Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2013

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


May 31Edit

[Posted] Turkish protestsEdit

Article: 2013 Turkish protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Anti-government protests break out in Turkey.
News source(s): Reuters BBC Guardian

Article updated

 --Երևանցի talk 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support The protests have gained wide international media coverage. Also, Reuters calls it the "worst protests in years". I think this is just enough to be in the news. --Երևանցի talk 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with comment I believe that this is very important to report, although I believe that "environmental issues" are not the main subject of the protests at all and to say so is extremely misleading. A better choice would to be to say the protests are anti-government. --Dagko (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure! --Երևանցի talk 01:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a poorly written article with clear pro-activist anti-government POV and synthesis, lacking in vital citations ("The protests are strongly influenced by ... Tahrir Square protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement.[citation needed]" "Turkey ranks low in press freedom index, freedom of speech index and democracy index" "Brutality of police got wide attention online, with support of celebrities on Twitter.") and providing no objective details of the numbers of protestors, or support among non-activist groups. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - the protests are definitely "in the news" and worthy of posting. However, I have to agree with Medeis that the article needs some work. In particular I agree it is pushing a particular point of view. As such I have to oppose at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The protests are going to continue throughout the weekend and has spread to other major cities as well. What started as a small environmentalist protest evolved into a common protest ground with the blatant police brutality. The recent issues with the new alcohol law, the PKK negotiations, the third bridge across the Bosphorus - these are all important issues that the government ignored opposing views. CNN, BBC and Euronews are giving the events full coverage while the Turkish media is effectively trying to blackout the protests. I agree that the article needs some work, bt last bight it was nearly eempty and will be improved as soon as interest improves. (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Candymoan (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The article has improved significantly. The Turkish media is blacking out the protests and the events need as much coverage as possible... Candymoan (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - this is definitely news. Podiaebba (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support once the article problems are solved. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Exactly what ThaddeusB said. It's going to be a difficult article to cleanup though. --LukeSurl t c 07:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, extraordinary and widespread demonstrations.Egeymi (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-- per Podiaebba. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's about ready. The article is a LOT less POV than it was when the tag was inserted, and many refs have been added. Can someone please review whether the tag can now be removed? By the way, if main-page posted this will need to be monitored as there is considerable potential for POV editors to cause problems for the article. --LukeSurl t c 10:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know enough to say whether the article is a good reflection of the reality, but it is at least adequately sourced, so I've de-tagged. Formerip (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Also today there will be protests all over the world in front of Turkish embassies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Abbatai (talkcontribs)
  • Urge The article looks ready. If we can agree that the POV issue has been resolved and the citations are all in place, the article should be included in ITN. Candymoan (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The article has greatly improved from when it was first nominated, and more eyeballs on the article will only improve it further. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Jongestoch (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 13:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What are we waiting for? - the article is fine now and this is NEWS. Podiaebba (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks likely that this will be posted shortly, it's just that ITN doesn't have a system which guarantees there will be someone around to do it every minute of the day. Formerip (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready, I think it should be posted immediately, the article is very good and informative and objective.Egeymi (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support post baby post! -- (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The protests received enough independent coverage and the article has been improved. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is a turning point in Turkish politics. It has to be on the mainpage. Azirlazarus (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. Could someone do the appropriate credit things? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Can the blurb link to the article rather than a redirect? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would like to see a blurb that better explains the significance. Any suggestions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    I was about to post the same. My suggestions are: Environmentalists objections/complaints turn into nation-wide protests in Turkey or Police response escalates environmentalists complaints into nation-wide protests in Turkey Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Police response escalates environmentalists complaints into nation-wide protests in Turkey - this is perfect. Candymoan (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    "Police response to environmentalist complaints provokes nation-wide anti-government protests'." Azirlazarus (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Azirlazarus's blurb is better, as it makes clear the shift from environmental complaints to the current anti-gov protests. It just needs to highlight the article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    And presumably the location. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    Yes! Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Can we update the blurb with a little more info and and a few more links? We're an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. ITN is supposed to provide hooks into our content. An ITN entry with just one straight-forward hook isn't worth much to the project. --RA (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Wow, this was really improved greatly. I am concerned the external link is POV rather than factual, so I am removing it. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi ThaddeusB. The blurb still links to a redirect rather than the article, can you fix it? Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I can change it next time I edit the template for some other reason. Until then, we have WP:NOTBROKEN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Bump date as these are ongoing [1], it seems silly to age this off the template as it looks like its about to do soon. Let's reassign this to a more recent date. LukeSurl t c 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Moral support for bump, but three suggestions: make a new proposal under today's date where people will see it; propose a new blurb; check that the article has continued to be updated, just in case. Formerip (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


Article: 86th Scripps National Spelling Bee (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Arvind Mahankali of Bayside, New York, U.S, wins the Scripps National Spelling Bee.
News source(s): ESPN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Admittedly this is a long shot, but it doesn't hurt to try... Scripps is the oldest and largest educational contest in the United States. The spelling bee is a cultural icon featured in numerous documentaries/novels/TV shows/etc. Yes it a contest for children, but this is not at all the same thing as amateur sport. There are no professional spelling leagues or equivalent contests for adults, for example. Although it is called the "National Spelling Bee" it is actually open to children from Canada, Mexico, and several other countries so it is not actually a US only event. I personally would gladly support other youth educational contests of similar cultural significance to other countries, although I think ITN should be more accepting in general (notability wise) than some other ITN regulars. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Note, participants come from at least ten countries besides the US, including Canada, New Zealand, China, Japan, and South Korea; see below. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This gets covered every year prominently, it's on ESPN every year, borderline ITNR if you ask me. The article is in very good shape. --Jayron32 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support iff there is a damn good article, i.e. approaching high B - low A class. If we main-page featured this, it wouldn't be under the usual ITN/R reasoning of "this event was important, here is an article about it", it would be "Look! We can produce a good-quality article on such a seemingly minor event in the space of days (take THAT Britannica)" --LukeSurl t c 22:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I appreciate the sincerity of your comments re national bias, Thaddeus, and I'd also like to see the day when ITN is less obsessed with shadowing CNN, but I think the disparity would be just too great as things stand. In recent memory, we've rejected things like the Turner Prize, the AFC Asian Cup, the FA Cup, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (which I would guess is the closest thing to this spelling bee thing internationally), all because they didn't have sufficient international profile. Formerip (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would think an item of cultural importance to Europeans would have a decent chance to pass if properly explained. I think we have been moving towards being more accepting of stories recently... I did support FA Cup (the others were apparently before I was active again). FA Cup is not really a good comparison though, as it was at least partially rejected due to other football stories coming up, and mostly for not being the top competition even in England.
I went ahead and looked up the others: Turner Prize does not appear to have ever been nominated for ITN. Junior Eurovision was nominated once with no explanation as to why it should be considered important. When asked the nominator said "that's not up to me". Asian Cup is currently ITN/R so if it was rejected it must have been due to lack of update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's the most recent Turner Prize nomination.
The point is not what you supported or opposed, though. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'd say we should be on our guard about rejecting the world's most significant art prize - essentially because American media don't care about it - then posting a prize for coaching kids to spell - essentially because American media care about it. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, guess the search function is not infallible. Some interesting discussion there. It certainly sounds like the kind of story I would like featured more often. I'm not surprised by the arguments as I was expecting similar ones here. (Of course there are also differences between the two items, so it would be unwise to dwell on it too much.) I am trying to change consensus to some degree, after all. I encourage everyone to nominate items important to their native cultures going forward and I will fight for them. (And yes, I realize no one was accusing me of any bias.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tried. It doesn't work. I've given up. But I'll keep opposing trivia from the big, dominant, bully cultures whose editors can't even see that that is the case. And I'm getting really sick of being told that trivia from the dominant cultures should be posted because I'm allowed to pointlessly nominate stuff from my much smaller culture. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I think (hope) times are changing. Let me know what the next cultural item relating to Australia that you want to see covered is and I'll nominate it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
If we post any story at all from Australia within the next ten days, I'll guarantee my support for next year's Spelling Bee. AFAICT, we have posted one so far this year, and that was only because an Australian won a US sports competition (The Masters), which underscores my objection. Formerip (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
We'd be having the AFL and the NRL Grand Finals later this year, and those are supposedly automatic posts once updated... –HTD 13:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
User_talk:HiLo48#Items of cultural significance in Australia may be of interest to others in this thread. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Formerip gives a very good rationale. A large problem is that the above competitions listed (with the exception of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest) could be regarded as being prestigious in that any winner must be near the top of his field, whereas very few of these children continue to achieve anything notable. If it were a competition like the International Mathematical Olympiad, where many participants become esteemed mathematicians, then I might be more supportive. (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to remember to nominate International Mathematical Olympiad when it happens in July. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons Formerip opposes: we need to stop shadowing CNN and stop being obsessed with the profile of nominees in news media. Those aren't the criteria we should be making decisions by. We're an encyclopaedia. The purpose of ITN is to provide hooks into our content. This is a great topic to hook people in with. For added value, we should link to kneydls in the blurb, which Mahankali correctly spelt to win. --RA (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Those are not the reasons I opposed. We should not be shadowing CNN, but we should also, more generally, not be shadowing US media. An ITN where we were able to artfully pick out the stories from around the world which were the most interesting in one way or another - of which this would be one - would be a better ITN. The problem is in applying that aspiration unevenly. There's no way, as things presently are, that we would ever post something like Junior Eurovision, because more contributors are American than European. With a fair wind, we may grow to be something better one day. But we should develop while keeping one eye on balance. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, that post highlights the big image problem with Scripps. Many (I am among them) see it as just a trivia quiz, testing a very weird bunch of kids on something that has no practical application at all. When did you last use use the word kneydls? Promoting something for its weirdness is not good publicity. Do you really want that? HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
A memorization contest would be a better way to describe it, if you want to go that route (that is the way people who say it has no educational value choose to describe it here. Anyway, it was not nominated on the inherent value of the contest, but rather its cultural significance. Sports, for example, have no significance other than that people give it. Of course people give sports a lot of significance and they should be posted. Likewise, other things that people give significance should be judged by the value attached, not inherent value. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support article is well done, and winners (children, and often immigrants) are not media darlings on steroids and coke. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Of course they are. How else do you explain their ability to spell "kneydls"? That's not even a word unless you're on something. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Lol. I suppose I'l' have to eat my kneydls if it turns out he was on Ritalin and Diet Coke. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom's last sentence. In the "news" is something of a misnomer as the stated purpose is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." For reasons I can't fully comprehend this is of wide interest (ABC were updating live), so it matches the criteria. (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready: strong consensus, great update. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose And it's NOT ready. Didn't think I would have to vote here because I thought those in favour would be polite and rational enough to discuss the several points made against, such as those I made. They haven't even responded. This is not ready, unless typical appalling discussion practices are accepted here again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not sure where you get off calling the supports here impolite and irrational. I refrained from pointing out above, but will now mention that we have weird (google "soccer crotch grab) grown men kicking around leather balls with their hands behind their backs for no practical purpose posted here several times a year. Posting a child's mental contest hardly looks bad in comparison. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I reckon we need a Template:Misrepresentation tag. That's a perfect example of an irrational post. I didn't say the support posts were impolite and irrational. So you still haven't addressed the points I did make. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am removing the ready tag in favor of having more discussion about the item (not for concerns about article quality, which I have not evaluated). This is a nomination that I would prefer to wait a little longer before possible posting, rather than rushing a posting that then leads to large amounts for calls of a pull. I know there's not hard and fast rule about posting times, but preferably this nomination should run for at least 24 hours, not just 3 or so before being marked ready. SpencerT♦C 01:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a start-class article with three sections and a three-paragraph four-source update and no tags at sentence, section, or article level. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - With great respect to the nominator and supporters, I can't support this one. It's at best a regional spelling contest. I don't care for the promotional aspects for Scripps either. I try not to oppose items of this type but this time I feel we have to draw a line somewhere. If we won't support the CIA Director's nomination, this one doesn't cut it. (I know, I know, comparisons are odious. Nevertheless.) Also agree that the article should not be marked ready. Jusdafax 01:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • To clarify, it's not a "regional" competition. There are participants from all over the US, Department of Defense schools around the world, Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan and South Korea. The winners of all the regional competitions come to participate at this bee. SpencerT♦C 02:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Not only DoD schools, Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan and South Korea; you omitted contestants from Germany, Mexico and New Zealand.
        • That's just a different definition of regional. The US plus a few of its neighbours can be validly described as a region. Look at Oceania. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Did you just say, in regard to the Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Mexico and New Zealand, Hilo, that "That's just a different definition of regional. The US plus a few of its neighbours can be validly described as a region. Look at Oceania"? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Stop being silly. Obviously a lot of those geographically not from the US are US citizens (or their kids) temporarily located elsewhere. And there was obviously a simple piece of confusion between region meaning part of the US, and region meaning a much bigger part of the globe. It's a US competition. Stop pretending otherwise. I defended claims that the Boston Marathon was international because a lot of non-Americans participate. That's not the case here. I shouldn't really have had to explain this. (And I won't make this whole post small, because these points are important.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jusdafax. Pretty much said it best. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I like the idea of posting stories that might appeal to a different wikipedia-using genre than the kind that would often read the regular ITN stories. Would be interesting to get a feel for page views after it drops back off again. Support because if we are going to try something a little different, this story seems as good as any. CaptRik (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant. Doesn't seem to be getting a lot of international coverage either. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose A spelling bee? Why are we even discussing this? Candymoan (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Because it was nominated and has significant coverage and cultural impact. As a European I find the contest odd, but that is not a reason to oppose. (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Significant cultural impact"? - that is plainly an Anglophile privilege. The English Wikipedia is not the Anglo-Saxon version, but rather the international version of Wikipedia, and practically we have to work on the Westener bias mbedded in its culture. Candymoan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Because it is easier for him to first invent a reason to attack your character, and then use that invented reason to actually attack you, than to come up with a legitimate, evidence-and-reason based rationale for opposing. --Jayron32 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support top competition in it's field, globally sourced competitors. As for the "a regional competition" camp, I shall look forward to your support removing the UEFA Champions League from ITN/R. Sponsorship a problem: fine, drop it. We don't call the EPL the "Barclays Premier League" we it was posted on 4/23. We have a "Please do not" above regarding items relating to a single country, and it's very effective in getting a wide array of traffic accidents posted. Article is in ok shape. --IP98 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Iconic and long-running competition which is easily as significant and well-known as several of the ITN/R contests that we normally post, and it would be nice to add a little variety for a change. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose niche topic, niche interest, niche geography and, as mentioned above, pretty close to exploitation of kids' abilities to be super trained (like Pavlov's dogs) to regurgitate facts by rote. Comparisons with European-wide sporting events followed by hundreds of millions is standard chalk-and-cheese. The fact that only five of the winners since 1925 (that's 5 from 84) are notable enough for a Wikipedia article is indicative of the true long-standing impact of this "award". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The lack of an article is not indicative of lack of notability. An editor of your experience surely knows that. No one compared this to "European-wide sporting events followed by hundreds of millions". Your description of the real people who participate in the event is quite insulting (comparing kids to dogs, geez) and completely unnecessary. Why do you feel to need to use insults and hyperbole every time you oppose something? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Get a grip, the idea of children being taught to regurgitate the spelling of words they don't know the meaning of, that's Pavlovian, you know that. Stop being so histrionic about it. And yes, IP98 compared this to the Champions League. So please read it all more carefully next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Mayeb you should "get a grip" if you feel so compelled that an ITN nomination shouldn't be posted that you have to resort to insults of millions of children. And if you honestly think memorization by rote is a Pavlovian response, so clearly do not understand Pavlov's famous experiment. Also "bully bullshit" is not an appropriate edit summary - just b/c someone disagrees with you doesn't make their opinion bullshit and it certainly doesn't make them a bully. And to answer your accusation below, the reason no one "ganged up on" Neljack, HiLo, etc. is because they made reasonable non-offensive opposes. They did not feel the need to equate spelling bee participants with dogs or grossly misrepresent others opinions to get their point across. Only you felt the need to do so, and not surprisingly, people were offended by it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
          • I do have to say that in almost every thread involving an exclusively US event like this I always feel at least a little bit bullied, if only by the sheer volume of posts from American editors. I don't blame any one of you for the fact that there's an awful lot of you, but it would be good if everyone could read about and think about Wikipedia's many systemic biases. It's OK. I've been in a minority many times in my life, and right, so I'm strong psychologically about it and will probably survive, but it's good if we all realise what's goes on here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Fair enough, roughly 50% of the sites editors are American, so I can understand why other cultures might feel overwhelmed. Still, that is no excuse to make insulting posts and grossly misrepresent the position of American editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Systemic bias is so bad at ITN that there's currently 1/2 of a blurb about an American subject. --Jayron32 01:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I hope he realizes that saying those things doesn't make them true. One can merely write the same sentence after every single nomination, but the mere act of asserting that this is a niche topic doesn't actually mean anything. What it means is that he finds this something outside of his own interest, but I don't know that "Does not interest The Rambling Man" is a criteria for ITN. I'll double check the list of criteria, as I haven't looked recently, but I don't remember reading that... --Jayron32 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I hope you realise exactly the same thing. This is not an "in the news" article just because you say it is. This is in no way culturally or historically significant. You can gang up on me but it won't make any difference, your bandwagon (and pathetic "Does not interest The Rambling Man" nonsense) is symbolic of desperation I'm afraid. Funny that your tag-team bully tactics aren't being deployed against User:Neljack, or User:HiLo48 or User:FormerIP or User:Ericleb01 or IP:, no, just me. What a surprise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready marking again, has been up 24 hours, 86 years-old, 11 million participants from over 10 nations, top contest of kind in world, well-written updated article, various opposes based on false (just a regional) and deprecated (US only) criteria. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Stuff this "over 10 nations" crap. It's obvious that at least some of the claimed "non-American" competitors were American kids living in other countries with their families posted their on military or other activities. Can I see a list of competitors who were not US citizens or the children of such? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Observe there are no more 'supports' than 'opposes', so there does not appear to be consensus to post yet. I think the regional issue is relatively minor, yet one cannot deny that it is essentially an American display that appears rather strange to many others. The larger problem is that these children are hardly notable, nor is it common for them to become notable in later life. It is unlike a competition in the sciences, arts or sports, where competitors are already notable for their actual abilities: a winning artist would be well-known for his previous works, and not simply the winner of some competition who is usually little more than a name in a table of 'winners'. (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • No way is this should be marked ready, with all due respect. Since the word "regional" seems to have drawn fire, let me put it another way. If we feature an English-language spelling contest, should we feature one for all major languages? Like Russian, or French, also spoken around the planet? If not, why not? What about Chinese, though I couldn't tell you how the Chinese language would have such a contest. Should we seek one out if we post this? Point being, this is an English-specific contest and the ITN-blurb has drawn considerable objection as to its "ITN-worthiness" - again, there is no way I see consensus here, as I understand the term to mean. Let's take the "ready" term off this one and unless there is a new fast surge of supporters and few opposers in the next day, let's just move on, because one can also make the case this story is stale. Jusdafax 23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is majority support for this, although some of the opposes have been quite emotional, to the point of vulgarity, and we've even had an attempt at bargaining above. So far as I am aware, there are no French or Russian spelling bees on the scale of the "national" one (few languages besides English have an irregular enough spelling to merit one). We're not here to argue wp:otherstuff, wp:engvar, or that an item is limited to one nation--see the guidelines. This quite obviously meets newsworthiness and update criteria, and it has been held 24 hours in good faith to make sure there wouldn't be a majority for pulls. Unfortunately the supports follow criteria and the opposes are based on criticisms that are specifically warned against. It is ready to post now. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh dear. I responded to your claim above of "over 10 nations". Please respond to that. Your argument is based on it being international. Prove it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. --IP98 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh dear, again. Quality of discussion here is appalling. Or maybe some just cannot read. I did NOT complain that the event relates only to one country! Medeis, who just claimed this was ready, is basing her case for posting it on it being international. I questioned that. Medeis ignored my question and claimed it was ready. Can you please retract the attack? Or redirect it to the either deliberately manipulative or incompetent editor Medeis? Maybe then we can all move on with a quality discussion. HiLo48 (talk)
              • Medeis wasn't lying about it being an international competition. China, Also China Italy, American Samoa The Bahamas, Canada, also Canada, Ghana, Jamaica, and Japan all sent contestants. --Jayron32 00:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Thank you. Even though they are obviously primary sources, I'll accept that. Though I'm not sure it was actually the countries that sent contestants, rather than that they were dug out of the woods by spelling bee scouts. And out of the massive numbers claimed as part of the justification for posting, these are obviously only a very tiny number. Now, why were you able to respond, while Medeis ignored the request to prove her claim, and instead just posted that this was ready? Do some not think it necessary to prove unusual claims? I really do despair over quality of discussion here. HiLo48 (talk)
                  • I don't speak for other people. You ask for sources, I gave you sources. I'm not in the business of speaking good or ill about other individuals. My only concern is that we try to base our arguments, any arguments, on what we can back up with sources and evidence, and not on what our own views and attitudes are. Otherwise the discussion degrades to "I've heard of it" vs. "I haven't" or "I don't think this should be important" vs. "I do think it should be". It is much better to look for how news sources cover these events, and make our decisions based on that. My support is based primarily on the level of coverage this receives in news sources. --Jayron32 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Sounds good to me. (Although the media, even the good media, talks a lot about Hollywood romances and the consequent babies, and the like, and we do, thankfully, judge whether stuff like that deserves to be here, but you point is broadly valid.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                      • Again, you've brought up this strawman argument in the past when I have tried to point out that we should base our judgements on media coverage of an event. Basing our judgement on media coverage means what sources cover it (BBC yes, TMZ no), where it is covered ("above the fold", top story, headline coverage yes, buried in the entertainment section, no), and how much depth of coverage it receives (long articles, unique per source, multiple articles from different perspectives all good, short, cursory articles not so much). Its' quite possible to create an evidenciary-based criteria where we can all present our sources, and check them all out, and the judge "is this coverage an indication that this is an important event in the news". That goes over much better than "I don't think this event meets my standards for what I think the world should care about" or whatever. --Jayron32 04:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
          • It wouldn't be a valid objection that the event relates to only one country, per our "please do not" (although, IMO, that's badly in need of a Spring clean anyway). However, it is an event of major interest only to people in one country and it is a relatively minor event which occurred in country to which we already give plenty of airtime. These are both perfectly valid objections (they may be weak, they may be strong, but they are valid). Formerip (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
            • True, we should change it to read "Please don't bother nominating items which occur in the United States of America. People will derail the discussion to the point where they'll never get posted anyways, regardless of the actual merit". That would reflect current practice. --Jayron32 01:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • You did demand that Medeis prove it was an international event as part of your objection. --Jayron32 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Oh dear again, again. THAT was because Medeis made that part of her justification for posting this. But we should probably stop now. I don't want to have to revert to CAPS again to repeat things I've already said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Yes, because obviously we never ever post anything that happens in the Untied States of America. We could have a notice saying "Please don't assume that because something happened in the US it will automatically get unanimous support". Needn't be necessary, but it might be quite useful to be able to point to. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Well, every once in a while we can sneak a quick nomination in while other parts of the world are asleep or at work, so correctly timing the nomination does allow an occasional exception. --Jayron32 01:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • I guess you must be the world's best at correctly timing, on top of everything else, then [2]. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • Making conspiratorial accusations and worse, answering them, is not helping. There are various criteria, and outside them we should remain silent. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, niche interest and "there is no there there". They hold a contest on an obscure semi-obsolete skill and each year declare a winner. Same story every year, only the names of the winners and words they spelled change. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • And that's different from kicking a ball into a net how exactly? --IP98 (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hehe-- because people who throw or kick balls around get millions and millions of fans, impacting the lives of whole populations. Fights between rival Spelling Bee hooligans, now that'd be news! --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Unmarked ready until someone other than Medeis deems it so. Update is good, consensus isn't clear. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose not gobale worth, not itnr (rightfully). shockingly its on espon? sports???? all these mugpot Indians cant event spell coloUr..Lihaas (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment vote is 9 to 8 in favor, with most of the opposes calling China a regional dependency of the US or something of the sort. I am ignoring Lihaas' shocking racist bizaarity as a vote, and reporting it to talk. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
WE DON'T VOTE HERE!!!! Your appalling misinterpretation or misrepresentation of policy is worth reporting too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Neither do we scream, lie, curse, make stuff up, resort to racist taunts, complain that a nomination is related to only 10 countries (or even one) or a whole lot of other things. Or do we? An admin needs to look at this disregarding deprecated criteria and comments and post or close on the merits of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Curse? I don't think that's something I do. It's an uncommon concept around these parts. I'm not even sure what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
An admin needs to look at the behaviour of an editor who resorts to misrepresentation about both the process and the behaviour of others. You do it all the time, while ignoring the more difficult comments made in opposition to your views. So, why did you count the votes? HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Medeis has apparently ignored the concerns that these children are not currently notable and are unlikely to ever become notable: instead, he has merely asserted that opposition to this item is based solely on geography and he has consequently dismissed all opposition to it. I would call this misrepresentation. It is a pity to think that news stories can be chosen to feature on the front of Wikipedia in such a dishonest manner. As an outsider to this general process, I cannot help but feel that a change in procedure is warranted here (especially since it appears that so few editors are involved in making decisions that affect the homepage of one of the most popular websites in the world). (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Considering this item most likely not be posted, I'm not sure what the calls for reform are based on. (We only trust a select group of admins with the ability to post items for a reason.) User behavior can't be regulated by the project, if that's what you are after; but there are venues for dealing with inappropriate behavior in general. And for the record, I think a lot of ITN regulars (of all nationalities) engage in poor behavior from time to time - not just a few "dishonest" Americans. --01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My 'call for reform' is simply due to seeing the numerous heated debates that this page induces, something that is seldom seen when discussing 'Today's Featured Article', for example. I am just very supportive of the idea, for instance, of discussing these types of events with regard to 'recurring items': I am sure a similar discussion about this will take place next year! If a comprehensive list of items of these items could be made (however difficult it might initially be), it should make this entire process considerably easier. Also, I agree that editors of many nationalities engage in poor behaviour here: I simply addressed my comment to Medeis since I am discussing this current item. (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose primarily due to worthy points of regionalism made by others. While this is "news" in some fashion, it's really just a routine competition that has no real significance outside some coverage in the US, or in the long term in general. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Boko Haram reduxEdit

