nobody needs to "support" it until the update is made. ("Support pending update" is a waste of bytes). Omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated - summit is over and the article has been updated. A have suggested two new blurbs above - one with the three major points of agreement, the other just on Syria which was the main focus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 13:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb issue: "transparency" in what sense? How does a main page reader have a clue what that means? Noted at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Montréal mayor arrestedEdit

Article: Michael Applebaum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Montreal mayor Michael Applebaum is arrested on charges of fraud and corruption.
News source(s): CBC

Article needs updating
  • Once again, the mayor of Montreal is ousted due to the ongoing corruption scandal in Québec. No actual charges have been laid; I'm assuming that's what they'll be, and I won't be around later. Is this better to have this go up when sentenced instead of now? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 14:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Two political upheavals, one an arrest, one a resignation, with the impetus being corruption in both cases. Maybe you can link fraud and corruption to the corruption scandal, if such an article exists? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless he does get convicted. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose innocent until proven otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - City-level politics, unless the attendant crime story proves to be really big. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The charges have to do with activities he allegedly did while a borough mayor, not while Mayor of Montreal, even leaving aside that we normally wait for convictions to post. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update it's not often that the mayor of a first world city is ousted and arrested on corruption charges. The article requires expansion though. What happens next? Is there an election now? Details of the charges also needed. --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I would have supported on those grounds if the charges were based on activities he did while Mayor, but they seem to be based on things he allegedly did while a borough mayor. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Possibly if convicted, but until then he is innocent until proven guilty. Neljack (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if convicted. Not a high-level enough politician. SpencerT♦C 00:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to be minor news. Call me if he smokes crack. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose c'mon - he's a mayor of a big city, isn't corruption part of the job skills requirements? much less interesting that congressmen named Wiener showing their wiener around, that we didn't run with. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Czech raid against organized crimeEdit

Nominator's comments: A major event in a Central European country, widely covered by notable media worldwide. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support I think a Prime Minister resigning in a scandal involving a major criminal investigation is sufficiently significant. It is certainly getting widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The article looks good, ready to post when I see some more feedback. --Tone 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Update could be a bit more thorough. Aside from that, support. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 14:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Definitely notable. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Change of head of government, and a serious political and criminal affair behind it. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, since it is notable and widely covered event.Egeymi (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks appropriate for posting, but the article title is a bit under-specific, I think. Do the Czech police raid organised criminals on a strictly annual basis? "Nagyová case" seems to be the local name for it. Maybe a page-move would be in order? Formerip (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No they don't, as far as I know. This particular investigation relates several causes and it is not entirely clear why. "Nagyová case" is the name of the Czech Wikipedia article and it appears also in the Czech press, but I don't think it is fair to relate the scandal only to Nagyová, even though she is the most important target for the media. It isn't only about her. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 04:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose change in head of government, but not head of state. --IP98 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Support interesting story which may interest WP readers. The article is kind of a wall of text. A few extra section headers and a TOC would help it. --IP98 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] José Froilán González for RDEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:13, 20 June 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: José Froilán González (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): GuardianBBC

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: Most notable for scoring the Ferari's first victory in Formula 1. Dying a natural death is almost more unusual than not for racing drivers of his era. --Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I am not an expert in auto racing, but being the first to win a race with a particular make of car doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me, at least. This man did not win any championships and only won 2 races. Maybe it just needs to be explained to me, but I don't see how he is notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • In Formula 1 terms, Ferrari is not just any make. They have a continuous history in the sport from its origins around 1950 to the present day and have dominated it in several periods and have won by far the most constructors titles (16 to the second place's 9). I know this does not answer all your concerns, but if it were any team other than Ferrari then it definitely wouldn't be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I assumed the nom meant that he won Ferrari's first driver championship, but I see that it was actually just their first race victory (he only ever won two races). I'm not convinced that Ferrari's subsequent domination of Formula 1 means that he is a very important figure in the field, as opposed to those who were responsible for that subsequent domination (the drivers who won all those championships and the behind-the-scenes people etc). Neljack (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sympathaize If we had a two-tier system where certain less markworthy nominations like this could be posted when there's empty space at RD and would be bumped first when full tier nominations were approved I would vote in favor of this posting. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 17 June 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.

June 16Edit


[Posted] Justin Rose Wins the US OpenEdit

Article: 2013 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Justin Rose wins the US Open.
News source(s): BBC USGA

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.

 Torqueing (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on current article, which is shameful considering the notability of the US Open. Is it because a Brit won it?! Obviously would change to support should the article be updated to a reasonable extent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The update on the "Final round" section is more quite appropriate and has nothing to do with him being a Brit. If it was due to that, then no one would've updated the "Final round" after their "bets" lost. It could've been better if it described how Rose won it hole by hole, though I haven't seen that detail in major golf tournaments articles... –HTD 18:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree the article could use improvement. However, implying it has anything to do with Rose's nationality is not helpful. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Standard lack of understanding of "irony" here. Thanks for that guys! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It didn't come across in text - probably would have better been understood if spoken. Sorry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready - article is now updated (and cleaned up) to the point where it can be posted. (It's INT/R so no "support" !vote based on notability needed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Helen HughesEdit

Clearly not going to gain sufficient consensus for posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 18 June 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: Helen Hughes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Australian CatallaxyFiles

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: According to her Wikipedia article, Helen Hughes "has been described as Australia's greatest woman economist." Andise1 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see no evidence that she is widely regarded as a very important figure in economics. There is nothing about any ideas of hers that have been widely influential among economists. The statement that she was Australia's greatest female economist is the opinion of one person from a blog post, and in any case being the greatest female economist of a medium-sized country would not necessarily mean that she was a very important figure in economics on a worldwide basis. Neljack (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'Australia's greatest woman economist' is surely not something that proves outstanding importance. I cannot figure out what she is particularly important for in economics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No not for ITN mention.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Reading her article, I'm not entirely clear what about her work made her the "greatest woman economist" in Australia. She did get recognition from her government for her work (the Order of Australia and the Centenary Medal) but, again, I'm not clear as to what they were for. If the article were improved with information indicating what her contributions to economics were, I would support. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know we're not supposed to say "Never heard of her", but I will this time. I'm an Australian of mature years, and while I could name several other Australian economists, she's not on my list. Being female should not these days count for much. (Is it a surprise if females can be good economists?) That claim of "greatest female economist" comes from a blog of like minded economists, not from objective outsiders. And any such claim, of "greatest ever" or similar, instantly turns on my bullshit alerts. The other source, The Australian, while a quality newspaper at times, is definitely also aligned with libertarian economics. I'm happy to wait for more objective observations. I don't see a strong case yet. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 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.

June 15Edit


Alexander Ovechkin wins Hart TrophyEdit

Article: Alexander Ovechkin (talk, history)
Blurb: Alexander Ovechkin wins the 2013 Hart Memorial Trophy, his third win.
News source(s): [35] [36] [37] [38] japan times

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The IIHF doesn't do an MVP award, but the NHL widely considered to be the premier professional ice hockey league in the world.[39] The NHL is made up of top global players, Ovechkin himself being a Russian. It's an Olympic sport, hotly contested by the northern countries but also played in Japan and Australia. This is his third win. We've posted MVP winners in the past for other sports. --IP98 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose The only time we post MVPs in other sports is when including images for the final match/series, in which the MVP for that final/series has his/her picture posted. The only exception was the 2012 FIFA Ballon d'Or award, which was posted in January 2013, in what was a contentious nomination. Furthermore, I don't see how such an award would give an ITN-worthy update for either article: it at best could be a sentence or two mention in the player's article and just another line in the chart on the awards article. SpencerT♦C 02:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer's rationale. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Quetta Pakistan bombingsEdit

No consensus to post; article quality issues. SpencerT♦C 01:59, 21 June 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: June 2013 Quetta bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 22 people are killed in two bomb attacks in Quetta, Pakistan
News source(s): The Times of India AFP Channel NewsAsia The Nation CBC The Independent AP via Huffington Post

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: According to news sources, eleven of the victims were students. This seems like a notable event for the main page. The article is very short and needs to be updated more with more information. Andise1 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Substantial death toll, getting widespread international coverage. Neljack (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there's a noted high-level victim. This is not sportpolbombpedia. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality grounds; the article has very little content. Would be willing to reconsider upon article improvement. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on condition of article improval. Includes eleven students on a bus, and separately, a five-hour hostage situation in a hospital. This is pretty nasty. Also lowered the death toll. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nasty indeed when they bomb kids and then the hospital the survivors are taken to. I could support this but the article is a three sentence stub. It needs considerable expansion, with enhanced description of the events and a reaction section. Jusdafax 18:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Getting widespread international coverage. Agreed with Neljack. Faizan 10:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose article quality is very poor and it's already shuffled out of major news outlets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 18 June 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] Election of Hassan RouhaniEdit

Articles: Hassan Rouhani (talk, history) and Iranian presidential election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Hassan Rouhani is elected President of Iran.
Alternative blurb: Hassan Rouhani wins the Iranian presidential election.
News source(s): BBC
Second article updated, first needs updating