Article: Boko Haram#State counter-offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amidst a video from Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, the Nigerian military's offensive against the group results in several dead civilians, as well as fighters.

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Last time we did not post it despite some supports. Reports coming in last 1-2 days indicate lot of deaths and a video released by the leader saying its not over. --Lihaas (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose I can't see anything in the nomination or the article that indicates this has suddenly become ITN. (And I don't understand the blurb). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Confused Is this being nominated because a terrorist has released a video? The rationale is unclear. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also confused What does "redux" mean. It's a word I never hear and hence never use it, so I looked it up. says it means brought back or resurgent. I still don't understand what this is about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Lihaas is referring to the fact that another item related to this conflict was nominated before. Redux isn't about the war occurring again (I think). SpencerT♦C 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Redux was not the part that has me stumped. The section linked to mentions the terrorist leader released a video to prove his existence. No other obvious reason for notability for posting this is given here or discernible there. If there are specifiable important deaths or large casualties they should be mentioned. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Asteroid 1998 QE2Edit

Article: (285263) 1998 QE2 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Closest approach by the asteroid known as 1998 QE2 for the next two centuries. QE2 also has it's own satellite or moon.
Alternative blurb: Asteroid (285263) 1998 QE2 and its moon make their closest approach to Earth for the next two centuries
  • Oppose. A non-event which "happens" somewhat frequently (an asteroid not hitting the Earth). 331dot (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - interesting to astronomers, but this isn't making mainstream news. LukeSurl t c 14:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Seems to be getting a bit more attention as it approaches. Switching to neutral. LukeSurl t c 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose 15 lunar distances is a relatively routine distance in near-earth terms. Admittedly this is much larger than most objects that get so close, but given the level of certainty about its trajectory people aren't paying too much attention to it. —WFCFL wishlist 17:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment currently featuring (low down) on the BBC News homepage so clearly attracting some international attention, still 3.6 million miles away, but as WFC says, much bigger than the last flypast of a space object. A nice opportunity for scientists to examine this kind of phenomenon but not much more than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The article's updated, and its top news on a lot of sites today. Readers who aren't sure of the name will check the front page expecting we'll have an article on the asteroid. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "top news"? Really? Which news sites are showing this as top news (just out of interest)? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Second story under "top news" heading at USA Today front page right now, Top of the page "breaking news" shown live on FOX and currently second tier "above the fold" on their front page, Third story on front page of CNN's "Latest" heading "above the fold"--those are the first three places I've looked, more would be simple. μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I see. Yes, it features on the BBC homepage in the midst of other news too. But using that approach, I'd expect nominations for "Holder tries to calm media after AP", "Did US Crowing About bin Laden Raid Sabotage Hero's Shot at Freedom?", and "'This is only the beginning, our struggle will continue'" (Turkey protests). Which are topping those news outlets. The asteroid is really of minor interest, it's meaningless and borderline trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Well yes, but those sorts of things happen every day, not civilization-killer asteroids with their own moons passing. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting astronomy story that is 'in the news.' I like that the asteroid has a moon, which is different. Fairly big item to be this close to earth. Jusdafax 21:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Too many people these days live in places too brightly lit for them to even see the stars at night. Let's tell them what's really up there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb I have proposed a one sentence blurb. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Note, the article is also updated. μηδείς (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Alt blurb is a good one! Suggest it be used. Jusdafax 23:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready given update and change in consensus (assuming support of unsigned nominator). μηδείς (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Article is currently tagged as a stub. --LukeSurl t c 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • (Stub is not a yellow tag and even if it were it meets both the three paragraph and the five sentence update rules depending which relevant criterion you want to use. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC))
        • I removed the 'Stub' tag, since the article is listed on the Talk page as 'Start' class. Good catch! Jusdafax 00:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted with the alternative blurb. --RA (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit surprised this was posted quickly with the given level of consensus. However, that is not a complaint as I came here to !vote weak support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Commnent. Is a subscript 2 beyond our capabilities? Formerip (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oklahoma City tornadoesEdit

Article: May 26–31, 2013 tornado outbreak#Oklahoma City metropolitan area (talk, history)
Blurb: ​As part of a second tornado outbreak hitting the Oklahoma City metropolitan area, a supercell produces numerous tornadoes, killing nine people, and floods parts of the city.

Nominator's comments: This outbreak was not as severe as the May 20 outbreak, however, it's significant for its impacts on an already-stricken area and the flooding. (NWS currently has about a dozen flood and flash flood warnings active at present, and several major rivers are expected to crest above flood stage.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment This seems to be wrongly headed, or described. Tornadoes do not cause major rain events (unless they were very weird tornadoes). Obviously other storm activity was happening too, and that probably caused the flooding. Can we get a better meteorological explanation please? HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Tornadoes do not cause flooding, no, but the widespread supercell thunderstorms that are involved in producing the tornadoes can and often do produce flooding, although this flooding was quite unusual in its magnitude. Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
      • So, please change the blurb so that we're not discussing tornadoes causing floods. Others among you may not care, but I believe we have to get the science right. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. While this outbreak is making huge shockwaves among the meteorologist community due to a combination of very poor safety advice being given on TV, several deaths occurring in vehicles, and the fact that numerous storm chasers took direct hits by the tornadoes, I'm not quite sure the significance outside of that has quite risen above the fold. Ks0stm (TCGE) 19:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't have the level of death and destruction that would usually get a disaster posted here, and I'm not convinced that the fact that the area has recently has a more serious tornado disaster (which we posted) should change that. Neljack (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sticky perhaps? Nine reported dead now, not five. μηδείς (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sadly, we have to determine things like this based on the number of fatalities and the scale of damage, and also compare against recent events like the 2013 Moore tornado. I would support posting an article about the TWISTEX team members being killed though, including the event as context, as what seems to be the first major fatalities of well-known storm chasers. Perhaps someone can expand on that and write a blurb. That seems more notable than the tornado itself. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment - I have nominated Samaras' death separately above --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

May 30Edit

[Posted] 64 killed and 6,500 displaced by clashes over gum arabic in SudanEdit

Article: Sudanese nomadic conflicts (talk, history)
Blurb: Clashes over control of gum arabic production leave 64 people dead and 6,500 displaced in South Darfur, Sudan
News source(s): Xinhua, The Guardian, AFP, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a part of the world that has suffered from repeated violence in the recent past but this recent outbreak highlights the importance of gum arabic, which is used primarily in the soft drinks industry, in the country (that accounts for between 50 and 80% of world production). The violence between rival tribes has left at least 64 dead, dozens wounded, 1,200 homes burnt and 6,500 people displaced. --Dumelow (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - significant conflict with significant death toll. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The number of displaced people is perhaps even more striking than the number (tragically) killed. Neljack (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Marked as ready so it has a chance of going up before it cycles off the template. Feel free to revert if you disagree or if someone wants to oppose - Dumelow (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This would be posted if it happened anywhere else. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. What's notable here is the large number of displaced people, due to violence. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 00:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Rituparno GhoshEdit