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

Nominator's comments: Election of the new president of Iran

  • Support - if it is official that he has been elected.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - BBC says this is the official result, announced by the Interior Minister [40]. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is ITN/R anyway. Therefore, it can go up as soon as the article is adequately updated. --RJFF (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • By the way: there is an article about the Iranian presidential election, 2013. Do not we usually bold-link the article about the election, and not the one about the winner? --RJFF (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Yup, that's usual. And the election article is updated and in good shape. Narayanese (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
        • According to the Iranian presidential election, 2013 article he's a member of the Moderation and Development Party, might expand the altblurb to contain that (though it obviously needs a bit of work)? oh and support altblurb the other article still has an orange tag.EdwardLane (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I have the impression that political parties in Iran are rather weak and do not play an important role. The focus seems to be on persons. Moreover, there are contradictory statements about Rouhani's party affiliation (see Talk:Iranian presidential election, 2013). Therefore, I would rather not mention the party in the blurb. --RJFF (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per ITN/R. Jusdafax 22:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Obviously. Look, the political landscape in Iran is largely rigged, and the highest de jure authority in the country is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the fact remains that the President is the public face of the regime and sets the economic agenda. I mean, look at how much influence Ahmadinejad consolidated during his tenure! Granted, he was backed by the Revolutionary Guards, which have since become the most significant power brokers in Iran. Nevertheless, the Presidency is an important office in the country, even if it is only a democratic facade. It also demonstrates, at least from my perspective, that the ruling regime fears its people. Remember what happened in 2009 and the protests that followed; it was obviously rigged so that Ahmadinejad would win another term. If they tried to do something like that this time around, it could well have sparked another uprising on a massive scale that they wouldn't be able to put down. Sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. This is good news no matter which way you slice it. Kurtis (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted w/bolded election article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: ManivannanEdit

No consensus to post; article quality issues. SpencerT♦C 01:58, 21 June 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: Manivannan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Times of India Deccan Chronicle oneindia News Track India Sakshi Vancouver Desi The Times of India The Hindu

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 was a famous Tamil actor. The Deccan Chronicle says "With over 400 films as an actor and nearly 50 films as director, Manivannan was one of the most experienced personalities in Kollywood." Andise1 (talk) 08:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. He certainly has a large body of work, but I'm not seeing evidence that he was regarded as being at the top of his field, which I assume is acting/filmmaking. In the past I've seen that merely being popular is not sufficient. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support meh, he is just about important enough for RD by the looks of things. Also, am I the only one who reads his name as "mini-van"? Lol.--85.210.108.233 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
That's funny if you find foreign languages funny--usually the sign of an impoverished education. μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is way too poor. A reasonable notable actor but we can't put this kind of unreferenced page on the MP. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rambling Man. Would be support if the article were improved, but I can't see putting this up in this state. --Jayron32 02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Multiple maintenance templates., not enough details in "Death" section, bot an internationally famous person. --TitoDutta 13:22, 18 June 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] Quaid-e-Azam Residency attackEdit

Article: 2013 Quaid-e-Azam Residency attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Quaid-e-Azam Residency (pictured), a heritage site in Ziarat, Pakistan, is badly damaged in an attack by Assailants, killing a police officer.
News source(s): [41] [42] [43] [44]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A very important event. I think it's eligible as a candidate. Quaid-e-Azam Residency was badly damaged and destroyed in the attack. The residence homed the Founder of Pakistan in his last days. --Faizan 10:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Note There were some copyvio issues in the article, which have been fixed. Faizan 11:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It's an important article. It has received significant coverage in the media, including BBC, CNN, etc. Baigmirzawaqar (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support It is notable event of South East Asia. --TitoDutta 13:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. South east Asia? Lol. Whatsoever, It seems a global one to me. Faizan 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the event is getting global attention, but, (main/on)ly is south east Asia.   --TitoDutta 14:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well if it is getting global one, then how "only" in South East Asia? Faizan 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You did not get the joke. Anyway, in plain words, this is not a very important event for Western World. But, in South East Asia, it is important. --TitoDutta 15:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Good enough to go ahead.Шαмıq  тαʟκ @ 16:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment not sure why a standalone article for the "attack" exists when the main article is barely more than a stub. I think the "attack" article is an unnecessary fork. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, the upshot of that discussion was not to merge it in case it prevented it going on the main page. That's no reason not to merge the articles. Oppose since this isn't the right article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, a quick merge will be helpful. --TitoDutta 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Presumably you're all aware that if it features on ITN, it's no longer eligible for DYK? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. --TitoDutta 18:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Stale. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted - Ultimately the event's notability is not dependent on which article it is covered in, and consensus is that the event is worthy of coverage. If the articles are merged, the blurb can be adjusted. (Ironically, the main article's shortness would make putting all the attack material there a pretty clear UNDUE/recentism case as it stands.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

June 14Edit


Airbus A350Edit

Article: Airbus A350 XWB (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Airbus A350 completes its maiden flight.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Important in commercial aviation. --LukeSurl t c 15:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support but it will need updating. Statements like Although the mid-2013 delivery date of the A350 remains unchanged, longer than anticipated development activities for the aircraft have forced Airbus to delay the final assembly and first flight of the aircraft to the third quarter of 2011 and second quarter of 2012 respectively seem a bit out of date. Also, I would like to see a maiden flight subsection with details like duration, flight plan, pilot reaction, etc (if such details exist). --IP98 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • On an unrelated note, though the interior mockup looks great, I'm sure Dynasty will find a way to squeeze a 10th seat into each row, making my semi-annual trip from LAX to TPS as uncomfortable as ever. --IP98 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on article improvement. (Still waiting for them to upsell us premium-on-the-wing seating...) --MASEM (t) 15:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The introduction of a new series of airplanes for commercial use is a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to help emphsize this point its not so much a new series, but part of the electrification and reduce of fuel usage of airplanes among numerous other improvements to improve efficiency and emissions, along with the Dreanliner. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the correction. Then, there are the environmental and the technological issues as a good reason to include in my support statement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we need to change every mention of the aircraft to the present tense? --LukeSurl t c 19:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Kiril Simeonovski if updated per IP98. Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose until more than one sentence is included regarding the maiden flight (which is what this "ITN" is all about). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] US will supply Syrian rebels with armsEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 02:59, 17 June 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: Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war#United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States will supply weapons to rebels fighting against the Syrian government in the Syrian civil war.
News source(s): NYT USA Today LA Times

Article updated
 --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Premature These are merely unconfirmed reports based on unnamed official sources. Neljack (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Premature. I agree with Neljack; it is not yet clear what sort of aid will be provided. I also think the real story here is the determination of chemical weapons use, something which the US hadn't decided on before now. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose We didn't post Russia and China supplying warships and weapon to Syria, and we have never posted such news with any other country in the world before. So, a supply to an opposition in a country which is illegitimate is far bellow any line of significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The Chinese and Russians are states, and have supplied weapons to a legitimate state since long before this conflict started. The USA is a state which may be supplying arms to an illegitimate armed insurgency. Should this prove to be true, it is a significant milestone in the conflict, and signals a change in the position on 3rd party state support for the rebel groups. --IP98 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Then, it drives back again to the neutrality and its representation on Wikipedia. This is not a place to promote the politics of the United States and to prove its significance because it supports illegitimate militant groups or whatsoever they're called. The state of the conflict is quite difficult to report, and every attempt to post news that greatly favours one of the sides may easily violate the whole concept of neutrality on Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Neutrality means that we report things neutrally, not that we shut our mouths when there's a conflict. This is not something you fail to understand. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
          • You're on the right way with a slightly different perspective. The problem here is not whether we report something neutrally or not, but how it is determined to be significant in a more neutral way. Why to post always news when the rebels 'occupy' cities or get support from any outside factor? Why we shut our mouths when the government forces in the country take over against the rebels? 'Neutral' is not to report a single news neutrally, but to report series of news that will collectively illustrate a neutral point of view.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
            • You've made it quite clear below that your goal with this nomination is to put the evil people-killing (Stalin 20,000,000, Mao 50,000,000 of their own citizens) United States in its place for dealing with these illegitimate human beings opposing Putina puppet. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
              • My goal with this nomination is to prevent something being posted that will likely push Wikipedia in favour of any of the sites in the conflict (please see my comment on the renewal of the article with the protests in Turkey).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this is a consequence of (in my opinion) what is the real story which is, if proven, chemical weapons were used in attacks against the various sides of the conflict and/or civilians. I'm being deliberately vague because it's extremely hard to prove. CaptRik (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Just FYI, the US position is that it was Assad's side that used them. [45] 331dot (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Although, there are already several sides supposedly arming either side in the conflict ([46]) so, in my opinion, for that criteria alone this specific story doesn't make the grade. CaptRik (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, while this is formally about the chemical weapons, it is de-facto about the Syrian rebels having lost the momentum in the war, they went from being able to threaten Assad's hold on power to facing the prospect of losing significant territory in the Aleppo area that looked very secure just a few months ago. The chemical weapons use by Assad is a diplomatic card the West needs to play to deal with Russia and China w.r.t. Syria, the planned negotiations, the support Russia gives to Assad etc. So, it should be clear that the West will now no longer allow Assad to make significant military against the rebels, which makes this story very important. Count Iblis (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Your personal opinion that the West needs to play to deal with Russia and China is not something that will make the English Wikipedia better and more neutral. Even so, why to post the support supplied by the United States to an illegitimate factor in a country? Do we really need to report every move that the United States makes to kill people anywhere in the world?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Count Iblis though I wish there was a clearer article to point to. Nevertheless. Jusdafax 13:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I think notability is clear, if true. As for the truth of the matter, if it is good enough for the NYT to print, then it is good enough for Wikipedia. 77.75.161.163 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait I support something, but this is a trial balloon. Last night the headlines were "will arm", now they are may arm. Note also the "crossed a red line" phrase, which was used weeks back, and came to nothing. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Medeis points out, we must be careful here. No arming has happened yet. If and when it does, that WILL be news. So far, the news is that according to some sources, some unnamed "American officials" have said that the US will arm the rebels. We are on the edge of speculation territory here. If anything is posted from this, the blurb must reflect the uncertainty and future prediction nature of what we have. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:ATTRIBUTE we'd basically have to quote the unnamed administration source verbatim to stick to the (almost, but not yet?) facts. The temptation heree is that this is breaking!!!. But we are not a news service. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing has actually happened yet, so this is premature at best. I don't know yet if I would support this if an actual arming takes place, but I certainly cannot support before it does. Off-topic, but I'm a bit surprised that this is being considered, given how many times in the past arming those fighting against a regeime you aren't currently friendly with has come back to bite them several years down the line. Thryduulf (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't know if there will be a press release when the first crates of Egyptian made AK-47's, bought by the USA and moved by the Mossad, are opened by the rebels. On the other point, yeah, I know, we just won't learn .... :( --IP98 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not very significant news. Unlikely that this is more than a symbolic move. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • comment Now it's "small arms" and "advisors". (No need to declare war; just cut and paste the Viet Nam palette.) μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose a lot of talk, and what definitive action? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 15 June 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.