Article: Rituparno Ghosh (talk, history)
Blurb: ​12 national award winning Indian film director Rituparno Ghosh died.
News source(s): The Hindu, Mid-day, BDTV

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died today, 6 hours ago --Tito Dutta (contact) 08:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • weak support for RD oppose full blurb, seems like fairly successfull in field but otherwise unremarkable though obviously sad death. EdwardLane (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD, oppose blurb. Seems reasonably notable in this field. Death section is more than ready, indeed it may be too extensive. LukeSurl t c 16:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, does it really need that big Twitter advert in the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support RD well documented and article is nicely updated. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking Ready not much conversation here, but it's been nominated for almost 20 hours with no opposition. Plus, the update is one of the best I've seen for any ITN nominee, let alone deaths. Hot Stop 02:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reconsider blurb: I am surprised to see the comment "he was fairly successful". Fairly successful? Eh! He redefined success. If you see today's The Times of India newspaper, they have dedicated 8 full pages on Rituparno Ghosh's death! In a career spanning 20 year, 20 films and 12 National Awards (i.e. India's highest film awards).... in India there is not any other film director with 12 national awards! So, there'll not be any other similar news soon. Yesterday the Wikipedia article got 216,000 views. I am requesting to reconsider blurb! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove ready--agree myself this should be posted but one more support and answer to the blurb question would be nice. Then remark ready. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I won't re-add it, but it was my understanding that it could still be promoted to a full blurb after being put on the death ticker. Hot Stop 03:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I should clarify I am against a blurb, but Titodutta has expressed a concern. An admin should judge after that concern is posted. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • comment In regard to my line "fairly successful" I was basing this on getting national rather than lots of well known international awards, I am generally less enthused about sport/entertainment getting full blurbs (especially for deaths) unless they are 'massively important' in terms of having made a significant 'step change' in their field. The article didn't seem to be telling me that applied in this case (but I'm not an expert in the genre, so I may have missed something obvious).EdwardLane (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Posted to RD as Medeis was commenting... Article is very good, so consider myself an RD support, if necessary. No comment on blurb - I am happy to upgrade it to blurb status if a consensus to do so emerges. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • weak support for blurb: A very very important cultural news regionally (South Asia); however, the personality lacks significant global recognition.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb not prominent enough and presence in RD implies main fact: "died". μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

May 29Edit

Pork deal Shuanghui Group buys SmithfieldEdit

Article: Shuanghui (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Chinese meat processor Shuanghui Group agrees to purchase American pork producer Smithfield Foods for $US4.7 billion.
Alternative blurb: ​In what would be the largest ever Chinese acquisition of an American business, Shuanghui Group agrees to purchase pork producer Smithfield Foods.
News source(s): AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm sure this will face the usual "it might not happen" opposition, but I respectfully request editors reassess that viewpoint. This is "in the news" and mergers are primarily in the news when they are announced. Shareholders never reject these things and regulators very rarely get involved. 95% sail through without a problem and at most get a mention in specialty business press when the conclude. The best time to post is at the announcement.

In regards to this particular acquisition, it would represent the largest-ever Chinese purchase of a US business. As such, it carries some political implications in addition to the business implications. (The Wall Street Journal, which should know, says the deal is "unlikely to face serious opposition" from the US government though.) The story is clearly international, deals of this size occur very rarely (despite the chance occurrence of 2 in 2 days, there are less than 10 per year normally), and it would be nice to get a non-crime business story on ITN for a change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose as usual for business acquisition. It is also curious what the value of the LA Port deal was between Clinton and China, and the value of the coal mines Clinton closed as national parks at China's behest. Even then, I oppose business deals that don't result in startling transformations of the market. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know it's not quite the same story but wasn't Hummer originally going to be acquired by a Chinese company? I remember there was big fanfare about the announcement, but then it never ended up happening, reportedly due to some regulatory issues. Hence, I don't know if the "Shareholders never reject these things and regulators very rarely get involved." claim is accurate enough for me to be able to support a non-finalized item. SpencerT♦C 04:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The WSJ article linked above says there have been >650 Chinese investments in US businesses that have been approved and a handful of deals that were rejected and made the headlines. It also contains quotes by several analysts that say this is not the type of industry the US gov't considers important enough to block investment. But, yes, there is always a small chance of the deal becoming politicized and failing. (I looked up Hummer. Ironically, it was Chinese regulators that blocked the deal, possibly over environmental concerns, partially over concerns the company seeking to buy it was not capable of making it work. [3].) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't this another announcement that may have a long way to go and stands a very good chance of never actually happening? It's definitely interesting, as the BBC puts it "The deal will be the largest takeover of a US company by a Chinese rival." but the BBC also caution that "However, rival bidders may emerge since Smithfield has another 30 days to hold talks with other interested parties.", so I'm guessing we should hold off posting this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    • A competing offer is also a (rare) possibility. Merger stories are tricky, for sure. The vast majority go off without any regulatory action/competing bids, and when they do the completion is not considered "news" by mainstream media. The few exceptions are the only ones that make the news again, and of course something not happening is probably not ITN worthy. I think we should follow the MSM here and post on announcement because that is when the coverage is. Like I said, though, it isn't clear cut; I certainly understand the other point of view. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm just going by reliable sources. As the BBC have suggested, this won't even be a done deal for 30 days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - the merger is still getting good press coverage in the US today, 4 days after the announcement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (too late :( ) per WP:ITN/P #3, pending the newly added orange tag. --IP98 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I will try to renominate when the deal is complete, so you may have another chance to support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Jack VanceEdit

Article: Jack Vance (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A highly prolific and award-winning author. Article is substantial. Guardian reference article notes his influence in the field of science fiction, which I strongly suggest doubters read. An additional 'Legacy' section for the article would be a plus but I think we can go with it as is. Jusdafax 04:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - unfortunately the majority of the article is completely unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I also suggest this 2009 tribute article from the New York Times - and I do see two sections that can use some help with references. Still think it's postable. Jusdafax 05:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Why was this marked updated with just one sentence saying he died? I could support this with a full update (Hugo/Nebula winner), although I have never read him. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per notability discussed by nom. I've added some text re: peer and fan tributes. Note: Vance died in the evening of Sunday 26 May [4] (possibly on the 27th UTC considering the time zone). --LukeSurl t c 09:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks LukeSurl! My time has been constrained unexpectedly after this nomination but I was able to start a 'Death' section with a description from Vance's son, and I appreciate your help with the tributes. I have added you to the updaters list. The death was indeed last Sunday but was not announced for several days and did not make the news widely until Thursday, when it was covered by multiple large media outfits. I hope this satisfies Medeis and any others waiting for a more substantial update. Jusdafax 09:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support prolific well-honored writer, colleague of Frank Herbert, good article worth featuring. Given there's no opposition and this has been up for a day I am marking ready. μηδείς (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] AurornisEdit

Article: Aurornis (talk, history)
Blurb: Aurornis xui is described as the most basal species of Avialae, potentially unseating Archaeopteryx as the oldest known bird.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The latest in my ongoing efforts to get more science stories onto ITN. The previous 3 postings all attracted significant positive edits to the articles and average-above average views.

In addition to being the oldest known bird, according to the describers' analysis, it also restores Archaeopteryx to the avian lineage (it had been questioned in 2011). Given the large classification implications, the conclusions are sure to be doubted by some, but that shouldn't stop us from posting - all important scientific advances will be questioned by some. The paper was published by Nature. [5] --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - I read this story in the news today, and agree it would make a good ITN item. Article is reasonable and readable. Jusdafax 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, I'm with Jusadafax. I've learnt something from this nomination and that article. I'd love the rest of the world to have the chance to learn it too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent nomination. Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Nom and Jusdafax CaptRik (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent science story. However, maybe we should modify the blurb a bit. I remember what happened with the story about "proposed" language family. --Tone 08:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The way things work in paleontology, Aurornis is now technically the oldest bird, but in reality what exactly is a "bird" and what is merely a "bird-like dinosaur" (a misnomer since birds actually are dinosaurs) is a matter of opinion, not fact. The word of qualification is thus precautionary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support decent article, and newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready overwhelming support (yay!) and meets update. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --RA (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Jadranko Prlić convictionEdit

Article: Jadranko Prlić (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Prime Minister of Herceg-Bosna Jadranko Prlic and five others are convicted for war crime by the ICTY.
Alternative blurb: ​Six Croatian leaders in the Bosnian War, including Jadranko Prlić, are convicted for war crimes against Bosniaks and Serbs by the ICTY.
News source(s): AlJazeera, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We posted other top court conviction for war crimes. This is a former head of government (albeit of an unrecognized state) Lihaas (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The referencing needs some work, but if that happens I'm leaning towards support. I agree with Lihaas that lack of recognition isn't important in this case. If you'll forgive my deliberately dispassionate language, the 1990s were a significant period in the region's history, and the government of Herzeg-Bosnia played its part in that. 22:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. War crimes convictions are notable. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support subject to the article being cleaned up per 331dot. The blurb should say "war crimes" rather than "war crime". Neljack (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - but blurb should first of all say Jadranko Prlić and it should say crimes and secondly it should not talk about Herceg-Bosna but Croatian forces in general as Croatia was found responsible for helping purge Herceg-Bosna of Bosniaks and Serbs - the verdict also said that then President of Croatia Franjo Tudjman was a key participant (although there is not enough space for that in the blurb [6] I am just adding it to sustain the claim that the blurb should be slightly altered to be more wide in tone). So I would change the blurb to this.--Avala (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Six Croatian leaders in the Bosnian War, including Jadranko Prlić, are convicted for war crimes against Bosniaks and Serbs by the ICTY
  • Comment We regularly post ICTY verdicts and this is a rather prominent case. However, the article needs some work before this can be posted. --Tone 08:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Done.--Avala (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I am wondering if we can link the acquittal of two Serbs into this somehow. The acquittals seem like they are making a larger splash than the actual convictions. NW (Talk) 14:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Cases are not related. The verdicts came in day after day but that's it. You should post a separate ITN proposal for that.--Avala (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment this is updated and could be marked ready if there were another support. I won't vote oppose, but I am not sure of the notability, so suggest others show their support if it exists. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - War crime convictions are a big deal. International story. Story should be stand-alone, in my view. Jusdafax 01:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Tone 06:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Henry MorgentalerEdit

No consensus to post, especially due to the "neutrality" tag. --Tone 08:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: A Canadian doctor who was a big pro-choice advocate. His article seems to show he was of a high enough notability to be in the recent deaths section on the main page. As of right now, there is not much information in the article about his death. Andise1 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While Morgentaler certainly had prominence, I do not believe the magnitude of said prominence warrants a place within the In the News section. DarthBotto talkcont 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Several awards during his career, received Canada's highest civilian award, some international coverage; clearly notable in Canadian politics, if not for his actual career. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Darth Botto. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the article is in terrible shape. It is written as a hagiography, the language is dramatic and assumes a very strong POV as unquestioned, dozens of specific claims lack citations, family photographs were offered as sources from a website that doesn't even mention Morgantaler himself. I have removed some unnecessary claims and tagged much that needs fixing, but only in part so far. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support subject to the concerns regarding the article being cleared up. I would say that Morgentaler was a very important figure in the field of abortion. Neljack (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support based on the level of attention this death is receiving in the news. --Jayron32 22:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Medeis is bang on the money in terms of article quality. Obvious support in terms of significance, but given the subject matter the state of the article has to be the prime consideration. —WFCFL wishlist 23:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Morgentaler's notability and importance is for practical purposes limited to Canada, and for that I think his notability does not meet the standards that have been set for ITN in the past. I'd also have to agree with the comments about the article's quality. --PlasmaTwa2 05:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
If his fame was in the US, a much more populous country, would that make a difference? OR are you saying that someone important in just one country can never make it here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why you have to bring the United States angle into this given that Canada and the United States have historically had different legal/constitutional methods of handling abortion. Are you asking me if Morgentaler would be more notable if he managed to fight for & achieve nationwide legal abortions in the United States, a country where abortion is a considerably more heated topic than it is here in Canada? If you read my comment again you will see that I never say that someone important in a single country can not make it on ITN. However, I don't believe that Morgentaler's accomplishments meet ITN's death criteria. As an activist his impact would be easier to gauge if he had more international notability (for example, if his arguments from 1988 were used internationally), but I find it hard to recognize his notability farther than I would people in other domestically notable SC cases, like Donald Marshall or Gurbaj Multani. --PlasmaTwa2 09:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I think I made it 100% clear why I brought the United States into it. I don't see why you can't understand. But getting specific, you said his "notability and importance is for practical purposes limited to Canada, and for that I think his notability does not meet the standards...". That's a pretty obvious statement that anyone who only has success in Canada, in any field, cannot qualify for ITN. Maybe you meant something different, but I commented on what you actually said. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not an obvious statement at all. I said ITN has standards and Morgentaler does not meet them, not that all domestic-only people cannot be included on ITN. And no, I don't think you are clear on why you brought in the US, because as I said it is a completely different creature than Canada. You obviously disagree, so let's leave it at that before this gets archived for derailing the conversation and we both get posts on our talk pages. --PlasmaTwa2 11:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Your understanding of the English language must be very different from mine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending the article cleanup. An important advocate who, regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the issue, changed the face of the abortion debate in Canada forever. Melicans (talk, contributions) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Single-handedly fought and successfully convinced an entire country to decriminalise abortion. Huge figure in Canada and among pro-choice groups. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Medeis, and per the maintenance tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not ITN worthy, already mentioned in recent deaths. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 19:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a recent deaths nomination. Not for ITN. – Connormah (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Honestly, if the article itself didn't suck, I'd even support for a full ITN blurb. Resolute 19:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to article quality only. To say he is not ITN worthy merely displays an ignorance of his social and historical impact. A man who was given the nation's highest civilian honour for leading the pro choice campaign for over 40 years, as polarizing and revolutionary as they come. No, the only failing here is article quality. Resolute 19:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Soyuz TMA-09MEdit

Stale item. SpencerT♦C 15:09, 4 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: Soyuz TMA-09M (talk, history)
Blurb: Soyuz TMA-09M is launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, transporting a three-person crew to the International Space Station.
News source(s): [7]

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 bit routine, but still of interest to many, myself included. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 11:40, 29 May 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 is basically an infobox in text, but what's more important is what the mission is about. Is it a resupply mission or are there experiments going to be completed? SpencerT♦C 11:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I agree with Spencer's description of the article. Please note that I fully support spaceflight's status at ITN/R, and it is because of this that I am opposing. To post an article which doesn't explain the mission's significance could well re-open the debate of whether spaceflight is too routine for ITN/R. To oppose such nominations on quality grounds is the second-best way to protect the sensible status quo (the best, admittedly, would be to improve the article, but I'm spending very little time on-wiki at the moment). —WFCFL wishlist 22:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article has been adequately updated in accordance with WFC and Spencer's concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