June 13Edit


[Posted] US gene patent rulingEdit

Article: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Supreme Court unanimously holds that naturally-occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented.
News source(s): CNN, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A big story, with consequences to the worldwide research. Not sure about the target articles, though. --Tone 15:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The relevant article would be Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad_Genetics. --LukeSurl t c 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Question It's good news at least here in the U.S., but SCOTUS has no jurisdiction outside of the U.S. Will this case have any bearing on genetic research outside of the U.S.? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • In terms of patents and WIPO-type stuff, it could be an impact. Not so much on the actual research but more on IP. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support major ruling in the scientific research field. Though it may not have much of an impact on outside-US practice I still think it has enough symbolic significance around the world to warrant posting. Tombo7791 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The decision is wider than the human genome, covering all naturally-occurring DNA sequences. I have changed the blurb accordingly. --LukeSurl t c 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I usually don't go over here to express my opinion on proposed items, but this is very big news with worldwide implications for genetic research and all that might come of it.

    I have tightened the blurb a little bit, making it clearer that this is an absolute statement in the negative on the issue, and changed the highlighted verb to holds, as that's the proper term for a judge's final decision on a matter of law. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Support. the US is a major player in the field so this is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but need some expansion at Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics#2nd_certiorari_petition_and_Supreme_Court_decision. SpencerT♦C 16:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Supprt I have added a paragraph about this to our biological patent article. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support In my opinion, this is probably the most important ruling in the field of genetics so far in the US. I have added information to the BRCA1, BRCA2, BRCA mutation, and Myriad Genetics articles. Anastomoses (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Significant ruling. A company which is unable to obtain a US patent is unlikely to pursue that course elsewhere. Purely as a curiosity item, can any of our European friends tell me if the EU has any regulation regarding patents of biologics? --IP98 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • European courts do not have quite the pizazz of the U.S. Supreme Courts. Latest intelligible report I could find (2011) was this - basically you can patent natural DNA in the EU. Our Gene patenting article is wholly U.S. focussed. I've tagged it as such and suggested on talk just moving it to Biological patents in the United States. --LukeSurl t c 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Just piling on. Big news! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I have also made some minor updates to the Angelina Jolie article as the timing of her announcement relating to her BRCA mutation was linked to the Supreme Court deliberations and she explicitly advocated for wider access and affordability of BRCA testing. Helen (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 17:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • On the question of impact outside the US, here is an article from the Sydney Morning Herald discussing possible implications for Australia. A Federal Court case in Australia ruled the opposite way from this US Supreme Court on the same issue over mutant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes earlier this year. That case is being appealed with the submissions due today so the Supreme Court ruling will be included in the materials considered in the appeal. Just FYI... EdChem (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal: This image of the BRCA1 gene seems to me to be a reasonable option for illustrating this ITN item. EdChem (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps as: The United States Supreme Court unanimously holds that naturally-occurring DNA sequences (such as the BRCA1 gene, pictured) cannot be patented. EdChem (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
No, that image does not show the BRCA1 gene. That shows the protein that the BRCA1 gene codes for. The BRCA1 gene patented includes introns that would not be included in the final protein representation, so the image wouldn't even represent the protein made from the DNA sequence patented. SpencerT♦C 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Oops, you're right, of course. I should have noticed that it was a protein. Must have left my brain in its jar by the bed this morning! I'm striking the proposal. EdChem (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

June 12Edit


RD: Robert FogelEdit

Article: Robert Fogel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times

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: Nobel-prize winning economist, so should qualiy as top of his field --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Several unreferenced sections, but the article does a decent job demonstrating his importance in the field of economics. SpencerT♦C 01:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment there's been an expressed consensus that a Nobel itself is not qualifying. Fogel doesn't seem to be in the household-name category of economists. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Being a household name is not a criterion - if it were we would have few scientists, academics, etc while posting lots of actors and entertainers who were really much less influential. And while I can readily agree that winning a Nobel doesn't automatically mean you meet the death criteria, I would say that most laureates would qualify as being "widely recognised as very important figures" in their field. Looking at the article and the obits on Fogel, I think he meets that criterion. He seems to have been very influential in applying quantitative methods to historical issues and revitalising economic history. Neljack (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Economist who was at the top of his field. The number of living economists who are "household names" is virtually zero and is a poor reason to oppose this. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The unreferenced sections don't trouble me as much as the big tag at the top of the article. Even a few refs in those sections would justify removal of the tag, which is a stopper for a Front page ITN blurb. Jusdafax 20:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose maintenance tag problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Dua's layerEdit

Article: Cornea- (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A previously unknown human body part, dubbed Dua's layer, is discovered in the cornea.
Alternative blurb: Dua's layer, a previously unknown human body part, is discovered in the cornea.
News source(s): Popular Science Live Science