May 28Edit

[Reposted] Liberty ReserveEdit

Article: Liberty Reserve (talk, history)
Blurb: Digital currency service Liberty Reserve is shut down and charged with facilitating US$6 billion of illegal financial transactions.
News source(s): ABC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I wasn't planning on nominating this when I started the article, but the charges unveiled today are quite extensive. Authorities from 17 countries cooperated in what the US prosecutor is calling the "largest international money laundering case ever brought by the United States" --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support This is certainly an international story, and a big one. I'm in Melbourne, Australia, and our local city newspaper (a recognised reliable source) has this as its lead article right now. Accounts have been frozen in a major Australian bank. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per nominator's and HiLo's comments. This is big, all right. Article is quite acceptable. Jusdafax 01:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per the others. I was just coming here to check to see if this was nominated yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't it our practice to wait for convictions, rather than posting when charges are laid? Neljack (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The shut down itself is having a major impact and is big news irrespective of any convictions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This also involves an organization, not an individual so there aren't enormous BLP implications like saying X celebrity is charged with Y crime. SpencerT♦C 12:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Whoa!!! We have basically a blurb from ABC as the source for this nomination and a target article that hasn't even existed for two days yet. Posting this as if the entity were presumed criminal (which is the way the article is written) would be a gross violation of BLP. Lets get some better sources and some facts on the ground outside criminal allegations based on the fact that the US Feds think not being able to read your financial records without a warrant is a crime. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The article did, however, exist on 5 other Wikipedias. Six previous attempts to write an article on LR were speedy deleted here, mostly as G11 (advertising) which probably discouraged the recreation. [The attempts appear to have been good faith, but used second person language, e.g. "A website where you can transfer money...", which is normally a hallmark of advertising attempts.] The "company" was already notable, and has hardly obscure as evidenced, for example, by the fact it had a million users. The suggested blurb, is a statement of fact - the website is gone and LR has been charged - although you can certainly suggest different wording. The fallout of the story is now - a conviction in a year or two (or plea bargin earlier) will be a minor story at most. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • BTW, the ABC headline is "'Black Market Bank' Accused of Laundering $6B in Criminal Proceeds", quite a bit less NPOV than the suggested blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready to post when I see some more feedback. The article is good. --Tone 06:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. --LukeSurl t c 07:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, seems like a major news story. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not wishing to argue that there appears a clear consensus to post and an adequate article, but this whole nom->posting has pretty much excluded all of mainland Europe whose editors wouldn't even have been awake while this nom panned out. There are no dissenting voices, so this is merely an observation that a significant proportion of the globe couldn't have even normally contributed during this period. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with this. To me it's preferable to have quick postings where possible, we have to confer on Wikipedians on the other side of the globe a reasonable degree of trust. LukeSurl t c 18:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd be okay if it was something like the murder of Drummer Rigby or 9/11 or Fukushima or similar, this is just a legal case that will drag on for years, I think it only reasonable to allow some of the European contributors a chance to decide if they think it's newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth I'm in England, and expressed my opinion at 10:50am local time. Mainland Europe is principally 1 hour ahead of the UK and places like Greece an hour ahead of that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well the rush to post this is odd considering how long it took to post the streetside murder of an off-duty soldier in the middle of London, etc. Especially given this is just the beginning of something that may amount to nothing. Perhaps we should have a grace period of 24 hours to allow all-comers to comment before something as mundane as this is posted within a few hours of the article being created. I did look for this in my local news, and it was mentioned around about the 11th news story on the BBC. Not all that by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose (and pull) not in the news at all, and just the first step of a legal process that could last years. Plenty of people/organisations are charged with plenty of crimes, but shouldn't we be waiting until convictions take place? This is entirely unbecoming of Wikipedia to assume guilt here by virtue of posting a sensationalist story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
What a damned insulting post! Did you read my previous posts in this thread? I often despair over the quality of discussion here. This is one of those times. It IS in the news. It's international. It doesn't have to be about convictions. Grow a brain, learn logic, and acquire some manners please. I hate posts that ignore what others have posted earlier. (The alternative explanation to bad manners is incompetence. Shall I go down that path?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
"Grow a brain"? Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, what was it that led you to post as if what I had written wasn't even here? Appalling manners, or incompetence on your part? HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Enough from you here. Noted your personal attack, nothing more to say with you at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That won't make much difference. The major problem here is that you had already ignored everything I posted. That's NOT how to discuss things here. Do try reading and thinking before posting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What a ridiculous odd assertion (that is "not in the news at all"). There is testimony above that it was on the front page of The Age, for example. Google news lists 544 sources including NY Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, etc, plus reporting in French, German Chinese, Japansese, Portugese, Spanish, etc. Just because something doesn't show up as top 2 or 3 stories on your choosen news service, doesn't mean it is not in the news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Wow, are you being sponsored for this? It's Wikipedia, not life/death. Get over it and calm down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Wow, you're talking crap. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Also noted. I'll be sure to add these to the actions forthcoming. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull per TRM. The article is written from the presumption of guilt, and our sources are the untried claims of US prosecutors against a Costa-Rican business. There is no balance and the quoted sources have a conflict of interest. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The article is written according to what sources say, which is the essence of NPOV balance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I am not saying there is a POV on the part of the article's writers. I am saying that a lack of balance--do we have statements from the defense and independent sources?--amounts to implicit POV. Back when P. was arrested for the death of his girlfriend there was a corpus delicti, a plea, statements of denial, and a defense. Now we have nothing but allegations by US prosecutors. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have pulled the item pending more discussion here. -- King of ♠ 20:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • This is a really bad precedent to set. Europeans don't get "supervotes", despite TRM thinking they do. A wait period has been rejected in the past and consensus was quite clear. The "pull" !vote came from the only person who (sort of) opposed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I didn't pull it, I never said "supervote" (I actually said it would be fair to allow all nations a vote, i.e. wait 24 hours), I just said it was odd to see such a banal news story posted so quickly. We can afford to wait, probably months, when posting this kind of story. It's just accusations right now... I know you're keen to get your own articles on the main page ThaddeusB, but this really isn't an "urgent" story, not one that's really "in the news", not something we couldn't pause for, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • As usual, you resort to making things personal to try to "win" your argument. Sad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Not at all. You rushed this through. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Right because accusing me of being paid to write the article, accusing me of being so stupid as to think you pulled it, telling me to "calm down", and in general of accusing me of bad faith actions is not personal in the slightest. No idea how I rushed this through. All I did is write an article and nominate it. Geez. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
              • When I said sponsored, it was meant that your sudden vitriolic response to this being pulled as a poor story (not a poor article, just a poor story) was so extreme it was as if your life depended on it. I agree, my wording on claiming you rushed it through was entirely incorrect and inappropriate, and I apologise wholesale and without reservation, that "rushing" was down to Tone who posted it. Sorry for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think not having this on the front page is a big enough loss to worry too much - I'd say it's borderline as a story anyway and BLP concerns could be a valid reason to tip the needle. However, WELLKNOWN applies here. There's story of real public interest which BLP does not negate. We regularly post stories about crimes or alleged crimes before there are any convictions (e.g. the recent Woolwich Barracks murder). Formerip (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Well the Woolwich Barracks crime is a technicality since we all saw it on our television screens. This is entirely different, it's an allegation of fraud, it's nothing like the fundamentalist (alleged/videoed) murder of an off-duty soldier with knives, revolvers and cleavers. And this is hardly "well known" where I am, it's a mere blip, below France's first gay marriage, Chinese pipe baby and "German doctors remove pencil from man's head".... etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the classic "business crimes don't hurt anybody" bullshit. And completely wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Watch your language please HiLo48 - that's offensive. It can be frustrating when people do not see your point of view (or fail to acknowledge a contribution as you've noted above) but resorting to foul language is not the answer (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
And that highlights much that is wrong about this page. None of this was about people disagreeing with me. You care more about the words being what you regard as nice, than you do about idiotic, insulting posts and incompetent argument. You can see my User page for more of my thoughts on this. If you really cared about Wikipedia, you would be condemning those whose manners are consistently rude in ways other than using words you regard as offensive. But no, one naughty word is the only thing that you see wrong here. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I should probably have pipelinked, but WP:WELLKNOWN isn't about profile, it's about the distinction between promulgating rumour or POV and reporting facts. To look at it a slightly different way, ITN has no higher burden in terms of BLP than WP generally. If it is OK for us to have the article and there are no clear BLP violations in it, then it is OK for us to post the story. Not just on balance, but in the sense that BLP doesn't actually kick in. BTW, why has no-one nominated the pencil story? Formerip (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that, HiLo. It has been alleged that certain frauds were perpetrated using this business as a conduit for the transfer. It is further alleged by US Federal Prosecutors out to make a case and seize some assets under the Patriot Act (terrorism?) that it is an "unlicensed" business and that the principals themselves are criminals. And the article was written taking that latter viewpoint as given. I am only a weak oppose or neutral on the seizure as a story, but a strong oppose on the article and whether it has quality neutral commentary behind it. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the article could do with some improvement. So could the quality of discussion here. It would be nice if some editors could at least acknowledge what others have written, rather than writing as if what those other editors had said wasn't even there. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you (Medeis) know of any sources that can used to improve the article, please provide them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I read three aggregators and one major portal regularly, and I haven't even come across this story (not even at realclearpolitics or realclearmarkets) except here, which argues for it's not being so major. The ABC story was obviously quoting a federal prosecutor press release. Looking for sources at google news finds plenty, basically saying that the feds have seized a Costa-Rican citizen in Spain and frozen his assets using the US Patriot Act meant to fight terrorists. A Bloomberg blog suggests bitcoin might be next. But we do not have the side of the defendant. This is news, but its not news we can report now properly given our resources and policies. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Bad Pull - Consensus was established, and now we get a pull and resulting controversy, which is not what the ITN community needs. Put it back and move on. Jusdafax 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    We should err on the side of safety when WP:BLPCRIME is concerned, which is why I felt two comments in favor of pulling constituted high enough risk to do so. -- King of ♠ 21:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Jusdafax, sorry but what a load of guff! We have no more than six people here trying to decide what does and what doesn't go onto the ITN section of Wikipedia. SIX people deciding on what goes on the home page of the third-most-popular website in the world. We should always work on the side of caution, and it's nothing to do with "what the ITN community needs", that's secondary to what we publish on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Most stories get six or less comments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There's only about 20 of us here --LukeSurl t c 21:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I know all that, and you're all marvellous. I just think it's odd we can get a posting of this within 10 hours, while the "off-duty-soldier-hacked-to-death-on-the-street" story went a day or too longer. Perhaps it's just my emotions getting the better of me, but that crime actually happened, while this "crime" is purely in the hands of lawyers and may not be true/resolve itself for years. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The consensus on the soldier story was not immediately clear due to a fair amount of opposition. If this story had more opposition I'm sure it would not have been posted quickly either. (And yes, this too is a real crime even if you think allowing the transfer of funds obtained through illegal activities is no big deal.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • How about we shorten the blurb to "Digital currency service Liberty Reserve is shut down". No mention of allegations. --LukeSurl t c 21:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, because the target article is not balanced. That may not be our fault since the principal was seized in Spain and the feds, his lawyers (assuming he's being allowed defense), and the media aren't talking. Not to sound trite, but this might be a great DYK nom, given we will hopefully hear more during the nom process for that forum. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Since it was posted, it is ineligible for DYK. Silly, I know, but that's their rule. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally I wouldn't class the article as NPOV. It's well-referenced and sure, it doesn't contain the "case for the defence", but until that is made in public statements the article as it stands is a fair reflection of the current state of affairs. LukeSurl t c 22:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • We maintain the position that our articles are encyclopedic in nature, not sensational. That holds us to a higher standard than just someone published something This is not the sort of breaking news that we need to rush up on the front page when the article is obviously unbalanced. If the article is significantly improved tomorrow and we have facts on the table we can reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I think the big news is that the service has been shut down, rather than a crime has or has not occurred. Article seems to adequately cover this. --LukeSurl t c 22:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Can someone enumerate what this article does not contain such that it is NPOV? To me it seems an adequate discussion of all the encyclopaedic information in reliable sources about the subject. --LukeSurl t c 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • A statement from the defendant or his lawyers, or a statement that the press was unable to determine who was representing him, or to get a statement? Comment by any notable authority on the seizure other than the Manhattan Federal Prosecutor's office? Read the article. until I just separated it out there wasn't even a section on the seizure and arrests, and what has been written there is still unclear and an obvious fail on the five sentence update rule. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The 2013 seizure section is over five sentences now. I agree a statement from the defence should be part of the article when one is published, but I content your assertion that the article is NPOV for not including an as-yet non-existent statement. It would be nice to have a "as of May 29 there has been no statement from the defence", but proving (and citing) such a negative is a lot harder than proving a positive. I'll see if any reliable sources have made such a claim. --LukeSurl t c 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Re-post I saw this discussion yesterday but chose not to comment. I think it should be re-added now because it never should've been taken down. The essential argument was that 'we Europeans didn't get to discuss this item.' Since when do they get a supervote? Imagine if Americans had tried to pull this same stunt. Also, it was nominated for nearly 11 hours before being posted, which is plenty of time. And anyone familar with ITN, which the pulling admin clearly isn't, would know that HiLo48 (one of the original supporters) is definitely not someone with a pro-U.S. bias. Hot Stop 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general principle of not needing to wait for other continents, even if the story relates specifically to the US. But in the very specific instance of the sigificance and accuracy of a story being largely based on the word of US authorities, it's a sensible thing to do. That said... —WFCFL wishlist 23:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (continued from above)... I Support, after the recent cleanup by Luke and Medeis. Further NPOV work is clearly needed, but reading through the article I am easily able to distinguish fact, from allegation, from opinion. Non-neutral opinions are clearly attributed to the people who have given them. Statements which need further work are clearly marked as such. The knock-on effects of the closure are explored in the aftermath section, and that will obviously expand as the situation develops. And this is unquestionably a huge story.

    Finally, I think the pull was a legitimate one. Whether it was "right" or "wrong" will largely depend on your POV, but King of Hearts gave a valid reason for his actions. This will probably be re-posted, not because of the dead horse that is the US-Europe wikiwar, but because of the efforts of Luke and Medeis to improve the article. —WFCFL wishlist 23:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) OK, I've done some edits. The content of the article that relates to the May 2013 events is well sourced, and is representative of how news media have covered this story. As such I do not consider it POV - adding considerable text for a defence of Liberty Reserve at the current time would be WP:FRINGE, you'd only get that in minor blogs, not major news outlets. I agree a defence lawyer statement should be added to the article when one is published, but the article reflects the current situation, as reported by reliable sources, well and is adequate to post. LukeSurl t c 23:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that comment above Hot Stop. I try very hard to not apply a pro-anybody bias here, nor an anti-anybody one either. (Although we all do have our biases.) Many who have posted later in the thread should perhaps have another(?) look at my earlier posts. I pointed out that this was definitely a big story, with news services across the globe covering it, and that the big issue was that the service had been shut down, with bank accounts frozen in non-American banks as far away as Australia. Unfortunately, some later posters have tried to say that it's not in the news (which is a really dumb thing to say) and tried to put all the emphasis on future legal matters. I cannot understand why. This is big now. And we don't need to make any guesses about the outcome of legal proceedings to post it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready to repost. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I disagree this is ready. We don't even have a notion where he is being held, whether his defense has made a statement, or if he even has a defense. Every single statement and quote in the May 2013 section of the article issues directly from the prosecutor, Preet Bharara. The $45 million dollar scheme is attributed to two Dutchmen arrested by German authorities--we have only Bharara' allegation that Liberty's involvement with that scheme was criminal as opposed to incidental, not any other source's. This entire section amounts to "Preet Bharara" says. That is the essence of POV. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Your opposition is noted an attempts to improve the article are appreciated. However, the consensus is that there is sufficient information available to warrant posting. You are also mistaken - at least a quarter of the info comes from Costa Rican authorities, not Bharara. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Medeis has tagged the article as non-neutral (despite the numerous comments by others here saying they think it is neutral) so a third party will need to assess the article for neutrality before it can be posted. Medeis' concerns have been addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Pulled. In my opinion, this story is of limited interest unless one is a criminal in need of a money-laundering service. It is not a Bernie Madoff type fraud. Also, it seems to me that if an item attracts a lot of calls for it to be pulled after posting, pulling is the best option. Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No such thing occurred on this item. It attracted one "pull" before it was pulled on the reasoning the Europeans did not have a chance to vote and one person reiterating their existing opposition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Pulled If this was something like one of the major worldwide banks with real currency being charged, this would have significant market ripples, and it would be appropriate. But this is just digital currency that is going to have near-zero effect on the world at large, and really is about being a criminal case. Wait until the usual point for major criminal cases (generally either declared not guilty or sentence is passed). --MASEM (t) 03:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Re-Post I always felt that this story was newsworthy and the article looks pretty good to me. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the largest company of its kind in the digital currency market that has been taken down. I feel the story from the point of view that its an internet-age business it what makes it stand out from regular company x does something bad type stories. CaptRik (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Huh, that was some development I missed! Sure, consensus can change. The way things stand at the moment, as long as there's the oragne tag at the top, the article should not get back on the Main page. --Tone 08:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Can, but didn't. The pull was clearly a mistake. Irregardless of the item's merits, pulling (at the time it was done) basically amounted to giving TRM and/or the pulling admin a supervote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, TRM voted ""post-posting oppose" followed by Medeis voting "Pull per TRM" followed by King of Hearts pulling the article followed (some time later) by TRM's clarification that he agreed with the pull. So please try not to mischaracterise the situation, if anyone's comments were interpreted as a supervote, it was Medeis'. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Does anyone apart from Medeis agree with the NPOV tag? Medeis' position, discussed here and at Talk:Liberty_Reserve is that the article must remain tagged until new information is produced by WP:RS. Thaddeus and I contest that an article that reflects the range of RS available is as neutral as we can hope for. Can someone please arbitrate on this? As far as I can tell Medeis is the only editor to have such objections. --LukeSurl t c 10:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There's two of you and one of him, so just edit-war the tag out. Formerip (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not a really helpful suggestion. My thanks to the admins for their restraint. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't really meant with the full force of seriousness. Formerip (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You are kind of, but not really, forgiven. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hot stop also removed the tag, so 3:1. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
OK... Medeis added the tag again. I've removed it. It seems dumb to just WP:3RR-this one, but Medeis has clearly stated there's no change to the article (given the current range of reporting in RS) that would satisfy him, therefore there's nothing much else that can be done. For what it's worth, Medeis' scrutiny and the work to attempt to satisfy this has made this into a rather robust article. LukeSurl t c 16:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support reposting We've got a sufficient update to say where he is, who's holding him, under what circumstances, etc. At this point we can assume his representation would have made a statement had they wished to. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This thread's a bit long, and confusing, but I count (I hope I am accurate) some eight supports or new votes for reposting, and three opposes. I suggested Thaddeus repost, not realizing it's his nomination. I think another admin should assess the situation and act. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Reconfirming my support from before the pull. I don't have tome to read all of the above in detail, but European editors active in their morning had opportunity to comment and the only one to do so (me) supported it so I really don't understand why that was an issue, let alone one worth pulling a posted story? Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Else? It's kind of odd this is still sitting here, is there some reason it shouldn't be reposted at this point? μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
":Bueller? Hot Stop 02:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As if I would Win Ben Stein's Money for this. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

May 27Edit

[Closed] Valeant PharmaceuticalsEdit

there does not seem to be consensus to post. Compelling arguments are made regarding the low level of media interest in this story, as the only support which cited news coverage called that coverage "underwhelming" and several opposes noted their own difficulty in digging up evidence that this was being covered in sufficient depth. --Jayron32 18:58, 2 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: Valeant Pharmaceuticals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Canadian drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals announces it will purchase Bausch & Lomb for US$8.7 billion.
Alternative blurb: Montreal-based Valeant Pharmaceuticals announces it will purchase eye care company Bausch & Lomb for US$8.7 billion.
News source(s): (Washington Post)

Article updated
Nominator's comments: We rarely carry business stories of any kind, and when we do it is usually related to crime. Business deals of this scale only happen a few times a year (less than 10) and this particular one also happens to be international. Thus, this is a perfect time to improve our diversity by featuring a major business story for a change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support. After reading this article it seems like a rather underwhelming business story.--Chaser (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator's comment. Jusdafax 05:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment While I'm in favour of including more business-related stories, the article here is very short and the update is one-sentence long. At least, I'd expect a longer article. --Tone 10:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on the blurb: to me the term 'drugmaker' implies someone who makes illegal drugs in a makeshift laboratory. Presumably you actually mean 'pharmaceutical company'? No opinion on the merits of the story. Modest Genius talk 14:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Support per nom. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose we do not usually post mergers or roll-outs and unless this means there will be some dramatic consequence, like a major product leaving the market, it doesn't meet muster. μηδείς (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: What did we do for the American Airlines / US Airways merger? NW (Talk) 19:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It was decided to "wait and see" since the press was saying there was a significant chance the deal would be rejected by regulators. It was later approved without fan fare and was not renominated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I did not support its passing if that is what is being asked. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update --IP98 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated - article has now been significantly updated. A fair amount has also been added on the company's finances and business strategy as well. Obviously some more info on the company's past wouldn't hurt, but it should meet minimum ITN standards as is. I believe it has consensus to post and have suggested an altburb per Modest Genius' concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can sort of see the point that corporate news often gets neglected, but this doesn't seem to be getting much coverage. at the moment, we have News International splitting in two, an insider trading guilty plea from KPMG, something called Smithfield being taken over by something called Shuanghui. Why should this particular story be rescued from obscurity? Formerip (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It was the 2nd or 3rd business story on several sites at the time it was nominated. Like most stories (including most we post), it only stayed at the top of the news for ~24 hours. If you see significance in any of the mentioned stories, feel free to nominate them. (I personally am planning on nominating Smithfield after I've had a chance to write the update) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose sorry, announcing something is very different from it actually happening, we wouldn't want egg on Wikipedia's face when this (as many other massive deals) fail to transpire. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There is (essentially) no regulatory hurdle here. The announcement is what gets the news. If we refuse to post on teh announcement, we will never post a business acquisition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: if there are remaining complaints about the article quality, please let me know. Otherwise there is probably a weak consensus to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, no comments in 24h, so I'm going to assume the article quality is fine. We probably won't get any no comments on the item's merits. That means we have we have 6 support (1 weak) plus tone's comment saying he could potentially support after an update and 3 opposes. I'd think that at least warrants a consensus review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It hit the Canadian news tickers but didn't get much more of a mention here. Valeant is making increasingly notable acquisitions however, so that's not to say they won't be more notable later on. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:48, 2 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] Robbie RogersEdit

No consensus to post. Closing, before this turns into another heated debate. --Tone 10:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Robbie Rogers (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Appearing for the Los Angeles Galaxy, soccer player Robbie Rogers becomes the first openly gay male to play in a top U.S. professional sports league.
News source(s): [8] [9]

Article updated
 howcheng {chat} 01:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the NBA player who came out a few weeks ago was posted. That was (arguably) an important milestone. Being the first to play a game after coming out is a technicality, not a sgnificant "next step". Additionally, MLS is quite a few steps below the "big 4" US sports leagues in popularity as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ThaddeusB. Neljack (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ThaddeusB; we already hit the important milestone. 331dot (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see an important one myself. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose on principle as opposing all "first gay X" nominations, regardless of most Americans' contempt for soccer. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary.--Chaser (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (1) We already had - wrongly IMHO - the first major league US sportsman to come out, so it's not clear what the significance of this story is; (2) With the best will in the world, a US men's soccer league is only 'top' in relation to itself; (3) The life and death of Justin Fashanu should be a reminder that, alas, being the first out gay man in such an area does not necessarily set any kind of progressive precedent. I like LGBT-related stories - can we go back to stories which affect more than one LGBT person at once, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per ThaddeusB and Alex. --LukeSurl t c 09:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Bombings in IraqEdit

Article: May 2013 Iraq attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Over 50 are killed in car bombings in Bagdad.
News source(s): NY Times BBC

Article updated

 --Chaser (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Are these recent events going to be written about in May 2013 Iraq attacks or are they to be addressed in a new article? A blurb regarding previous pan-Iraq violence this month was posted. --LukeSurl t c 23:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is written about, it should be a new article. The 5 days of attacks in the existing article are connected (in the eyes of the media). These are not. If necessary, the old article can be renamed "15-20 May 2013 Iraq attacks", but the latest attacks definitely shouldn't be added to that article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I hadn't really thought about this when I nominated it, but I agree about a new article.--Chaser (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I mentioned in the last nomination that this has quite unfortunately become as routine as weather reporting and in need of a sticky. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Yesterday's attacks were out of the ordinary, even for such an afflicted part of the world. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per AlexTiefling. Neljack (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There are no updates in the article, it describes the event up to 20 May. Fix this first. --Tone 10:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A car bomb killing 50 is news no matter where. Thue (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 27 May 2013 Baghdad bombings has been created. It is quite extensive. --LukeSurl t c 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • However the pertinent parts rely mostly on a single source, [10]. Considering the site is called "" I'm not sure it's gernally a preffered source. This particular report is more factual than opinion-led however. --LukeSurl t c 12:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

May 26Edit

[Posted] Vincenzo Nibali wins the 2013 Giro d'ItaliaEdit

Articles: Vincenzo Nibali (talk, history) and 2013 Giro d'Italia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In road cycling, Vincenzo Nibali (pictured) of Italy wins the Giro d'Italia.
News source(s): (BBC)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Notable sports event, article updated by several editors --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. There doesn't appear to be any prose update except for a mention in the lead. Formerip (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. While I agree that the Tour de France (an ITNR item) is more notable, this is sufficiently notable. I know there are some editors think we post to much sport as is, but at its basis ITN's purpose is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." The "disproportionate" amount of sports stories is caused simply by many sports stories fulfilling our basic criteria. (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's also because of the time of year. There's much less sport in the (northern hemisphere) winter. --LukeSurl t c 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support notability wise. I think raod cycling is major enough for its secondary event to be covered here at ITN. --LukeSurl t c 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Should be on ITN/R as it is one of the three Grand Tours races.
  • Comment though I can't possibly understand why we would need three European cycling events (only the Tour de France is universally known), I guess I just don't get it. Regardless, the bold article is not updated for 2013 Giro d'Italia. --IP98 (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • European in geography, global in competitors and coverage. In the same way the US Opens (golf or tennis) are American, but at the same time global. Valid point about the update though. (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, while first place this time went an Italian, 2nd and 3rd placings went to a Colombian and an Australian. Can't cover the globe much better than that! HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've switched the bold to Giro d'Italia instead of Vincenzo Nibali as per normal style. --LukeSurl t c 07:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The second part should be irrelevant, in my opinion. Why should the posting of motorsport, cricket and football affect a cycling item? (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and marked ready. Since no one else was bothering to date the 2013 Giro d'Italia article, I went ahead and did it myself. It should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Indianapolis 500Edit

Article: 2013 Indianapolis 500 (talk, history)
Blurb: Tony Kanaan wins the 97th annual Indianapolis 500.
News source(s): New York Times, USA Today, CNN,

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: The article is pretty detailed so I would say it is updated in my opinion. Also, this event is ITN/R so as long as it is updated it should be ready for posting. Andise1 (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This was nominated by User:Truthsort at the same time; I removed that duplicate nomination. SpencerT♦C 22:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. The update is located at 2013_Indianapolis_500#Race_summary. I'm still working on finishing this up so it will be ready soon, hopefully. Also, in previous years the Indy 500 item has been merged with the Monaco GP item. SpencerT♦C 22:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready this is well updated, hence ready per "policy". μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; Per Medeis, this article is (sort of) "ready" but wow, what a disgrace of an article we're technically agreeing to posting. Grotesque colour schemes throughout, MOS violations throughout, easter egg links all over the shop, several unreferenced sections (which I would usually tag as {{ref improve section}} but daren't here any longer, three dab links.... the list goes on.... Do we really want to post this kind of under-referenced amateur writing? (I'm guessing the answer will be yes). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I added lots of references and the links you tagged were disambiguated. I'm going to check the rest of the links to see if anything else needs to be disambiguated as well. SpencerT♦C 03:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update the colors are the team colors, so they actually make sense. I think it's ok to have exceptions to guidelines. Refimproves were needed, thanks TRM, hopefully they get fixed. Oppose merge with Monaco, 300 laps around an oval at 200+ MPH, just feet away from the car in front of you is much more interesting to us Americans than the gas - break - gas around the hotel routine that we call commuting. (besides, both races are important and should stand alone) --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow the sport or care whether this article is posted or not, although I am a little surprised to see TRM objecting to the color scheme as a reason not to post. I looked at the update and the lack of tags when saying this was ready in good faith. I do, in all sincerity, suggest that TRM (or whoever likes) tag the article to their heart's content, I am sure it can use the attention. And, frankly, I oppose ITNR as such, so delaying this won't bother me personally in the least. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I noted the colour scheme because I tend to take into account WP:ACCESS when looking at articles as well, so to take into consideration people who may have difficulty reading text which has particular background/font colour combinations. Of course that's not part of ITN criteria, it was just something I thought that could be improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No. The fans of each tend to be contemptuous of the other event. They have little in common. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I say support for that, disregard the contempt if we have to and who cares if they have little in common, at the end of the day, its auto racing, you take it or leave it. Donnie Park (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support both -- King of ♠ 07:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting the combined blurb. --Tone 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb in case that becomes an issue. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, me too. Some good work done on the updates too. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Cannes Film FestivalEdit

Articles: 2013 Cannes Film Festival (talk, history) and Blue Is the Warmest Colour (talk, history)
Blurb: ​French film Blue Is the Warmest Colour wins the Palme d'Or at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival.
Alternative blurb: Blue Is the Warmest Colour, directed by Abdellatif Kechiche, wins the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.
News source(s): USA Today

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.

 --JuneGloom Talk 18:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose There is no prose update in the article apart from what is already said in the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added some prose to the awards section: 2013 Cannes Film Festival#Awards. - JuneGloom Talk 18:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major film festival, and the film itself is very important both in quality and context. Hektor (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Top prize at the biggest film festival in the calendar and per WP:ITN/R. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the reception section of Blue Is the Warmest Colour is fine. The article lacks a plot summary. Does it need one? Considering the film hasn't been released, I don't see how one can be written. 2013 Cannes Film Festival is also ok. There is a wall of lists that's hard to avoid, but the awards section has a prose update. Cannes is probably the biggest of the big four of film festivals. No mention of the jewl heists. Meh on that. --IP98 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The most important film festival in the year is, of course, significant enough for ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely ITN/R, so all the "top prize, important festival" stuff above is irrelevant really. We're just here to examine the update, which is limited, but ok. I'd imagine a movie featuring " explicit [lesbian] sex scenes" would elicit some kind of reaction, so it'd be useful to see some commentary on that in the article before we post just a bunch of lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That update is in the films individual article. --IP98 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Monaco GPEdit

Article: 2013 Monaco Grand Prix (talk, history)
Blurb: Nico Rosberg won the 2013 Monaco Grand Prix.
Alternative blurb: Nico Rosberg won the 2013 Monaco Grand Prix, thirty years after Keke Rosberg, his father.

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: added proper template --IP98 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Monaco Grand Prix is an ITNR item. Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Insufficient update. There is no prose update on the race. ITNR is no defense against premature nomination. Please do not nominate items if there is no update. Also, it's the middle of the night in Australia. --hydrox (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Funny, UEFA went up with a single sourced update in the middle of the night here in America... *shrugs* always in the middle of the night somewhere. --IP98 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
For once, I agree with you. I'd like there to be a prose update, and I'd like there to be two or more sources. But it's not the end of the world if not, if the source that is used is sufficiently solid. And yes, it's the middle of the night somewhere. So what? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
2013 IIHF World Championship Final went up in the middle of the night here in the middle of Europe. *shrugs*. As IP98 and Alex say, (and I paraphrase) what does that have to do with anything? Are we supposed to now wait 24 hours before posting something so all those sleeping Wikipedians get a chance to say stuff? Mind you, with the mis-postings and erroneous blurbs, that may not be such a bad idea (although nominating things a day or two in advance puts pay to that too...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talkcontribs) 19:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It's funny how your standards seem to shift from one weekend to other. Last weekend it was deemed an instance of karma whoring to nominate the IIHF final shortly before the game had started, but now you are suggesting that nominating items "a day or two in advance" would be a good practice so that all parties have time to comment. Though, considering that one of your arguments against the IIHF final being posted last weekend was that it was the middle of night for you, I can kind of understand. Then again, we can surely agree that there's little point in opposing news items before they have actually happened, right? --hydrox (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
The point is there's nothing in the instructions that prevented the IIHF article being listed while we all slept. As I was writing that, I considered that it might have been a useful discussion to add an arbitrary delay to posting any news candidates (so all your sleepyheads can get a word in), but then that's a discussion for another venue. Also, I'm not sure I ever used the term "karma whoring". If I did then I'd be very pleased with myself as that's a splendid turn of phrase. As for opposing news items before they have happened, there's little point nominating them before they have happened, surely we can agree on that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought the mandatory wait was proposed and opposed before, but I can't find the discussion. --IP98 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment there is definitely a prose update but it is a wall of text which needs to be considered for MOS and wikilinks etc. An additional ref or two wouldn't be so bad (and reactions), but it's in half-decent shape, I'd support if these minor issues are put to bed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending corrections per The Rambling Man, but also suggest waiting to combine with an update for the Indy 500, another leg of the Triple Crown completed today that is also an ITNR event. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree combining them would be a good idea. I mentioned it in the Indy 500 nom above, and just noticed that you had already suggested it down here as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is only enough room for one Triple Crown race, plus in term of prestige, IMO, this race I'd say is no bigger than the Indy 500 and never will be for the reason I feel that nowadays, this race is treated no differently to any others in the calendar such as Bahrain, Korea, Abu Dhabi and Singapore and so what if it is an ITN/R event, so I cant see what is prestigious about it anymore. Donnie Park (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Uh-oh. You can technically only oppose this on update grounds (which is fair enough). It's ITN/R, (as you've noted), so the only way to oppose it on super-notability grounds is to seek it's removal from the ITN/R list. Which is here, not here. Ouch. [For what it's worth, the Monaco GP around the harbour, below the hotel, around the swimming pool, past the casino, is far more interesting to Europeans than the "do 300 laps of a oval" Indy 500. But that's clearly just my opinion.] The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I am willing to combine both racing events in one blurb, as was suggested above. However, please first get rid of the orange tag in the race summary section in Monaco GP article. --Tone 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Combine with Indy 500. Seems efficient. --LukeSurl t c 11:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've done a bit of work. Should be ready now. --LukeSurl t c 14:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Combined blurb posted. I've removed second-to-last item because the last has the image attached. But we can add a new image now. --Tone 14:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Indian Premier LeagueEdit

Article: 2013 Indian Premier League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Twenty20 cricket, Mumbai Indians defeat Chennai Super Kings to win the 2013 Indian Premier League.
News source(s): IBN Live, NDTV