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's not everyday a new body part is discovered. It has also been tied to a known medical condition, corneal hydrops, so the implications are fairly significant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Sure, why not. Breaks the war-politics-disaster-sports monotony. --Jayron32 01:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I.e.; agree with Jayron's Criterion and the article is updated. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, I would like to see more information added to the article before posting. For instance, what is it made out of? Is it a new cell type? Abductive (reasoning) 02:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The source says it is an acellular layer of collagen bundles. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - it now has a stand alone article, which I will work on improving/expanding rather than overwhelming the cornea article with a lot of details. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I have read the original paper and expanded the article as best I could. The paper is focused on a specific corneal surgery (the reason the study was done) with minimal data on the layer itself - just info on how they discovered it and what it means for the surgery. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Changed to pull based on the concerns about whether it meets the reliable source guidelines for medicine. Neljack (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with the nominator. Suraj T 07:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support But request the word dubbed be dropped from the blurb. The article doesn't mention that its named this way. CaptRik (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've suggested a slightly alternate wording for the blurb above. CaptRik (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Certainly a rare event. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. Technically the paper was published online 28 May, but I'm happy to date this as 12 June as this seems to be when it was reported in popular science news. --LukeSurl t c 10:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid the post-posting concerns have swayed me. Perhaps we could try and "transfer" this to DYK? --LukeSurl t c 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK won't accept it since it already appeared on the mainpage, even if it were to be pulled. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. Hm, an image would be nice. An eye, maybe? --Tone 10:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Followup I have posted a complaint about this item at WP:ERRORS. With all respect to the editors who supported, this is a bad mistake. To people who are familiar with the way the media handles science it is obvious that the story is based entirely on press releases. It has not been covered, as far as I know, by independent reputable science sources such as Scientific American or the New York Times. Furthermore, most scientists would consider it tacky for an experimenter to name a newly discovered structure after himself. There may eventually be a story here but it is not ready for our front page yet. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not a question of who picks up the story, it's a question of whether we have any source that doesn't derive directly from a press release or the experimenters themselves. So far we don't. Looie496 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The research has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, Ophthalmology, which seems like a perfectly respectable scientific journal, the kind we usually accept as very reliable. A published paper is not a press release, as the paper has been jury reviewed and properly vetted. --Jayron32 14:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Just got (edit conflict)'d, and it seems Jayron said what I was about to say. That this story has had this amount of media traction probably owes a bit to some savvy media relations, but I think the story stands up regardless. --LukeSurl t c 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have now forum-shopped this to WT:MED (asking for responses here). At this point I consider that I've done everything that I can, and if nothing happens I'll let it rest. Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Coming over from WPMED, I must agree with Looie496 that we would not generally allow this sort of content in a medical article because there is no reliable secondary source (i.e. peer-reviewed medical journal). Reports like this come and go (i.e. into the dustbin, usually), and until it's been vetted it's not encyclopedic. Considering how many good-faith editors struggle unsuccessfully to get this sort of content into medical articles, it's embarrassing that this made the main page. -- Scray (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Per Jayron32's comment above, could you comment about Ophthalmology as a peer-reviewed journal to help the folks here understand the problem please? CaptRik (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I have just written a short explanation at WT:ITN of the special factors that come into play when evaluating science stories. Briefly, the issue is not the validity of the report but rather its significance. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I oppose for a different reason. This is not a huge breakthrough, it's not even that interesting. If this deserves an ITN, there are literally 10,000s of similar discoveries every year which need to be featured as well. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Tens of thousands of human body parts are discovered every year? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed both with Looie and Aaadaammm: problem is not with the specific journal, but that the article is a primary source and hence quite preliminary and it cannot be stated as a fact its content in an encyclopedic way. Only comments on it on secondary sources as are review articles will indicate if it is really true and even more important really notable. At the very least content should clearly state that this is only a preliminary research and comes from a single source, not yet validated by other publications. --Garrondo (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a recurring problem with science stories here on ITN. The problem is that ITN has to post within 5 days of the 'event', which is hardly enough time for secondary scientific comment. I let this one slide because it seemed self-contained in its damage to Wikipedia's credibility. Abductive (reasoning) 15:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to think of a good way to express in the article lead the reservations that one should have of such a recent "discovery". Has anyone reputable in this field gone on the record to express such reservations that we could cite? --LukeSurl t c 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It's worse than just primary, it's self-aggrandizing too. Eponyms shouldn't be self-bestowed. Seems ITN ought to at least ask at the relevant project before accepting a story. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Naming something after oneself might be tacky, but is hardly relevant to whether or not the story should be covered. The proposed criteria that a journal article must be secondary to be worthy of coverage is not workable - a science story will be in the news when it is published, not when it is confirmed (and of course a secondary confirmation is also not definitive, as is the nature of science.) The correct criteria is the level and depth of media coverage, with an eye toward to prestige of the journal that published it. Perhaps we failed to properly evaluate this story in that regard; any arguments against this story should be on that basis - the other points are not relevant. I thank Loogie for offering some suggestions on how to better evaluate future science stories on the talk page. (And as long as we are talking about hyperbole, saying there are 10,000+ similar discoveries each year certainly qualifies.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The fourth article in the current issue of the Journal of Anatomy describes a new structure in the human brain [48]. Including all species, I stand by my considered 10,000s claim. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering there are thousands of new species discovered yearly and each has a defining biological feature by definition, I'd say the statement is likely accurate. Most humans, however, consider knowledge about human beings to be special so that isn't the relevant # to compare to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom, and the fact that the rarity of such an event is its phenotype. It simply doesn't occur often. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and do NOT pull or change Yeah, the scientific community doesn't like it. So what. We do not pull things because people do not like it. If the scientific community gives it a different name or proves it doesn't exist as an independent layer, then we will modify the article. If the new name becomes the common name we will move the article. If it is seen as a part of another layer and the hoopla dies down, we will merge it. But for now it is discovered and named. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep posted the nomination process here was perfectly valid, it's covered in reliable sources. And I don't appreciate the level of condescension from people who didn't know this part of Wikipedia didn't exist until now. Hot Stop 03:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    I certainly knew this part of WP existed, enjoy ITN, and respect your process (which is why I commented here). As part of the ITN process, something should not make the list if it fails rules for inclusion in WP. We are saying that the article in question may not merit inclusion in WP, because we have WP:MEDRS for a good reason: until peer-reviewed secondary sources recognize a biomedical discovery, the likelihood that it will last (and therefore merit inclusion in an encyclopedia) is low. -- Scray (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Bro, the only condescension here is from you, Hot Stop. I've commented here before, but even if I was a complete noob, I should be encouraged to contribute. I think you should rethink your attitude. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As a regular here, I agree - the only condescension here has come from Hot Stop and Richard-of-Earth. We should be welcoming input by those with knowledge of the area. It is embarrassing for our section that non-regulars who are coming to share their knowledge and make substantive points are being treated like this. I am sorry you people have been treated like this, and I can only say that it doesn't reflect the views of all of us regulars here. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me second what Neljack has said, and say that the attitude of HotStop does not reflect the prevailing attitude, or hopefully, the attitude of anyone but himself. All voices of all people who contribute to the discussion should be given just weight, and not dismissed out of hand for any reason. Completely unacceptable to do so. --Jayron32 03:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Neljack said about Hotstop, who made an unflattering remark targeting a specific identifiable contributor here. But I don't agree with including Richard-on-Earth in this criticism. He did not attack any specific individual, but merely expresssed the view that we should not pull an article simply because people (in this case the scientific community) don't like it (and then added a few lines seemingly saying that there was nothing worth worrying about, etc), which seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate view to express, whether one agrees with it or not. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggested rewording: 'Scientists announce the purported discovery of Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea.
Alternative rewording: 'Scientists purportedly discover Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea. (or any similar re-wording you may choose to come up with)
Justification of above Suggested Re-wording: I've added the word 'purported' (as in 'purported newly discovered layer') to the opening sentence of the article in the light of criticism both here, and in the ITN errors page, and in the article's Talk Page. The Macmillan Dictionary defines 'purported' as 'said by some people to be real or true, but not proved to be real or true', giving as an example 'The judges will now study this purported new evidence'. The core of the scientific process is based on reporting purported new evidence, but requiring that such new evidence be confirmed by further research. When we have only one paper, as here, 'purported' seems to be the appropriate word. It seems to me that we need a similar modification to the current ITN wording, hence the above suggestion. I've already posted this in the ITN errors section as a suggested fix, but I'm also posting this copy here as Jayron wants the discusion in one place (but in practice if it's not also posted in the errors page it probably won't get fixed). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sigh: 20 hours later, and no sign of any re-wording. Isn't it good to know that In The News seems to be controlled by people who treat several centuries of Western scientific understanding of how to decide what should and should not be portrayed as new knowledge with such contempt - I thought that was something that profit-driven media did, and that non-profit Wikipedia was supposed to be ideally placed to counter-act - I guess it just goes to show how foolish I was :) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Copying latest 3 posts from Errors Page, as per User Jayron's earlier suggestion of having the full discussion in one place:
The threshold for science stories is the publication of a paper in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. That threshold has been crossed - a paper has indeed been published in the journal Ophthalmology. Of course it might turn out to be wrong, but as the first report of a discovery this is definitely the point when it is 'in the news'. I don't see the problem, especially as there's additional coverage in the article. 'Purported' would be a very bad word to insert because it implies that the conclusion is wrong. It violates the guideline at WP:ALLEGED. Oh and please don't make assumptions about the intentions of anyone involved in ITN (nobody actually 'controls' it), they're all good-faith volunteers who have real lives as well as monitoring WP:ERRORS. Modest Genius talk 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
SIGH: So it seems the situation is even worse than I feared - Wikipedia's own guidelines order us to throw out several centuries of sound scientific practice. And anybody who protests gets lectured on his alleged wickedness. By the way I didn't make any assumptions about the intentions of anybody. I pointed out that their behaviour was treating several centuries of scientific practice with contempt. I didn't say that was their intention - I doubt if it ever occurs to them that that is what they are doing. But in future I will try to remember to say 'treating with unwitting contempt'. And I didn't say any individual controls ITN, but it is in effect controlled by a group of admins who have the power to amend it, as distinct from ordinary plebs like me who don't have the power to amend it (if you can think of a better word than 'control' to describe that situation please feel free to do so). And as for WP:ALLEGED, until if and when that rule gets amended, this seems an ideal case for ignoring a rule under WP:IAR (one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia - ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving Wikipedia, as this rule clearly does in this case). 'Purported' does NOT imply the conclusion is wrong, it implies it might be wrong, and it is the very core of Science that a single uncorroborated paper might be wrong, and no proper scientist should object to this being pointed out, while all proper scientists (and concerned lay people) should strongly object to its being presented as if it's known to be correct, as we are doing here. Also I don't insist on 'purported' - some other word like 'claimed' or 'alleged' or 'reported' will also do, provided it makes clear that it is possible that the alleged discovery could turn out to be mistaken. The fact that the article itself does now correct the misleading impression created by the headline is an improvement, but the incorrect headline is still harmful, both because many people may only read the headline, and because it's also damaging for Wikipedia's credibility when those who go on to read the article realise that Wikipedia is using misleading headlines. But I've wasted too much time on this already, so I give up. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
SIGH: Meanwhile, as this item is still in the news for tomorrow, it looks like we're in for at least another 24 hours of what I honestly see as a shameful and outrageous betrayal of both our scientific heritage, and of Wikipedia's duty to spread knowledge, not speculation misreported as fact, but I said I was giving up, so I'll leave it to someone else to fight on if they want to. Meanwhile I'm copying these latest posts to the proposals page, as User Jayron suggested the full debate needs to be in one place. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
(For the sake of concision on the errors page, the above 2 postings by me in reply to Modest Genius have now been replaced on the errors page by a message saying they can now be found here) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


I am willing to add the "purported" in principle. Right now we have one editor for and one editor against, though, so we will need to more input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Thaddeus, maybe 'possible' or 'propose' will be more acceptable than 'purported' - see suggested re-wording 3+4 below (already posted on errors page) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Suggested rewording 3: 'Scientists announce the possible discovery of Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea.'
Suggested rewording 4: 'Scientists propose the discovery of Dua's layer, a previously unknown part of the human cornea.'
(or any similar re-wording you may choose to come up with)
Justification of Suggested Re-wordings 3 and 4: We currently have a complete mismatch between an ITN headline which wrongly presents the discovery as fact, and an article which rightly and repeatedly makes it very clear that it is still only a possible discovery. This mismatch is damaging to our credibility, and spreads misinformation to our readers. And 'possible' and 'propose' are not mentioned as words to be avoided on WP:ALLEGED.

Clearly I'm finding it a lot harder to give up on this issue than I had hoped :) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it to the "possible" suggestion. I do apologize for the difficulty you've had. I assure you that ITN is not intentionally anti-science or anything like that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help, Thaddeus. And as I tried to make clear in my reply to Modest Genius, I never thought anybody was intentionally anti-science - quite likely at one time or another we can all be all sorts of things unintentionally, presumably frequently including myself. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Jiroemon Kimura diesEdit

Article: Jiroemon Kimura (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Japanese supercentenarian Jiroemon Kimura, the longest-lived verified male in history, dies at the age of 116 years, 54 days.
Alternative blurb: ​Following the death of the longest-lived verified male in history, Jiroemon Kimura, Misao Okawa succeeds him as the world's oldest person.
News source(s): The Washington Post, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: See also: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2012#Jiroemon Kimura, oldest male in history. --61.245.25.11 (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for RD. If I remember, that's what we were talking about some months ago. --Tone 09:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. There was some discussion about a blurb before, but I don't think that's appropriate here, but the longest-lived man in history is certainly worth his name in RD. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't outright oppose a blurb, either. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, oppose RD along the same lines as the costa rican environmentalist. In this case the death is the news, the individual doesn't satisfy any of the ITN/DC on his own. --IP98 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. - which should also indicate the succession of the World's Oldest Person title to Misao Okawa. (altblurb suggested) --LukeSurl t c 10:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per the others. A news item in itself, more than a usual death. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb Very rarely do you see someone live till 116... Rest in peace, Japanese stranger. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting the original blurb then. Not mentioning the new oldest person because we never post that. Kimura was special as the oldest verified man ever. --Tone 13:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support with blurb - I was firmly against posting Kimura's birthday, but this - sadly for him - is where the record is really set. I'd like to propose the death of the oldest person ever, by gender as an ITN/R item. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That won't happen for at least 4.5 years for men or 7 years for women, probably much longer. --LukeSurl t c 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • At the risk of being slapped by a trout labelled OTHERSTUFF, Poet Laureate of the UK is on the list, and occurs once a decade, and great comets are unpredictable and also on the same order, so the rarity isn't necessarily a problem. And it would provide justification for the arguments of "post the death, not the birthday/becoming the oldest man" MChesterMC (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment A decent pic would be good, eh? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Still don't agree with having waited this long to post (I originally nominated when he became the oldest male), but nice to see this become full blurb. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Good choice - a full blurb was the way to go here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • (If we are getting into post-posting reviews) bad choice: not the longest lived person, and we don't split other record acheivements by sex. Kevin McE (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, we do. If a woman set a new 100m record, it would be a shoo-in for ITN. We separate by gender when accomplishing a record is significantly easier for one gender than another. -- King of ♠ 20:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 11Edit


Recent Deaths: Vidya Charan ShuklaEdit

Article: Vidya Charan Shukla (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Indian Express The Hindu News Track India Business Standard Business Standard Hindustan Times Hindustan Times Indian Express Global Post Jagran Post India Today Business Standard

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: This may be a long shot...but his death is being reported in various news sources which is why I decided to nominate Vidya Charan Shukla for recent deaths. The article is pretty short and definitely needs to be updated. GlobalPost refers to Vidya as a "veteran India politician". According to Raj Babbar Vidya's death was "a loss to a nation". Pranab Mukherjee said "Shri Shukla was son of illustrious freedom fighter and first Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla. He entered into Parliament at a very early age and represented undivided Madhya Pradesh in the Lok Sabha for a long period of time." I think if the article is updated it has a chance to be in the recent deaths section. Andise1 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Apparently a casualty of the 2013 Naxal attack in Darbha valley which was posted. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • He was injured in the Naxal attack, and was declared dead a bit later (he died as a result of his injuries from the attack). Since he died a while after the attack occurred, I think he is eligible to be in the recent deaths section. Andise1 (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. If we posted Frank Lautenberg I don't see why we shouldn't post this, especially where this man died in an attack. However, from what I can see he was not a sitting politician. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, we have the recent precedent of a long-serving US politician. This gentleman has also served his country for a very long time, and the circumstances leading to his death are notable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per HiLo48. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder whether the nom or others with the knowledge could explain his "significant contribution" to India or impact on it, or how he is a very important figure in Indian politics? I'm certainly open to the nomination, but need more information before I can be satisfied that he meets the death criteria. Neljack (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm unable to compare him to Frank Lautenberg because his article is a mess. WP:ITN/DC #1 applies here, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --IP98 (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not notable outside the attack, Lautenberg should not have been posted either. μηδείς (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your latter point, but he WAS posted, with a lot of enthusiastic support. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand what you intend by telling me the nom passed; if you are trying to get me to change or keep my vote it is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Turkish protests reach a new heightEdit

Article: 2013 protests in Turkey (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Police intervention in Taksim Square results in nation wide backlash in Turkey.
News source(s): the Guardian

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Protests have been peaceful in Taksim Square for the past 2 weeks, but the brutal government intevention resparked the protests across the country. Candymoan (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Andise1 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support in principle, significant protests with widespread media attention. However, I think the event to highlight is the clearing of the square (with a more suitable blurb), and the article has a big load of tags on it. Modest Genius talk 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose in its current interpretation. The story is worth supporting but the blurb is far from being neutral, emphasizing that the police intervention was something unexpected and crucial for provoking backlash in the protests. Some may interpret it as the police have finally ejected the protesters and thus liberated the Taksim Square. Why not to use a blurb with such wording? Wikipedia should always present the facts as they really are in the most neutral way. In this case, it's a personal choice and a preference to decide whether to solidarize and support the protesters or to do something else, but not a fact that illustrates the neutral point of view and should be generally accepted. Please modify the blurb to reflect something different rather than promoting a cause from the protests.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sticky, this is an ongoing story and not really showing signs of letting up. Since we just posted this a few days ago and it recently rolled off, that's evidence a sticky would be worthwhile. --Jayron32 01:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that this one requires sticky and your definition for it is not correct. We usually use sticky to point out to an event or a story that would otherwise have multiple blurbs on the main page at the same time. The blurb documenting the protests is no more on the main page and thus a new blurb would perfectly replace it and won't make any mass report on a single event. In addition, there is only one nomination with scarce interest to renew the story and thereby no possibility for having many blurbs relating to the same story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The overall story is not new and has already been published. Individual events within the story would need to be exceptional to justify including it in ITN again. The suggested headline, besides not being NPOV, is arguably already out of date with the current focus of the story being on rallies in support of what is after all a democratically elected government (albeit one that non-Muslims and secularists like me, and probably most contributors here, might not much like). Tlhslobus (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Henry CecilEdit

Article: Henry Cecil (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Telegraph Daily Mail The Independent CNN The Guardian The Telegraph Reuters Washington Post BBC Horsetalk.co.nz Irish Times The Age Al Jazeera

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: Henry Cecil was a legendary horse racing trainer. The Telegraph states that Sir Henry Cecil "was among the outstanding flat-racing trainers of the late 20th century." The Telegraph also says that "Henry Cecil was the greatest horse racing trainer of all time, but also the most loved". The Daily Mail says that Sir Henry Cecil was "one of the greatest racehorse trainers". The Independent refers to Sir Henry Cecil as "legendary". According to his Wikipedia article, "he was widely regarded as one of the greatest trainers to ever have graced the Turf." Andise1 (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. Was honored with a knighthood for his work, indicating he was very important in his field, also with numerous wins and recognition. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, I've done a bit to update the article to meet the expectations of the usual crowd, I think the whole article is in decent condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - If anyone can find a good picture of Henry Cecil, it may be worth adding to the article. Andise1 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Per above.--Giants27(T|C) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Clearly one of the leading horse trainers ever, but I'm not convinced that training horses to run fast is a sufficiently notable profession for that to mean much. We can all think of dozens of famous actors, authors, scientists, politicians etc., but horse trainers? Modest Genius talk 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • He had a wide enough regard and notability to be mentioned in US news sources. Also mentioned in New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, and it is also being covered by Al Jazeera. Such wide coverage suggests high notability for the person, if not the profession. Readers not being aware of notable horse trainers would seem to be a reason to support this, given the news coverage, as they would then learn about this man. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is hard to rate as a foreigner, but I'd be surprised if this top news in Britain. A check of article stats shows very little reader interest compared to Banks, Sharpe or Williams--we'll see when it updred ates. Again, it's hard to say, but a knighthood two years ago seems pro forma as well. Willing to be convinced otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Being on the front page is not one of the RD criteria- but even if it isn't top news in Britain, it is being covered in international sources. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • 50% more hits the day he died than Sharpe. I'd say 30k hits is a demonstration of his notability. It was top sport story on BBC News yesterday and again today. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Certainly amongst the top news stories in Britain - his death was significant enough to be covered on the main BBC news bulletins on 11 June and was one of the leading stories on the BBC News website for most of the day.
  • Support I agree with the concern that "horse training" is not a sufficiently broad field, but he would seem to qualify as a very important figure in the field of horse racing (which is broad enough). Neljack (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
That's reasonable. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --Stephen 06:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

[Attention needed] [Posted] ERT suspendedEdit

Article: Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (talk, history)
Blurb: Greece announces the closure of its public broadcasting corporation ERT.
News source(s): euronews, BBC, The Guardian