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: An ITN/R candidate. --Amartyabag TALK2ME 18:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It has been updated now. Amartyabag TALK2ME 18:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose nice update, but the article needs substantial sourcing, e.g. the final is completely unreferenced. I'd be happy to support if some refs could be added (and there's a copyedit of the prose which is a little ..... weak). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but suggest that the corruption scandal that has overshadowed the final should also be mentioned - see [12] Perhaps we could add at the end of the blurb: "as a corruption scandal results in several players and officials from the League being arrested" - or something like that. Neljack (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated (three nice paragraphs) hence Ready per "policy". I see no problem with sources--if TRM disagrees per his above comment he should tag what he wants better supported. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • As you will, there's nothing at all referencing the final, which, after all, is the gist of this ITN. So I've tagged the section per your request Medeis. I've also removed the [ready] tag as I feel that a four paras of prose without a single in-line reference is not quite what we had in mind when the community asked for a suitable update pre-posting news articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
strong support itnr and what a eweekend...Bayern and bad for the liver..;0)Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support but agree with Neljack that it should have something about the corruption scandal in it too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as technically ready, and I believe TRM's concerns have been met. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready --remarked as is updated, supported and tagless. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

May 25Edit

[Stale] Recent Deaths: T.M. SoundararajanEdit

Stale. King of ♠ 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: From his article and the news sources, he seemed to be a very well known play back singer. His singing was mainly used in the Tamil film industry, which is why a lot of the sources are news sources from India. His career had spanned over sixty years. Andise1 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: if "Awards and honours" section can be verified (it's unreferenced), he should qualify for RD. However, to me, it sound like many/most of these things aren't meaningful awards but are cruft to make him sound really important. The article in general suffers form the same problem (i.e. lots of puffery). Also, the orange tag requesting more citations needs addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. Reading the article, he seems to have had an extensive and recognized career, and not just in India- but I agree with Thaddeus that some verification is needed. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Support in principle. Regards, theTigerKing  16:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it stands, the awards section is neither credible nor sourced. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2013 Maoist attack in SukmaEdit

Article: 2013 Maoist attack in Sukma (talk, history)
Blurb: An attack by suspected Communist Party of India (Maoist) rebels kills at least 27 people, including Salwa Judum founder Mahendra Karma, in Chhattisgarh, India.
Alternative blurb: An attack on a convoy of Indian National Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh, India, kills at least 27 people, including former state minister Mahendra Karma.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Unusually large attack for India --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support subject to cleaning up Big attack on a political rally; victims include several politicians. Perhaps it would be worth noting that it was an attack on an Indian National Congress rally? Also I'm not sure about saying "suspected Maoist rebels". If they haven't claimed responsibility and there aren't reliable sources saying they are responsible, then we probably shouldn't mention them in the blurb. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is in a good shape. According to the sources, the group responsible were Naxalite insurgents, while the link to the Maoist rebels actually points to the article about the group in Nepal. Willing to post when I see some more feedback. --Tone 06:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Large attack on a political rally for political reasons is notable. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when article ready--front page news in the US. μηδείς (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy to be in ITNRegards, theTigerKing  16:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment article is in better shape now. There is too much info to pack it all into one blurb, but I have added an altblurb that I slightly prefer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Altblurb I'd suggest the even more concise "A Maoist attack on Indian National Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh, India, kills at least 27 people". μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready The article could use a slightly expanded lead, and there are many sentences such as "Leaders of Indian National Congress had been carrying out Parivartan Yatra (Change Rally) in the state" which are not written in good idiomatic style. But the references seem sufficient and there's no opposition here, so getting this posted should get more eyes on the article. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment something broke in the attack section. adjacent Andhra Pradesh. .[5] Almost all the senior state party leaders former Union Minister Vidya Charan Shukla, former state minister Mahendra Karma, Nand Kumar Patel, MLA from Rajnandgaon Uday Mudaliyar and prominent woman tribal leader Phulo Devi Netam from Bastar. Two periods before ref 5 and a half sentence. Not really sure whats up with that --IP98 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have added a verb and removed the xtra period, as well as making other changes toward idiomatic English. 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Thaddeus alt-blurb, NPOV. --IP98 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A properly referenced article and news worthy article due to the number of casualties and persons involved. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. I've used Medeis' shorter blurb suggestion because there were two notable politicians killed in the attack - I didn't want to prioritize one over the other, and I thought mentioning both would make it overly long. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[CLosed] Rally against genetic modificationEdit

No consensus to post. King of ♠ 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Monsanto (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Million of people across 36 countries protest against genetically modified seeds produced by Monsanto.
News source(s): The Guardian USA Today

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I personally have never heard of a rally of this scale (in terms of geographic scope) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Occupy protests? HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said occurring on a single day. Many political causes have had rallies in many countries over time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - To be able to support I need an honest-to-God article, not just two sentences (as of this posting) in the Monsanto article. If it's worth doing, it is worth doing well! 01:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Jusdafax
    • Of course two sentences is not adequate, but, to clarify, do you think the topic should have a stand-alone article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe wait ...or find some better sources. Only one of those sources gives numbers, and that's an "Organizers say..." figure. We probably need better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. In USA Today, it says "Organizers say two million people joined the protests", but police reports seem to mention merely thousands. I didn't found any numbers in the The Guardian article. It's relatively easy to get "joins" of members from a huge amount of countries and cities on a Facebook page, so I think we need more independent sources here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think it merits inclusion in the Monsanto article, it's too inconsequential compared to other opposition to the company. Narayanese (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we have a well sourced article with a reliable source for these millions of protesters in all these countries, not a claim in a press release. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If this item is to be considered, it needs a separate article. At the moment, the section in the Monsanto article has been removed. There has been considerable media attention, thus it should not be too hard to find some sources. --Tone 06:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support for now Wow. (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a one-liner buried in the body of this article. Not really notable for the frontpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm normally pretty happy with a variety of different items on ITN, and a high turnover of posts. But not at all sure this is notable, and we certainly shouldn't be posting unless there is independent sources regarding the size of the protests "after" they've occurred. Also not sure about the blurb – "protest against genetically modified seeds produced by Monsanto" – protesting against the seeds? Are they protesting against the company or against the idea of GMO food? I'm open to changing my mind on this, but as it is, I'm not at all convinced it should be posted. - Shudde talk 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Stale] RD: Haynes JohnsonEdit

Stale. King of ♠ 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Haynes Johnson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Los Angeles Times The Washington Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Not only a widely respected Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for his work on 1960's civil rights battles in Selma, Alabama, Johnson also was a prolific author and a regular television news commentator. Article could use more updating but is at the acceptable minimum. (Note: I have now added additional material to the 'Death' section.) Jusdafax 23:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Major and influential author and commentator. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per HiLo. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's notable, that's why he has an article. "Influential" (as in influenced the way journalism was done, or his peers) or top of his field is extreme exaggeration. Let's see, for example, a quote from a major figure now saying Haynes Johnson was the reason he got in the business. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless further evidence is provided establishing that he was "widely regarded as a very important figure" in the field of journalism. He certainly seems to have had a distinguished career, but that is different to actually establishing how influential he was. Those rather vague tribute quotes cited by Jusdafax don't really qualify, in my judgment. Neljack (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Appears to be very influential in the field of journalism, so he'd certainly fit the bill for RD.--Giants27(T|C) 19:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"Influential" means influence. Not "respected". We have not a single reference saying his style influenced anyone. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that you are picking on one word HiLo used and driving it into the ground. The David Axelrod quote above does not use your arbitrarily required word, but it is in the spirit of your request. If you intend to hound each Support on those grounds, your comments carry little weight. Jusdafax 22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
David Axelrod is a political hack. Taking his comment as notable here would be no different from taking Karl Rove's, which I would also strongly object to. Please don't blame me for saying he is not influential when indeed he is not influential and claiming he is influential meets an ITN requirement. Instead, just provide a notable journalist saying he was indeed influential. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - sufficiently notable for posting (IMO) and the update is solid. The lead could be expanded, but that is not sufficient reason to oppose on article quality grounds. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] UEFA Champions League 2013Edit

Article: 2013 UEFA Champions League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: Bayern Munich defeat Borussia Dortmund to win their 5th UEFA Champions League title.
News source(s): UEFA, Guardian

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: Obvious per WP:ITN/R. --King of ♠ 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Question What's the UCL in the title of this proposal? It doesn't crack a mention anywhere else. Is it an abbreviation of an abbreviation? A little consistency and clarity here would help non-aficionados understand. This is a global encyclopaedia, not the sports pages of a parochial newspaper. We must write for all readers, including people who aren't already fans. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • UCL will be UEFA Champions League. It doesn't appear anywhere in the blurb so it is irrelevant for determining whether to post this or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Possibly, but somebody else thought differently (see below - thanks Alex), and you ignored most of my post anyway. (I often find that if I make more than one point in a post, much of my post is ignored. Sad.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm no football fan, but this is the top club championship in Europe so is rightly on ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The highest level of all (though not the only significant one) for club-level football in Europe. Per HiLo, I've fixed the title. UCL means something quite different around here. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - we need some text (game description) of the game itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I added some basic game summary, posting now. Further improvements are welcome, of course. --Tone 06:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

[Stale] Alfonso PortilloEdit

Not updated in several days. King of ♠ 21:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Alfonso Portillo (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former President of Guatemala Alfonso Portillo is extradited to the United States for money laundering charges.
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Article needs updating
 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now This seems to be related to the drama with Montt, and looks a lot more political than anything else. (The article has tons of unsourced allegations.) μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A country surrendering one of its former heads of state to another country for criminal charges is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A former President being extracted is extraordinary. Thue (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
A former president being extradited may be unusal, but so is a former president being convicted, for which see our mistake in posting Efraín Ríos Montt's conviction a few weeks back. I suggest that in addition to the obvious political manoeuvering going on here, we also look at the state of the article, which is horrendous. This is a case where a little bit of extra attention beyond the headline is very necessary. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not ready - Like Medeis says, the article is in fairly poor shape. As a BLP of a person accused of crimes, it is especially inappropriate to post without the article being well cited. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
It's also not updated; we have two sentences on the 2103 extradition, one of them being an editorial comment. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Certainly a worthy enough story for ITN, but the article and lack of an update need to be addressed.--Giants27(T|C) 19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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

May 24Edit

[Re-closed] Gibraltar joins UEFAEdit

The previous closure was reverted due to an allegation of a conflict of interest. Well, I'm a British football fan and delighted about this news. There is still no consensus to post. —WFCFL wishlist 12:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gibraltar Football Association (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Gibraltar Football Association becomes a full member of UEFA, allowing their national team to play European Championship matches from 2014
Alternative blurb: ​After a 16-year long dispute with Spain in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the Gibraltar Football Association is accepted as a full member of UEFA
News source(s): BBC Guardian New York Times