Nominator's comments: The closure is said to be temporary but no re-opening date has been set. The corporation has been described as "a case of exceptional lack of transparency and incredible extravagance", and is closed to save costs amid tough austerity measures in Greece. --hydrox (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose this will be one of many austerity measures, one the media will emphasize because it is about the media. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
support a bigger result of austerity measure.s Wouldn't we post the bbc pclosing?Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support National public broadcasting corporations are generally notable. 77.75.161.163 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait Support until it actually goes off the air, though I don't object if it goes up now (pending cleanup). It is anticipated that the Greek government will re-establish the organisation in a much smaller scale. If the new org goes online at the same time as the old one going offline, it would make an interesting blurb. --IP98 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. No bull, they really did it. Wow. The article is missing refs though. --IP98 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This sort of union-busting is eventually going to happen with all the state industries of Greece. Are we going to post them all? μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I think public broadcasting is more visible than other industries, and if the article is cleaned up we can go for it. --IP98 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, more visible. Hardly more important, there remain plenty of private broadcasters. The question is, will the license fees be halted? Apparently this is just a move to fire everyone so the government can decide whom to rehire at a lower salary afterwards. We need some facts, rather than a trial balloon. μηδείς (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Visibility satisfies WP:ITN/P #1. I know you generally oppose business stories, I think this one could be symbolic of the austerity cutbacks across the country. --IP98 (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Apparently the Greek government had to rely upon the emergency powers clauses in the constitution to force this through, and only announced the policy the day before it's due to be shut down. That's a major move and one with significant implications for Greek democracy. However, the article has an NPOV tag and is pretty light for such a nominally major broadcaster. So I support on the proviso that the article is improved first. Modest Genius talk 22:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support not one of your regular austerity measures, and transpires the company was making a profit, so this move is more politically motivated than economically driven. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What are the concerns of the NPOV tag? It was put on yesterday by user 46.177.44.205 (this IP's only edit). There is no associated talk page discussion. Without knowing what the NPOV concerns are, it's almost impossible to know whether they were justified or whether subsequent edits have satisfied the concerns. --LukeSurl t c 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If you can't see any problems, I suggest BOLDly removing the tag, with a suitable edit summary, and seeing if any other users add it back. Modest Genius talk 12:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per above, plus the closure seems to be having a significant repercussions in Greece. [49] --LukeSurl t c 23:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Stephen 03:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Pull the radio and TV sections are totally unsourced, as is the timeline. Fact tags abound. I support this story, but the article is a mess. --IP98 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

E3 2013Edit

Article: Electronic Entertainment Expo 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 19th annual Electronic Entertainment Expo opens in Los Angeles.
News source(s): ABC News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Hasn't officially opened yet. ITN/R. Looking back through past postings, it seems that it is more popular to post the closing than the opening, but I thought I'd nominate anyway. --Tombo7791 (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Personally I'd prefer to post the opening, at the point where the article is in a decent shape. Currently orange-tagged however. --LukeSurl t c 12:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We never see auto shows (even though there have been some significant introductions) or any other trade shows being listed, so why should this. Even though it is significant itself, I don't see why electronic shows are that important, so therefore not significant enough for ITN. Donnie Park (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • E3 is like the only major show that the video game industry has with massive hardward and software announcements (there's others, but they have less predominance in weight). My understanding for the auto industry is that there are numerous shows throughout the year that one single show is not more important than others, and thus hard to qualify which limited # of shows are the key big events. If there was such a show, it could be argued for inclusion at ITN/R. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • No doubt the event is (by a retired videogamer) to the industry, so are you trying to say the Photokina and Nuremberg International Toy Fair are worthy of inclusion because they are one of the kind. Donnie Park (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • BTW, Geneva Motor Show a few months ago had as much publicity as this years E3 and I take you are a non-car person right. Donnie Park (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying we cant include these, but as Thue points out below, video games are a significant economic section nowadays. This is why I think that if there is one major representative car show, that could be an ITN/R, since auto sales are also a significant economic chunk. On the other hand, toys? Not so much, but this shouldn't be to discourage those that want to get that into ITN/R, just that I think the barrier will be a lot higher. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • You (Donnie Park) have already started a discussion to remove it from ITNR; that is the proper course of action to take if you are opposed to listing it, but as long as the article quality is sufficient, it will be posted in this case since it is currently ITNR. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Well not if there's a consensus not to post it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
            • OK, I was being a bit kneejerk with the proposal, it applied to future nominations, plus as with the two consoles, weren't they already introduced without any picture of it nor any real details. Introductions like this is nothing uncommon, a bit like if Ferrari chose to bring out a press release introducing little details of their LaFerrari in late 2012 instead of unveiling it at the recent Geneva show. Donnie Park (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - In the grand scheme of things, E3 is inconsequential to a company's economic performance, and video games are a niche interest anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Not too sure that the phrase "niche interest" describes video games these days. Though I will say that E3 mostly caters to the more diehard gamers, nomination was mostly based on ITN/R. Tombo7791 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Support. In the UK fx, revenue from video games is bigger than music and DVD sales combined. Calling video games a niche interest is just plainly uninformed. Thue (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • This is ITNR, so notability is not at issue here. A discussion has been started to remove it from ITNR, but until it is removed, it will be posted as long as article quality is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Well not if there's a consensus not to post it.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • The consensus to post (barring quality issues) already exists if the event is on ITNR. If it shouldn't be, the discussion to remove it is thataway. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Presumably you're aware of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? If opposed, this should not go to main page, regardless of ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Accepted, though it would seem to render ITNR pointless if notability of an ITNR item can be opposed here despite being listed there. I thought the whole point of ITNR was to establish notability of recurring events to avoid debating it each time it comes up here. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Exactly. That's why it's being discussed at ITNR. The discussion is long overdue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and keep as ITNR. When it comes to software and hardware (arguably some of the hottest markets of the past years) it is the biggest show. Car shows such as the Geneva one should also be included as World Fairs have been posted in the past. Nergaal (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose regardless of its inclusion at ITN/R. There is nothing to report here other than "big trade show happened, around 100k people went". Unless anything exceptional occurs in this (and similar trade show events like Geneva motor show, Farnborough Airshow [where the newspapers would have you believe $100 billion of deals are struck in five days]) then it's not news, it's a recurring trade show for people to sell their goods. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Arguably, two new next-gen consoles were revealed, the first in over 5 years from these companies. That's a major facet of this , though I certainly wouldn't peacock that in the blurb. (Of course, intra-industry, there's a huge amount of wow-factors going on with Sony's vs MS's reveal of their products, but that's definitely not going on the front page). --MASEM (t) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • But they weren't really revealed at the show, were they? They were heavily publicised and discussed in the news way before this "show". It would be like claiming that suddenly $100 billion of aircraft deals were made at the Farnborough airshow. Nonsense, of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The PS4 unit was actually revealed at the show for the first time (Though it was known to be coming). Still, most of the industry considers this to be the reveal of both units since they will now be able to get their hands on testing them. More importantly, final details on cost and specs were provided at this point, hence why its considered the proper reveal for the two. --MASEM (t) 17:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Well that's exactly the point. We all knew about the Xbox 1 and the PS4, a few minor details were "revealed" at the show, standard "trade show" behaviour. The blurb doesn't reflect that, the blurb is simply "trade show opens, some people will go". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
            • I'll point to my suggestion of a two-pronged test about the ITN-worthiness of these trade shows (both whether the show gets attention, and whether products/news revealed at the show get attention, on a regular basis). In this case, both are met - the start of E3 was well covered, and the PS4/Xbox One reveals have been major news, even if they aren't really reveals in the explicit sense. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
              • If you genuinely believe that PS4/Xbone One were "revealed" then you really must change the blurb. Right now it's just "trade show starts". So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • If it needs to be said, Support notability wise, we have no other coverage of video games (which are a big $$ industry and a significant form of culture) otherwise. --LukeSurl t c 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Not disputing your position at all, but would you therefore support Farnborough Airshow (and Paris Air Show) as we don't have coverage of the aviation industry's top events (which is a big $$$ industry and also a significant form of culture) at ITN/R? And the Geneva Motor Show? And the London Boat Show?) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Looking back, I'm starting to dislike the whole idea of having expositions on ITN unless they result in the introduction of some majorly important products (maybe the next gen consoles?). However, comparing the aeroplane and boat shows seems a bit of a stretch as they cater to a significantly small consumer base. Tombo7791 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • The aviation industry caters for a "significantly small consumer base"? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Let me clarify, by consumer I mean the people who actually buy the products (i.e. airlines). Tombo7791 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Okay, so we'll need to include those airshows I've mentioned? Paris? Farnborough? Because they "sell" $100bns at the show.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I'm thinking more along the lines of number of people who buy it, rather than "revenue". Anyways, I agree with you that the expos should all be scrapped from ITNR. Tombo7791 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Replying to TRM: I was going more along the lines of culture. We have a cluster of ITN/R events for film (Oscars etc.). Video games are effectively equivalent in popularity, so it seems sensible to give them at least one ITN/R posting a year. --LukeSurl t c 21:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I would be happy to support such thing for videogames if there is one single award that is taken as seriously as the Oscars, if there is one but there is a cluster of them that is not. BTW, the last ITN for videogames IIRC was for CoD: Black Ops almost three years ago and that was in regards to sales record. Donnie Park (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply to TRM I believe the correct response here is: Sorry, it's ITN/R. If you wish to oppose it based on your own opinion rather than review the article for quality update, then you should attempt to get this delisted from ITN/R. You may remember this argument as it was used previously. Granted you've initiated the removal process at ITN/R, but in this instance, your notability oppose must be disregarded, following your own previously expressed reasoning. --IP98 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to orange tag on article and the fact that it is almost completely unsourced. Plus it should not be listed at ITNR. Formerip (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose After reading the above comments I'm genuinely sitting on the fence, but based on Formerip's reasons above I oppose on those grounds. CaptRik (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
How is it ITNR? Conversely we don't post the political summit that ISs ITNR.Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending cleanup per WP:ITN/P #1 and #3, and support adding to ITN/R. Complaints about it being just another event are rubbish. Try opposing a football match as "big football game took place, ball was kicked into net, 80k people attended". Video games are a niche the same way horse racing is. I would also support big air shows, big auto shows, I-CES, and the rest. Why not? Are we worried that the bus fire might not stay up for 6 days?? --IP98 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support this item if it gets updated. It is widely covered in non-specialised press. There has been calls to disregard the procedure regarding ITNR on this item. I'll just note here, as I did in the ITNR discussion, that notability supporters will be (and are if you compare the numbers with the ITNR discussion) underrepresented in this discussion as such !votes are "pointless" on discussions of ITNR items. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Well that's the whole point isn't it, if an item is rejected by the community here, it's irrelevant that it's at ITN/R. Worse, it's indicative that ITN/R isn't quite right. Your note about lack of supporters needs evidence. The same people !vote here each and every time, with the odd exception. I'd be half-interested in listing it if we posted this kind of thing after the conference has closed so we're not just providing a free advertising service to this trade fair. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It is self-evident from the numbers of supports here and opposes at the ITNR discussion. "The same people !vote here (...)" is indicative of this being as much a local consensus as ITNR. I think ITNR should aim for higher participation numbers by using RFCs or other methods as it is not time-limited. Sadly, this is not the case, and ITNC and ITNR conflicting leads to problems. "Luckily", the article won't get updated so looks like we get another year to get our act together. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nomination re-opened due to premature closure by myself; see my talk page. SpencerT♦C 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Arguably with the show over, the nom would have to reflect on the public unveiling (read: not announcement but basically the point that most non-tech major news outlets covered these) of the next-gen consoles Xbox One and PlayStation 4, the E3 aspect now being subsidary to that. I would argue (as I've been watching them but not overly-active in editing) that these have been sufficiently updated to reflect all the specific details that came out from E3. I would be concerned with blurb wording to make it seem like a promo, so another potential main target is History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (which is also updated), and rewrite as "The Xbox One and PlayStation 4, two of the next generation of video game consoles, are publicly detailed at E3 2013". (or something like that, which puts the idea more on being the technology improvement than the promotional aspect). --MASEM (t) 15:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Shenzhou 10Edit