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This decision basically means that Gibraltar's international teams will now be playing competitive football against these teams, having previously only knocked around with the likes of these. It also means club teams from the Gibraltar Football League will now be able to enter the UEFA Champions League and Europa League. In 2007, Spain (the current international European and World champions and home of club teams Barcelona and Real Madrid), threatened to boycott international football completely (both national and club level) if this happened, which managed to comprehensively defeat a UEFA vote back then (only 3 votes in support out of 53). The CAS ruling seems to have put that on its head, with only Spain and Belarus voting against this time. This is obviously a huge moment in the ongoing saga that is the disputed status of Gibraltar, and a major step change in the profile of Gibraltarian football on the European stage. --Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In regards to geopolitics, the recognition or otherwise of this particular Gibraltar sporting association at the European level is quite minor. In regards to football, the minnows of Gibraltar is going to be of negligible importance to European international competitions. The Champions League final occurs tomorrow, that should be adequate association football for the current time. --LukeSurl t c 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Can I borrow your copy of the geopolitics recognition scale to check this claim for factual accuracy, I seem to have lost mine. Will coverage in the New York Tims do as a substitute for now? If you think Spain threatening to withdraw all its teams is minor, then frankly you have no idea about what is and is not important to European football. The timing of the Champions League final is clearly irrelevant, unless you're claiming you'd support this if the news came out in the off season. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Spain blustering at anyone who will listen is minor. I am not entirely certain I would count it as ITN worthy if Spain actually followed through (which it wont). Certainly the fact that the sporting association of a small nation gaining admittance into sporting organization - one that is not even the highest level in the world - is not ITN worthy. The simple truth is, the only reason I can think of to support this is the fact that it would royally piss off those foaming at the mouth over Gibraltarpedia. Resolute 20:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Spain boycotting international and european club football would be posted in a heartbeat, simply due to the coverage it would generate. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fantasist, or simply knows nothing about football. And on that score, can you explain what advantages being a member of FIFA offers to a European association that being a member of UEFA doesn't? And more importantly, why anyone would really take notice of one change but not the other? Being out of UEFA means you play the likes of Orkney. Being in UEFA means you play the likes of Germany. Being in UEFA and FIFA means you play the likes of ...... Germany. And seeing as Gibraltar will never beat Germany, that's where the significance of that ends. And last time I checked, Spain and the UK were in Europe, not on other sides of the Atlantic, so why would joining FIFA make a blind bit of difference to the geopolitical ramifications of this news? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Support as the culmination of a decade of controversy. If UEFA and Spain hadn't opposed it it would not be noteworthy enough. Coverage in Norway, France and presumably in Spain. In Britain it was covered both before and after the fact. The controversy has been reported on internationally throughout e.g. this piece from December. (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Certainly an interesting story, especially for us European sports fans, but not enough for ITn, I think. Could it be squeezed into DYK? Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah ha! DYK "Gibraltar has become the smallest nation to be a member of UEFA" - sort of thing could be perfect? --wintonian talk 20:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (edit conflict) A national organisation joins/ leaves an international association, happens all the time and I somehow don't see Gibraltar winning the European Championship any-time soon. What however may be ITN notable is any resulting bun fight (with Gibraltar or the UK) with Spain over it. However having just searched for sources this leapt out at me; "Gibraltar became the smallest European football nation" [13], if we were debating that as the story for inclusion here I may well change my mind and support such an nomination. --wintonian talk 20:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Before the canard continues and anyone else tries to claim that this is development scores as minor on some made up geopolitical scale, please note that not only can you read about this issue in all the various European language media sites (as you would expect), you can also read about it in media outlets based in the Americas (north, northerer [14], and south [15]), and also in the Middle East [16]. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A page 24 story. For comparison, we wouldn't post a story about an NFL team changing their name or being newly commissioned to the franchise. A story like this would be major if it were for a truly international sports league.--WaltCip (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we would if it was denied without basis in the rules for more than a decade. UEFA is international, though they are not a league if that is particularly important. (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's because it's far more important on an exponential scale than either of those because of the political aspect. I still don't believe it quite passes the ITN bar though, although I wouldn't object if it was posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make comparisons, please provide an actual comparison. Comparing this news to an NFL franchise changing its name is, well, civility rules prevent me from describing what that really is. And last time I checked, the European Championships and the Champions League were both international. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For the people claiming that this is somehow unimportant because Gibraltar will never win any matches. Well, Palestine, Kosovo, Quebec, etc etc, will certainly never be the world's greatest nations either, but would you accept people using that as an excuse to ignore it if one of those became for example a UN member state? Of course you wouldn't, because it's totally irrelevant to the significance or impact of the actual change in status. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a huge difference between a football association being accepted into UEFA and a state being accepted into the UN. --LukeSurl t c 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
        • But there is no difference between how relevant the points would be. Kosovo would be a very unimportant country on the world stage. Gibraltar would be a very poor national team on the UEFA stage. Both arguments are totally irrelevant to the significance of the change in status. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Indeed. The comparible scenario would be Quebec gaining entry into CONCACAF. I think we all know the likelihood of that being posted at ITN. Resolute 20:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
If the English speaking part of Canada fought the membership for a decade I imagine it would have a non-negligible chance of passing ITNC. (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I wish people would stop trying to compare things that are not comparable. If Quebec was an independent Canadian territory rather than still being an integral part of Canada, and if the status of that territory had been the subject of a long running dispute between France and Canada rather than simply being an entirely Canadian dispute, and then it was allowed to join CONCACAF, only then would you even begin to have a comparable case to Gibraltar/Spain/UK/UEFA. And that still ignores the fact that France is not even in CONCACAF, whereas Spain is part of UEFA. A closer comparison would the first time Israel Football Association joined the AFC in the 50s, and even then it's not really a comparison. I doubt you would be so naive to claim that would be somthing ITN would have ignored if Wikipedia was around then. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL, you tried to compare a nation joining a regional football association to a territory gaining UN membership. And then you invent imaginary scenarios where France is in conflict with Canada over Quebec, and you have the gall to chastise others for "trying to compare things that are not comparable"? Seriously dude. Pot. Kettle. You. Resolute 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL? What a great point! I quite clearly never compared joining UEFA to joining the UN, I only compared the irrelevant things people like you would apparently say in both situtations. And I only had to invent that imaginary scenario to show everyone just how ridiculous you comparing Gibraltar to Quebec is, on multiple levels. I'm sorry if you didn't get what I was saying, I'm sorry if you don't appreciate that the Quebec and Gibraltar sovereignty disputes are as different as night and day, but trying to claim that makes me look bad? Seriously dude. Lame. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the extent of international coverage both now and especially before the vote I have removed "weak" from my support. I truly think this should be posted, though I doubt it will be. (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'd like to support it when it becomes a full member of FIFA as a regulatory body of football in the world. Approving membership in UEFA, the European regulatory body, is not that significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Significant? Prove it. With sources. Going from non-entities to UEFA members is a huge step in both football and political terms. In comparison, becoming FIFA members after that (because UEFA membership is mandatory step), is infact pretty insignificant. Especially in this case, because all the political controversy that surrounds this is European based. It's not like Gibraltar is ever going to get to the later stage of any FIFA tournament and thus face a team from outside UEFA in a competitive match, which is the only sporting difference between being in UEFA and FIFA. That's why nobody really cares if Israel is in FIFA, not half as much as to whether they are in AFC/UEFA, or indeed recongised as a nation at all, which is what AFC/UEFA membership bascically is in football terms. The likes of Costa Rica really don't give a damn if Gibraltar adds FIFA membership to their UEFA membership, it doesn't impact anyone outside UEFA at all (unless perhaps they have a similar territorial dispute and fear a precedent). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Gibraltar was eligible to play friendly matches even before approving its membership in UEFA. The only differences are that the national team will have the chance to play official qualification matches for UEFA Euro, which is only one in the palette of many other international football competitions; and that its football league will get official ranking and the clubs coming from it will be eligible to compete in any of the football competitions governed by UEFA. It doesn't solve the problem if the team want to play official matches against any other teams outside the UEFA-zone. In addition, the designation we use to make a distinction between something which is not internationally official in football is "non-FIFA football" and not "non-UEFA football". Gibraltar becomes UEFA member but still remains part of something which is called "non-FIFA football" and will thereby not be listed in the ranking list of national football teams published by FIFA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    Friendly matches don't mean anything in international football, not compared to competitive football of any kind. Nobody takes a blind bit of notice of them. The FA is celebrating their 150th anniversary with a friendly between England and Brazil in 2 weeks, and a high profile friendly like that will still get less attention paid to it than the second division play-off final for the English club league next week. And for men's senior 11 v 11 football, the most popular international variant by far, the Euros and the World Cup are it as far as competitive football goes. That is the sum total of the pallete. For all practical purposes, non-FIFA football for Gibraltar is the same as non-UEFA football. You are really really over-playing the distinction here - for a place as small as Gibraltar, it's not really relevant. They will never qualify for a World Cup, so in competitive football as opposed to pointless friendlies, playing UEFA teams is as good as it gets for Gibraltar, whether that's in the UEFA Euro qualifiers or the FIFA World Cup qualifiers. That's because qualifiers are organised on a regional basis, and Gibraltar will never get out of a qualifying group. That is why it doesn't matter that they still won't get a FIFA ranking, assigning them one would clearly be an exercise in abstraction, it will never be used to decide anything. But they will be getting UEFA ranking points now, and that does mean something both in status and in practice. And Spain certainly aren't going to feel any less pissed off because Gibraltar are still not in the FIFA rankings. Do you think they would be fine with Gibraltar becoming a full EU member in its own right, but would then be outraged if they became a UN member? Of course not. UEFA recognition was the deal breaker here, FIFA membership is simply an add on, a tiny bit of extra prestige, with no practical impact (although the number of competitive matches played would double over a 4 year cycle of course). Not sure why you bring up the domestic leagues, I said that already, and I don't see how that supports your point. Being eligible for UEFA competition is the best it gets for the domestic clubs, it's not like they will ever get to play in any FIFA intercontinental club competitions is it? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to simplify this to a level where non-football people might appreciate the political significance of this change in status, the last international fixture that Gibraltar played was against Jersey. That's an island with a population of 97,000 with close ties to the UK, just like Gibraltar. Until Gibraltar joined today, San Marino was the smallest UEFA team. Their last international fixture? Poland. That's a country of 38 million. With absolutely no ties to San Marino except their common status as UEFA members. These are the doors that have now opened to Gibraltar in their quest for recognition on both a sporting and political level. That's why Spain (as in the government, not the football association) were still claiming they would take every legal step to block this, even as late as last month, not least because they fear Catalonia getting ideas now (never mind the political aspect, it's not hard to see what the ramifications of Barcelona falling out with La Liga would be just for European football). Not being in FIFA is utterly irrelevant in comparison to this change, it's like saying Kosovo becoming a UN member isn't significant until they join the WTO also, it's a distinction that totally and utterly misses the point of what has happened today. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, so I may be overstepping my mark here, but it's clear this isn't going to be posted. We have nothing to gain from further argument, so let's close before things get too heated. --LukeSurl t c 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    I've undone your closure. I wouldn't call what you did over-stepping the mark, I'd call it one giant leap for self-interest. You were the first opposer, and you made 3 points, only one of which was remotely relevant, and which you refuse to defend in any way. So it is no surprise you think there's no chance of this being posted. It should remain open to allow people who posess a clue about the actual differences between non-UEFA, UEFA and FIFA membership, and who can actually construct an argument about geopolitical significance or the lack thereof, to contribute. At the very least, if ITN really must reject items based on total ignorance of the topic or a willfull refusal to examine evidence, then procedural incompetence like that is really something that an admin should be officially ratifying, so it can be rectified later. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very little global significance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, so it's been reclosed again. Unbelievable. I will not revert a second time, but let the record show that this was done by a non-admin, who claimed that because he is British football fan he is qualified to judge the consensus here. I think it's self-evident that this is not what makes admins qualified to close ITN discussions, so how is this even a remotely appropriate closure by a non-admin? Subject knowledge can inform their thought process, yes, but it does not qualify someone to rule on who has used facts and evidence to back up their view, and who is simply making stuff up and then using 'LOL' to hide their embarassment at being found out. That is why only admins are allowed to do it except in unambigous cases, which this is clearly not. If this was assessed by an admin with a working knowledge of football and politics, there is no way in hell that they would call this no consensus at this stage, because they would see just how many of the opposing arguments above do not meet the basic ITN requirement of posessing a WP:CLUE. One oppose is so off the wall it's even criticised by another opposer for crying out loud! Another one thinks that a trivial factoid like being the smallest team in UEFA would make this ITN, but the resolution of a 16 year old legal dispute between major European countries does not. That's got to be the very definition of cluelessness. And the supreme irony is of course that the only vote to come in after the first attempted closure, is simply invalid, period. Admins also tend to be qualified to spot and discount that sort of crap, too. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to let it go. If you have issue with the way in which ITN functions, this is not the correct place for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously. I was just noting here for the record what has actually happened. I wouldn't want anyone who looked this up in the archive to be fooled into thinking it was closed by an admin for example. As it stands, it's been closed with arguments like 'this is a page 24 story' supposedly having won the day, even though it only happened yesterday, before any actual print newspapar would have even published it! That's the sort of crap that happened here that needs to be spelled out in black and white, for the record. Challenging why people simply just don't give a toss that this is how ITN works day to day, is indeed a matter for another venue. I disagree with you putting this inside the archive box though, as that is not acurate. These comments came after it was closed, so they belong outside the box. Othwerwise stuff like my comment on the last vote makes no sense at all. The blue box is there to preserve the precise point at which all the various individual debates were deemed to have run their course according to the the person who closed it. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Please continue this monologue elsewhere. This nomination is now closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I already said I'm perfectly happy to do so. But I still strongly object to you moving this post-closure commentary back into the archive box yet again - doing so is basically deceptive. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

May 23Edit

[Closed] Boy Scouts lift ban on gay youthsEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Boy Scouts of America (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Boy Scouts of America votes to end its policy of excluding gay youth from being members.
Alternative blurb: ​The Boy Scouts of America votes to end its policy of excluding gay youth from being members.
News source(s): [17]
Nominator's comments: BSA and gay rights have long been an issue in the news. --– Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral The difference between this and gay marriage is the way it's done. This wasn't a publicly elected deliberative body (ie a Legislature) that enacted a law, but it's a private organization with a century long out right ban on homosexual members. Some people might not understand how tightly woven the boy scouts is in the fabric of American culture. We have a please do not above about items which apply to only one country. This is also making headlines, and the ITN purpose is to help readers find information they would be looking for. On the other hand, neutral because although pervasive, the boy scouts is a private organization, and there is no social stigma in America (that I'm aware of) with not being a scout. --IP98 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Isnt this a local news story?--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Is that a serious comment? From above: "Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • And where am I complaining? I was asking a simple question. Instead of going on a tantrum raid just answer the question.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Wwell spotted ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The question was irrelevant. But to answer it, the Boy Scouts of America are nationwide in America, as implied by the name. They are a member of the worldwide scouting movement, with 2.7 million youth members and 1 million adult volunteers, according to the lede of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Please pause for a moment, and imagine me making a comment that compares this with several other gay-rights nominations lately. Thank you. Now - I oppose this because, frankly, the bigoted internal rules of a glorified youth club are not that newsworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You may find this interesting. I don't expect this nom to fly, but you should not underestimate the "newsworthiness" of this announcement in the USA. --IP98 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, they only lifted the ban on gay youths. If they had gone the hole hog I might of supported, but as it stands it would seem incredibly shallow to support this given that several countries (and one US state) have allowed the legalization of gay marriage.-- (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with this position, but isn't it actually kind of more interesting that they didn't get rid of the ban on adults? What are the secondary sources saying about this? Abductive (reasoning) 04:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. A private organization making a rule change(and only a partial change) has limited notability. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Lean include- this is a huge deal within the USA, though I understand concerns that its international impact may be limited. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the level of attention it's getting; but it's still essentially a private organisation, apparently free in law to make whatever bigoted rules it chooses. Accordingly, I'm not sure why we should care. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Because it's a major part of American culture, and they've been a big part of the gay rights debate with their long standing practice to prohibit gay members and scout leaders. There was even a South Park episode about it FWIW. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I understand the importance of scouting in American culture (which is hardly unique; it's also big in Britain and other English-speaking countries), I don't think that the partial elimination of discrimination by a private organisation meets the importance threshold. Neljack (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Just as a clarification, and not a comment on the nomination, Scouting is actually "biggest" (by sheer numbers) in Indonesia, not an English speaking country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and under those grounds such a rule change is not important enough for ITN, especially when organizations are legally permitted to include/exclude who they wish. If there are massive protests, I might reconsider. SpencerT♦C 01:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SNOWBALL. There are thousands more important private organisations in the world, operating internationally and making a more global impact in the world. Why to choose one that does not satisfy the aforementioned criteria and has zero-impact worldwide? Please don't be ridiculous.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
"Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." μηδείς (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Again, another comment on the "facts" being thrown around here. There are around 42 million members of Scouting organisations around the world. Can't think of many that would be bigger. Not sure what defines important. Admittedly, this is only about the American Boy Scouts, a subset, but it's a big step forward for one of Scouting's more conservative member organisations. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, my comment is based on facts; it's not complaining because it relates to a single country. I didn't mention a single country at all, but was speaking of the zero-impact the issue has globally. There are many stories that have a limited importance but yield impact globally. Can you tell me how someone living anywhere else in the world is affected with this? Or even to explain what is the significance of this one outside the organisation? I don't see that this one will make some bugger influence in the United States. Finally, please don't accuse me and the others if you don't like or cannot accept the arguments that support this not to be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I generally oppose "first gay X" postings, but as a queer who can pass and someone who came out to my family and friends at 14 I can assure you this will have a huge impact on a large and largely silent and voiceless population. If I were a gay scout I'd want to be able to come here and easily find this information. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Shame Wikipedia isn't a forum as I think there could be a very interesting discussion around this. That said however I am tempted to support this but in reality the story was/ would have been about the introduction of this (quite strange IMO) ban, I am however open to being persuaded to change my mind which given the opinions above doesn't look very likely. --wintonian talk 04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Boy Scouts of America doesn't have much of a global reach so I doubt this news will have any global impact. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
"Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That's s strange comment Brightgairs. You obviously hadn't read my earlier comment. Scouting is a world wide movement. There is a World Organization of the Scout Movement, with member bodies representing Scouting in most countries of the world. Boy Scouts of America represent the USA, and is generally seen as trailing the pack in these areas. For it to change will be seen globally within Scouting as a massive step forward. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone else here ever felt they've just completely wasted a post? Why didn't you read what I had just written? HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose half-way gesture by one branch of a global business; more interesting is the Pope's assertion that atheists can go to heaven (alas, the Boy Scouts - unlike heaven - won't accept atheists). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Without bothering to look it up, I have seen people say that atheists going to heaven was the positions of previous popes too. So not news. Thue (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Just because a story isn't international doesn't make it noteworthy. This is a significant milestone in the history of youth organizations and groups promoting a "traditional" ideal, and as such has impact to readers across the globe whether or not it impacts them directly. This has been a major topic in the American media for years now, and is probably more notable than the slew of "<liberal/center-left U.S. state or European country> legalizes gay marriage" nominations we've had lately. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Proposing alternate blurb emphasing Boy Scouts of America membership controversies instead of Boy Scouts of America. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The world doesn't care about policies of a private organization whose membership is rapidly declining. With each passing day, they are becoming more and more insignificant.--В и к и T 10:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal It looks like it's time to close this nomination as it's already clear that this is way far from reaching any sort of consensus for posting. It'd be also helpful to prevent some of the users to permanently attack the votes of the others (some have already started doing it), which could easily provoke useless and not appreciated discussion again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] 2013 Stockholm riotsEdit

Article: 2013 Stockholm riots (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The fatal police shooting of an armed man sparks several days of rioting in Stockholm, Sweden
News source(s): BBC News, Wall Street Journal

Nominator's comments: Unprecedented several nights of rioting in a European capital city, seem similar to the 2011 riots in England. Coverage in UK largely overshaddowed by Woolwich incident, but there is still substantial coverage. This is my first nomination, so sorry if I've not done this correctly. My internet access may be iffy or non-existent over the next few days so appolgies if I miss any questions. --Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak Support-I agree that riots such as this are seldom seen in Europe. However, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and so we must consider the rest of the world. (Al Jazeera) has covered the incident, as does the (Sydney Morning Herald), however Xinhua doesn't even mention it. Even still, with this shallow perspective delineated, I will offer my support. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support worldwide coverage not required. Multi-day riots rare in western Europe. --IP98 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It seems like it's not something special and the consequences are not voluminous as if it would have happened in some other parts of the world, but the fact it occurs in Sweden is remarkable enough to support it for inclusion. I also find that there is a decent media coverage on this one, which is another plus to its significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Riots in Sweden are almost unheard of. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
comment if this gets [posted just a nmote that it should not be on TOP as its 1-2 days old. atleast.Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No its not "two days old news" it is current and still going on as of tonight.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Something unusual from Sweden with significant media coverage. --Երևանցի talk 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - being from Sweden, I can tell you that this is something very special for Sweden with this kind of riots so this should definitly be added to ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Does the Swedish wiki have an article for this? I'm hoping maybe there is a free picture we can add to the en article. --IP98 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Working backwards, I used the 2011 england riots interwiki links to find the Swedish article. The Kategorier is Kravaller, but nothing in there started with 2013 so I'm stumped. --IP98 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I dont know why swedish Wiki is basically censoring this event. A discussion has been held and the article has been deleted "for now". That is why it is good that English Wiki does not censor this. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • It's not censored, but wikipedia isn't wikinews. There's a consensus on svwp that news articles doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and has nothing to do with this news item. GameOn (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely very unusual events for Sweden. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very unique story. Somewhat of an international story, so worthy of being covered.--Giants27(T|C) 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article in its current state is very poorly written and is being used to push an anti-immigrant agenda. (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The blurb says the riots are a result of the fatal shooting of an armed man by police, but it's currently not mentioned in the article at all. The article has only one line of prose in the lead, which does not give a good overview of the circumstances.  thayts t  14:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It was removed from the article because the article's only academic source found it very dubious. So the bit about the shooting shouldn't be on the main page either.Narayanese (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Reworded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] 2013 Cayman electionEdit