Article: Shenzhou 10 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China launches Shenzhou 10, the fifth manned mission in the Chinese space program.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Manned spaceflight, ITNR. The article needs update, though. --Tone 10:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Absolutely, as soon as the article is updated as necessary. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. Tombo7791 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article could use some information on the projects the mission will be doing. The article is entirely about the people on the mission and makes it seem like the purpose of the mission was to put a woman in space. What's more important is what the mission is about. For example, is it a resupply mission or are there experiments going to be completed? SpencerT♦C 14:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added a section about mission objectives. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Aren't the main actual aims of the launch a) to test docking and extended mission length in preparation for a space station and b) the propaganda gimmick of having a female taikonaut broadcast a school lesson from space (at enormous expense)? Oh and support per ITNR. Article needs some copyediting - much of it reads like it's been auto-translated. Modest Genius talk 22:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to do some copyediting to clean this up. SpencerT♦C 01:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - INT/R aside, this is an interesting story in the news. The additional material helps the article. Jusdafax 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and ready per ITN/R. It's too bad the Soyuz article never got the same attention. --IP98 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated and quite obviously ready. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 02:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 10Edit


[Updated] Update: PRISM Boundless InformantEdit

Articles: PRISM (talk, history) and Boundless Informant (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Leaks have revealed the US National Security Agency's PRISM electronic surveillance program and the Boundless Informant global datamining program.
News source(s): The Guardian

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: This a nomination for an updated blurb and a new image, not a nomination for a new blurb. The Guardian leaked the existence of the Boundless Informant program yesterday, showing the extent of NSA spying worldwide. This has global ramifications, and should be included in the blurb. --xanchester (t) 18:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support and suggest we include the Verizon data mining, which was revealed the day before the domestic PRISM spying--although I don't know the target article. μηδείς (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure - no harm in updating the blurb. I think a BOLD admin could go ahead and do it using normal admin discretion since it wouldn't be new item. In case its needed, count me as a support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This will update and enhance the blurb. Jusdafax 07:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Instead of the map, we can use the logo. It is in PD. The current image has been on for a couple of days already. --Tone 09:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree, the logo is better than the map. Good call. Jusdafax 21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Please change "have revealed" to "reveal". Not sure if only the proposer is allowed to change the proposal or if anyone may. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No objections have been offered, so I'm updating the blurb. No picture though, as there are now newer stories with pics. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Edward Snowden PRISMEdit

Snow close. SpencerT♦C 14:20, 11 June 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: Edward Snowden (talk, history)
Blurb: Edward Snowden is wanted by the FBI after he released classified material on top-secret NSA programs including the PRISM surveillance program to The Guardian and The Washington Post then fleeing to Hong Kong.
News source(s): Sky News
  • Opposed (And removed the ITN/R claim in good faith). PRISM's existance was news. This was a followup, and we can expect a lot of similar stories as this falls out that aren't ITN worthy. (Also, isn't this BLP1E problems?) --16:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we already have PRISM featured. Maybe after his trial, and then only maybe. Suggest speedy close before the NSA asks FISA for a subpoena to find out if I liked M&M's on FaceBook. (of course, after the arrest they'll be able to enter my cheek swabbed DNA into a national database, but who cares about that, right?). --IP98 (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Snow Close? an update's fine, but two blurbs? μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Being wanted is not enough; at a bare minimum he should be taken into custody before even considering posting a blurb. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 10 June 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.

June 9Edit


[Posted] 2013 Tony AwardsEdit

Article: 2013 Tony Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike wins Best Play and Kinky Boots wins Best Musical at the Tony Awards.
Alternative blurb: ​At the 2013 Tony Awards, Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike wins Best Play and Kinky Boots wins Best Musical.
News source(s): USA Today

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: A major award show for theater, musicals, and plays. This award show is also ITN/R. Andise1 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Vanya etc is currently was on the main page (on 10 June) as one of the bolded items in a Tony Awards DYK, by the way. BencherliteTalk 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we remove the wikilinks on Best Play and Best Musical? That detailed info can be found from the Tony Awards link. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per ITN/R and it seems 2013 Tony Awards is adequate. Altblurb suggested. LukeSurl t c 12:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking ready - on ITNR, updated, and the article is sufficient (albeit rather boring). Modest Genius talk 13:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Syria stickyEdit

Article: Syrian civil war (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Story is picking \up in the last weeks since the Battle of Qusair. Rumours now of a buildup in Aleppo and another govt advance. Think its time to place this back. We're winning! -- Lihaas (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support have proposed this myself repeatedly. The "we're winning" comment is, of course, troubling in the extreme. But the sticky rationale is correct regardless of which killers one supports. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Syria is the most significant hot conflict in the world right now. (what is with the "We're winning!"?) Thue (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral if the war lasts another two years, is that how long the sticky lasts? Also, the proposed article is an orange tagged POV massive lumbering mess. I don't think it's of suitable quality to be indefinitely featured on the main page. --IP98 (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This can never proceed while the conspicuously non-neutral, POV "We're winning" is part of the proposer's comments. Even though it was displayed in small print, it's by far the most dramatic and obvious part of the nomination. What on earth is it doing there? [PS:I don't even know who "we" are, and don't care.] HiLo48 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I was able to shrug and ignore it. --IP98 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per IP98, the sticky wouldn't be helpful. If something significant happens in Syria, just nominate it for ITN.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Iain BanksEdit

Article: Iain Banks (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: Very important writer. --LukeSurl t c 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support and I was just about to clean up the section regarding the Quarry push date when Luke got to that. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although I also think the "writing career" section could be expanded. He spent quite a lot of his life writing. Formerip (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I came here to make the same nomination. Exactly the sort of person the RD section is for. Modest Genius talk 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious. Per above.--Giants27(T|C) 17:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The awards section is misleading, since all but four are nominations. I wouldn't say top of his field, either, but notable in two fields and a premature demise; there will be readership interest. Marking ready given update and 6-0 support. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. I assume that I should post it to the front of RD, and use a comma (as I have done)? Thue (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Normally a nonbreaking space followed by an en-dash followed by a non-breaking space. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-post support article is of good quality and a prominent fiction writer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 French OpenEdit

Articles: 2013 French Open – Women's Singles (talk, history) and 2013 French Open – Men's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, the French Open concludes with Rafael Nadal winning the men's singles and Serena Williams winning the women's singles.
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, French Open concludes with Rafael Nadal winning the men's singles and Serena Williams winning the women's singles.
News source(s): Eurosport

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: We can post this one today and update the blurb with the winner of the men's tournament tomorrow. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Obvious support. What sort of prose update do we need? --LukeSurl t c 15:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination moved to June 9 section. --LukeSurl t c 16:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the most BORING grand slam final since at least 1 started to watch tennis. Nevertheless, perhaps mention Nadal's record-breaking stature as the most single grand slams by anyone.Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on lack of significant prose update to any potential article target. Neither the main event article, nor the event-specific articles, contain any reasonably-complete synopsis of the championship match, which would be nice given that we're posting the results of the championship match. Of course, once someone who cares actually makes that improvement to some article(s), I would change my vote to the strongest possible support. --Jayron32 21:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to full Support for the blurb with the "men's singles" and "women's singles" bolded, per recent updates. --Jayron32 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Propose removing wikilinks from words "tennis", "men's singles" and "women's singles". Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    On what grounds? --Jayron32 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    They're unnecessary and there are too many links. People can find them through the French open link. Otherwise we're featuring 3 events. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Question what is the best way to do the update (synopsis of the final)? It seems to me, there should be one in men's singles final and one in women's single final. That would then bold those two links and de-bold the main article. Other thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talkcontribs)
    • That would make sense. There's plenty of source text out there describing the details of the final match, game for game. We should be able to put something into each of the men's single and women's singles articles then bold those. --Jayron32 23:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated/ready - I have updated both singles articles beyond the minimum standard and have updated the bolding of the main blurb to reflect the update locations. The blurb should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Balls to the wall! --Jayron32 06:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer the original blurb at it contains links to the prose updates. --LukeSurl t c 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting the original blurb. Shall we add a photo of one of the winners? --Tone 12:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This one at commons of Serena Williams is quite good. It's actually her at Roland Garros this year. --LukeSurl t c 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

June 8Edit


[Closed] 2013 Belmont StakesEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:50, 13 June 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 Belmont Stakes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In horse racing, Palace Malice wins the 2013 Belmont Stakes.
News source(s): usa today

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Oldest race in the Triple Crown in the US. --IP98 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. The Triple Crown was not at stake, reducing its notability. Looking through some of the archives I don't believe it has been posted in the past, just as a point of information. Closest we came was proposing posting the withdrawal of a potential Triple Crown Winner last year. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose based on article quality, would change to full support if article was expanded with a full race synopsis. A major horse race, regardless of whether or not the Triple Crown was at stake, especially if we had a really good article to highlight on the main page. As we really don't, I can't really support posting this yet. Get it up to snuff, and I'd support this. --Jayron32 03:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The listed attendance at this year's race was 47,562, while the attendance at past Belmonts where the Triple Crown is involved is anywhere from 85,000 (last year when there was almost a Triple Crown attempt) to over 120,000 (Smarty Jones' attempt). It was over 94,000 in 2008. The notability of this race is heavily dependent on the Triple Crown. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
support diversity of sports events. And its not "minor"Lihaas (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a particularly high importance event, and horse racing already has 3 stories per year on WP:ITNR. I think that's plenty for a not-especially-popular 'sport'. Modest Genius talk 17:43, 10 June 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] San Onofre Nuclear Plant closesEdit

Consensus not to post is clear and discussion is getting unnecessarily heated. --LukeSurl t c 18:21, 8 June 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: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amid controversy and investigations, the troubled San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is ordered to be decommissioned by owner Southern California Edison.
News source(s): Union Tribune San Diego AP/ABC News

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I have considerably updated the article. Full disclosure: I was recently involved in a content dispute there. Jusdafax 10:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing unusual about 50 year old installations being decommissioned. Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would disagree that there is "nothing unusual" about a nuclear power plant closing, as the number of them is relatively small, but I'm not really seeing the worldwide implications of this. There are still nuclear power plants being proposed and under construction in the US. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support per WP:ITN/P #3. Closing a nuclear power plant is rare, much less common than an auto-parts factory closure (or a vehicular fatality). There are a number of older facilities still operating, so this premature closure is also interesting. There is no requirement for "worldwide implications" either, and many of the stories posted fail that category as well. What I am wondering is if it will be decommissioned in place or if it will be dismantled and disposed. The latter is very rare. --IP98 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand worldwide implications is not a requirement, but it was cited as the rationale for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm sure this is significant on a local level, but I can't see how its particularly unusual, given that elsewhere in the world whole countries are phasing out nuclear power. It's relatively rare in the sense that there are not that many nuclear power stations in the world but, in the long run, the decommissioning rate is 100%. Google is not finding any international coverage at all AFAICT. Formerip (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant on a global scale. The nomination statement about "worldwide implications" is completely false. Hot Stop 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - From the provided AP/ABC link that some here apparently did not trouble to read: "Federal investigators last year concluded that a botched computer analysis resulted in design flaws that were largely to blame for the heavy tube wear. Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group, said the mistake raises broad questions for an industry that regularly relies on computer tools. "That has larger importance, especially for new reactors," Lyman said. That indicates a world wide problem, yes? Note to Hot Stop: HS, at this rate your !votes here will be automatically discounted by a majority of posting admins as utterly worthless. "Completely false?" Do your homework. Jusdafax 17:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Go fuck yourself, that was completely unnecessary. Hot Stop 17:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The cursing and personal comments are unnecessary, but the "worldwide implications" claim is bizarre, and the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a leftist front group--if their expert Lyman has credentials and on-site access let's hear about it. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Come off it. Labelling a commentator's political views as leftist is not a helpful contribution here. (Has Senator McCarthy returned?) Discuss the science, not the scientists. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, please. They call themselves advocates, and they advocate left-wing causes. My pointing out they are an advocacy group and not just a scientist union is quite helpful to those unfamiliar with them. The burden is on Jusdafax to give us Lyman's credentials. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
No. When a writer describes someone as leftist, and thinks it helps, that tells me a lot more about the writer than the subject. (But I won't post here again.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Guess which statement comes from HiLo, and which the UCS:
"I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here"
"turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems"
μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I call on one of our many admins to administer a warning to HS, who started this by calling me a liar with "completely false" and now sees fit to use major profanity when his attack !vote is rigorously questioned. Any accountability here? Jusdafax 17:54, 8 June 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] Princess Madeleine marriesEdit

No consensus to post. DYK remains open as an option. King of ♠ 08:12, 10 June 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.

 --BabbaQ (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. She is not currently the direct heir to the throne, so any significance of this event is limited. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The story has received international coverage (see this from New Zealand for example), but we need to wait until it happens. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Source: Reuters". It is very easy for news outlets anywhere in the world to pretty much copy-and-paste wire reports. If the posting of such reports are considered "international coverage" then this is a very low bar. --LukeSurl t c 13:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless it is some sort of automatic feed, copy-and-pasting a wire report still requires someone at the news outlet to decide if an event is important enough to its readers to warrant being posted. It's still coverage, whether it is from an outlet's own reporters or not. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but considering they've already paid their fee for the wire service, the only thing such an outlet is expending is a few pixels of space on their website (that they're probably keen to fill anyhow) and half an hour of a subeditor's time. Ultimately there are dozens of wire stories daily that gain "international coverage" because of this, hence why our using such a metric for a notability assessment needs to be more qualified. [Note, this is a general point. I have no particular opinion on this nomination] --LukeSurl t c 13:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
support posted William and hes not idirect heir to the throne. No need for anglo biasLihaas (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you give a diff for that, Lihaas? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
William is a direct heir to the throne; he is second in line after his father and that is extremely unlikely to change. This Princess is fourth in line and that could change if those above her have children. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for a diff for the posting, not whether he's heir apparent. μηδείς (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I apologize; I was responding to Lihass. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 9 June 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.

June 7Edit


[Posted] China bus fireEdit

Article: Xiamen bus fire (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 47 people are killed and 33 others are injured in a bus fire in Xiamen, China.
Alternative blurb: ​47 people are killed in a bus fire in Xiamen, China, including the suspected arsonist
News source(s): USA Today BBC Sky News Daily Mail Businessweek

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The news articles/sources I provided above are the ones that say at least 42 people died and 33 others injured. Other news sources are covering this story like CNN and Xinhua, but they report a lower death and injury count (because that was the official number of deaths confirmed when they reported the story). There was also another bus accident in Himachal Pradesh, so maybe if this bus accident is not ITN worthy by itself, a combined blurb with both bus accidents could be posted. Andise1 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Stub created. --LukeSurl t c 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though futile as always, to what really is a tragic but totally ordinary vehicular incident. There is no minimum number of deaths for notability, and I refuse to react purely to body count. --IP98 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you have any proof that a bus fire is an "ordinary vehicular incident"? Andise1 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
      • [50] The one in Pakistan killed 15 children. Won't someone please think of the children! We posted a bush crash in china, one in Africa, another one in (India?). Buses seem like death traps. I was tempted to make a pointy nom for the limo fire tragedy but I really thought we were over bleeding hearts traffic accident stories here. --IP98 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Support alt-blurb as a murder/suicide. --IP98 (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - A tragedy, but unless this has wider impact, this is basically a violation of NOTNEWS, and NEVENT, and as such, ITN. Yes, it's being widely covered because it is a large loss of life, but that's it - there's no indication of enduring notability. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
You have to excuse me but unless you have a crystal ball you can not know about this events enduring notability, it happened today for godsake.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Right, and that's why we shouldn't even have an article on it, per NEVENT. Events need to show enduring notability before articles are to be created. And as all the sources are saying, there was a bus fire, people couldn't get out, they died. Tragic, but what else from an encyclopedic point of view could this be about? --MASEM (t) 00:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose tragic but not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Let me be blunt - we virtually always post disasters with a death toll this high, and it would undoubtedly get posted if it happened in the US, UK or another Western country. That is for good reason - disaster that kill scores of people need no further notability than that. They are regarded as highly notable and get media attention because we place a high value on human life. That some people here get sick of them is irrelevant. Neljack (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we have done so, but I believe we need to raise the bar drastically on fires and accidents which don't include buildings or people or other entities who are already notable. μηδείς (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Death toll does not equate to notability. Accidents happen. They may affect a large number of people with little recourse to fix. We are not a newspaper (that's Wikinews' job), we're an encyclopedia and ITN needs to reflect stories that will stay in the encyclopedia, not on what the media is widely reporting. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as it seems to have been a criminal/terrorist act. But that needs confirmation. Abductive (reasoning) 05:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to have been a criminal attack according to multiple news sources: ABC Reuters. Andise1 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The ABC source [51] is saying this was an act of suicide, similar to a 2009 incident. Extremely difficult to qualify as an enduring news topic that needs its own article, much less an ITN here. (it would be far difficult