No consensus to post. King of ♠ 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Caymanian general election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Alden McLaughlin is sworn-in as Premier of the Cayman Islands after his Progressives win half of the seats in the 2013 general election for the Cayman Islands.
News source(s): [18]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Election in a well known country (technically a British Overseas Territory). --Nbpolitico (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a precedent with not posting elections in small nations, and this is a territory. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the result, or perhaps regardless of the result, this election is also noteworthy in that the former premier (2001-2005, 2009-2012) and longest serving member of the legislature who is seeking to regain the premiership is facing 9 corruption charges. This is resulting in international media coverage, here is the AP story: [19] - Nbpolitico (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Medeis, please provide diffs where we have set the precedent so it can used here and in future. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There wasn't a formal RfC, just a nomination that failed for a small nation, hence my saying precedent, and not policy. I tried looking last night through the 2012 archives,but had no luck. If nobody else recalls it feel free to assume my memory is off--but this nom fails as not sovereign in any case. μηδείς (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for an RfC, I was looking for the precedent you mentioned. In light of the ITN/R discussions ongoing, it would be useful to see where this type of nom last failed. Thanks for looking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The reporter of the story did not even bother to go there for reporting, but did it from Kingston, Jamaica. This is quite telling of how much importance they ascribe it. --RJFF (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't an election of a small country; this is an election of an essentially subnational entity (a British Overseas Territory, which does not have independence).331dot (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: The Caymans, much like Bermuda, functions largely independently. It is not dissimilar in status to Canada from 1867-1982, when Canada continued to be subject to British approval on some matters. - Nbpolitico (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not updated results section needs a prose update. --IP98 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral Does not appear on it's own in List_of_sovereign_states, but so what? The nom rightly points out that the territory is largely self governing. WP readers might find this interesting. --IP98 (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - This is not a sovereign nation, and I've not seen any significant coverage of these events. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak conditional support similar to IP98, if someone is inclined to create a decent article here (and can find enough good sources to do so) I can't see why not. There aren't any elections in the template at the moment (unfortunately, I doubt the upcoming Equatorial Guinean legislative election, 2013 will manage achieve posting quality). --LukeSurl t c 12:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. to subnational entities election, not state of Vermont, not Scotland until we talk about a "Sececion-independency election".--Feroang (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Even though the Caymans are not entirely sovereign, they are largely self-governing. Also, most readers know more about the Cayman Islands than they they do a good number of sovereign states, due to their status as a global tax haven. With these two points in mind, I will offer my support. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the 1980's jingle campaign in the US went "Cayman Islands, Just a few know of us', But those who know us love us, The Cayman Islands". μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not a sovereign nation + only 50,000 inhabitants + no appreciable international interest/coverage. Usually we counter opposition to posting elections in very small countries ("My home town has more inhabitants, so why don't we post mayoral elections?" and the like) with "Yes, but it's a sovereign nation". The Cayman Islands are not. --RJFF (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment per IP98 and LukeSurl, the article has been updated with the final results. I have also updated the proposed blurbs above accordingly. - Nbpolitico (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Update I am surprised that this item is still open as it is getting a bit dated. However, the government is being sworn-in today making it newsy once again. I have updated the blurb accordingly incase it is still being considered. - Nbpolitico (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

May 22Edit

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Mick McManusEdit

No consensus to post. --Tone 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator's comments: He was a well known English wrestler who was well known to a lot of people. Judging by the sources I have lined, he was a pretty big Wrestler in his day. The article should probably be expanded though, with more information on his life and death. Andise1 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I have no interest in wrestling and was not familiar with him, but he seems to clearly meet the importance criterion. Neljack (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't know that he meets the importance criterion. I'm not convinced, but could be. He doesn't seem near on par with Randy Savage, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Personal life section needs referencing, especially as it consists mostly of a single quote regarding his death. Wrestling career section also needs referencing, and it needs to be clear which events represent "actual" achievements, and which represent the scripted fiction of professional wrestling (pro wrestling articles are a nightmare for this).
Ultimately though, I weakly oppose - the main obituaries in the UK media today have been for been actor Richard Thorp - the obits for McManus seems to have had little prominence. --LukeSurl t c 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Dubious his career section starts out, not with simple facts, but with florid praise written in a dramatic style "such was his fury" and largely without documentation for the claims and language used. It seems like an essay written by a fan with literary aspirations. This makes judging the subject himself in comparison to others with matter-of-fact-ly written article rather difficult. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Vehemently oppose He is wrongly classified. He was not a wrestler. He was an actor. At the absolute minimum he should described by the euphemistic but more meaningful name professional wrestler. The article has some of the nonsense typical of this industry where it describes how he "chose" to fight in a particular way. Rubbish. He was TOLD how to fight by the scriptwriters! The article seems to be written as if pro wrestling is real. I find it difficult to support any nonsense from this industry. And we should not be drawing the attention of our readers to that article. It's garbage. Maybe if the article is completely rewritten honestly, I could support the nomination. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Then maybe you should vehemently challenge the name of that article? He's not just "wrongly classified", he's "wrongly titled"? But I think you're missing the point. It's like saying The Sun isn't notable because it's not really a newspaper. Or that Shakespeare's histories aren't notable because they're not really true. "Saturday afternoon wrestling in the UK attracted a regular audience of 12 million viewers... Reportedly among wrestling's biggest fans were Margaret Thatcher and the Queen." It was just entertainment. A sporting pantomime? Certainly. But it was still what the entire UK public called "the wrestling." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Missed the point entirely. Will the quality of discussion here ever improve? HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I nearly put an {{in universe}} at the top of this article, in agreement with HiLo. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you'd do the same when Hulk Hogan dies? When John Cena dies? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not convinced he was notable enough, regardless what one thinks of professional wrestling. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What one thinks of professional wrestling is not the point. The article Professional wrestling tells the truth about it. Mick McManus (wrestler) doesn't. We cannot promote such an article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I found your description accurate,(though some cannot or will not do so) but that doesn't mean the man's article couldn't be rewritten to reflect that; even if it was, I would still oppose this. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending cleanup per ITN/DC #2. Seems to be an early and influential pro wrestler. The career section has several unsourced paragraphs though, and there is a fact tag in the death section. --IP98 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "one of the biggest names of wrestling during the 1960s and 70s." according to a very reliable source [20], at a time when the country only had 3 TV channels. Oh, and British people of the time were perfectly aware that it was stage managed and nothing like sport wrestling, so let's have none of that, please. It would probably still be around on terrestrial TV now if it wasn't for satellite/cable making it one of their early cash cows along with football. Speaking of which, any of the biggest names of the WWF/WWE/WCW era will obviously breeze through ITN when they die of old age, so not posting this would clearly be showing bias to people who were only notable in the internet age. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support He was one of British Wrestling's most recognizable heels and I think his passing is a notable event and per Neljack, he does meet the importance criteria. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a comparison with the insanity of WWF/WWE is inappropriate. McManus was one of the original professional wrestlers who plied his trade on Saturday lunchtimes in the 1960s and 1970s to small audiences in venues across the UK but who was watched by millions on television. Millions. In the 60s/70s. He was a precursor to Randy Savage, he was, as some have said, a "wrestling legend". He was also inducted into Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame, (like Randy Savage, Hulk Hogan, John Cena etc) so anyone claiming he wasn't important (or award-winning) in his field is wrong. Finally, anyone claiming that he wasn't a "wrestler" is plainly wrong. Personal opinions on the legitimacy of the trade are utterly irrelevant here, it's whether this person is in the news, notable enough for a nod at recent deaths (which we've proved) and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not about to tag up the article, but it is a hagiography, not an objective article. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair point, I've read through it again and removed several over-the-top phrases and tagged one of the clauses. I imagine it'll be the death knell for this nom unless any of the UK-based editors who are seemingly passionate about the nom can step up and help? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Let's look at the article. Start with the claim that he "chose to bend the rules as far as they could go without being disqualified". Absolute rubbish. The character created by his scriptwriters did that, not the subject of this proposal. The alternative is to rewrite Christopher Reeve's article to say he could fly and like wearing his underpants on the outside. The article is fiction. We cannot use it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Perhaps all editors have a duty to correct any obvious "fictions" that they see in an article, quite regardless of "DYK" nominations. Perhaps we can have a WP:RS for the scriptwriters? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per HiLo, who, though I would not phrase his objections in the same way, raises a number of valid points. Jusdafax 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you express them in your own words then, because I personally don't have a clue what he's trying to say other than the article is poorly written and he hates pro wrestling, only one of which is even relevant to the matter at hand. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter if I loved Professional wrestling. Much of the article is talking about the role he played as if it was real, not the now deceased performer himself. I'm disappointed that you have been fooled by the industry. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Well said: the "industry" in many observers judgement is essentially professional acting, not honest sporting contests. Unpostable as stands. Jusdafax 23:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm dissapointed that you like to make stuff up about other editors all the time. You're the one who was taken in by the article it seems, not me. I knew he was a pro-wrestler beforehand, but even if I didn't I think I would have handled the shock better than you seem to have. I don't much care if it is poorly written, as I think most people are not like you - they can handle it if they see an article about a pro-wrestler that refers to him as if he was playing a role as a real wrestler (which, actually, it barely does, given all the pro-wrestling specific detail/terms in there too - Olympic wrestlers are not generally known for being heels or for having catch-phrases or for their trunk colours), because everybody in the world has surely realised that pro-wrestling is acting by the time they're out of short trousers. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed at how many people here are treating this as if it were some kind of 'revelation', and am now wondering if there might be a few people here who have only recently made the transition.... It would explain a few other things about Wikipedia for me too, that's for sure. Would a perfect article be written that way? No. Does it need to be perfect to go onto RD? No. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article is in pretty bad shape. Definitely not worthy of being on the main page.--Giants27(T|C) 22:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Surely a joke nomination?! A very minor UK TV celebrity from a long time ago, with a crap article. No way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Henri DutilleuxEdit

Article: Henri Dutilleux (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Nominator's comments: I have never nominated an article before, so please forgive any mistakes. Henri Dutilleux is a rather eminent composer, and I have added a nomination since I am surprised a nomination has not already been made. -- (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Thanks for nominating this; I hadn't seen the news of his death. He was undoubtedly one of the most important living composers, and I think he clearly meets the importance criterion for Recent Deaths. I'll see if I can expand the update on his death to five sentences or so, which is what is generally required before posting - there's sure to be some tributes and reactions to his death. Neljack (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A wonderful composer. Many seem to agree that he was for most of his life as a composer, unfairly overshadowed by the fame of Olivier Messiaen. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have updated the article with tributes. Neljack (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the great prestige of classical music over time necessarily lends itself to those in the genre today. The prizes Dutilleux's won are esoteric and industry-internal. Compared to Ray Manzarek or Dave Brubeck his impact on music and the public is minimal. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support His career and works did not make any substantial impact on any music genre, but the performance and the importance of his works did on many circles of the social life. It's worth mentioning that he's cooperated with many famous musicians and other artists, which coined his name among the greatest. The style he used when composing was unique for the time and greatly influenced by many other artistic fields, making it one of the very first examples in the 20th century.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A near 80-year career at the top of the profession. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Man Booker International PrizeEdit

Articles: Lydia Davis (talk, history) and Man Booker International Prize (talk, history)
Blurb: Lydia Davis wins the 2013 Man Booker International Prize
News source(s): Telegraph

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: ITN/R literary award. --LukeSurl t c 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • This is pretty much ready now. It would be nice to get some words from Davis herself regarding the prize, but it doesn't look like she's said anything about it on the record yet. LukeSurl t c 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support ITRN/R and update sufficient, marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 00:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Woolwich attackEdit

Article: 2013 Woolwich attack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: An off-duty British soldier is attacked and killed in Woolwich, London.
News source(s): BBC rolling coverage

Nominator's comments: This is big, big news in the UK and will only get bigger - similar to the 7/7 attacks --GiantSnowman 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • oppose no where near the 7/7, that's a ludicrous comparison. One person (or 3) were killed. Meanwhile a lot more were killed in Nigeria and Syria (nominated below). This shouldn't even be an article. With that logic we'd be having hordes of pages entitled 201X Syrian beheading. But congrats on your first BOLD nomination at ITNC. Hope to see more even if the first doesn't make it.Lihaas (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a ludicrous comparison, it's one that's being made by journalists/politicians already today. GiantSnowman 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • By tabloids and far right wing conservatives perhaps? There's no denying that this is a serious incident but comparing it to 7/7 is pretty ridiculous. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support it's making headlines, that's for sure. The PM doesn't chime in on street level crime, so I think that's worth considering. I would like to see a short bio of the victim before posting. --IP98 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The British PM cut short a foreign trip straight away - something he took a few days to do with the 2011 England riots - and yes, it's all over the news. Not sure about the victim bio, all we 'know' (i.e. strongly suspect) is that he was probably an off-duty soldier. GiantSnowman 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The victims details will come out soon enough. Also need a better description of the attack. As far as I know, people don't just stand around waiting to be beheaded. --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • They knocked him over with a car first. GiantSnowman 21:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Cutting short his trip to France is an overreaction in my opinion, if he does so for this murder then he should drop everything every time there is a murder on British soil, without wanting to get WP:POV or WP:NOTOPINION here I suspect there may be domestic political considerations at play here. --wintonian talk 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Lihaas; It would seem absurd to me to post this and not post the Syria and Nigeria nominations below. Thue (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Events in Nigeria/Syria are part of larger conflicts and such atrocities happen every day, unfortunately. A man getting his head cut off in broad daylight in London is very different. GiantSnowman 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • But the nominations below are of event which are extraordinary even in context of the countries they occur in. Thue (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. We've understandably set the "bar" a little higher for conflict zones. --IP98 (talk)
Declaring dcurefew in thre provinces and using airpower against your own citizens are not everyday events in Nigeria. Taking back through a battle with new regional repecussions a crucial links road is not every day in Syria.Lihaas (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral a pair of fundamentalists have murdered a (probable soldier) man in London. It is genuinely shocking, and really not an every day (or even once-in-a-lifetime) event in the UK, but it's not quite on the level of the Boston bombings or the mass murders in the Middle East we see every day. Besides that, there's too much speculation at the moment for an encyclopedic approach to this topic. Look at the Tornado in Oklahoma, we flagrantly stated nearly 100 deaths, that was way wrong because we didn't hold off for a bit. The flipside is the the openness of the whole affair, the willingness for the murderers to be videoed with bloodied hands and cleaver/knife etc on show, quite unusual, a symptom of modern "social aware" living I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think this is similar to Boston actually. In both cases a pair of fundamentalists, probably a bit mentally unstable, carried out a horrific act. I doubt that either case was part of a deliberate and organized terrorist attack from abroad. The Boston attack was a powerful home made bomb so the destruction was higher, that's all. --IP98 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The major difference between this and Boston is that this seems to have been specifically targeted at an individual (whether a specific individual or not we don't yet know) who was probably in the military, but Boston was targetted at a crowd of civilians. It is almost certainly coincidental that the location of this attack is on the London Marathon route (just before the 3 mile point) and is a busy road away from that so the potential for a Boston-style attack was certainly there but they did not do that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose Terrible? - yes, has it been all over the news here in Blighty? - yes. However it seems to me that it is no more significant than the majority of IRA bombings from the past, indeed we have a whole page dedicated to terrorist incidents in London and another one for Great Britain as a whole. In other words this is something not terribly unusual in London or Great Britain sadly. Also I am not fond of the media or governments use of "suspected terrorist attack" which seems be purely based upon 1, the skin colour of the suspects, 2, the victim may have been a solder, and 3, a possible witness thought they herd one of the suspects say "God is great" in Arabic, so I don't think we know enough to even call it 'suspected terrorism'. --wintonian talk 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
comment made less sensationalist blurb. + The CIRA killed 2 police officers a day after the RIRA killed a soldier in the first such killings in years in 2007. Im sure that wasn't nearly covered. (on ITN). Would we post a ETA killing of a soldier in spain? I doubt itLihaas (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are too many terrorist attacks to post ones that don't kill many people (the Boston bombings were an exception because they occurred at a high-profile event and injured a lot of people). I doubt we would even consider posting this if it wasn't in a Western country. Neljack (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
That's probably true, but there's quite a lot of things we wouldn't consider posting if they weren't in western countries, and I doubt we'll see that argument in the discussion about this month's shooting rampage in a US educational establishment. Let's not get too selective about it. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I would certainly make the same argument regarding a US school shooting that only killed one (or a few) people. In fact, I opposed the LAPD gunman a few months ago on the same reasoning. Neljack (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is in no way comparable to 7/7. This is a single tragic killing, and some distasteful opportunistic political spin. I live in SE London. We are not under attack. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I quite agree and that's a well condensed way of putting it - I was starting to think it was just me. --wintonian talk 01:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Neutral. It's difficult for me to be objective (hence the "neutral") as I live within walking distance of this location, but despite this being the biggest story in the area since at least the 2011 riots, my gut feeling is that there is a major overreaction from politicians and the media. There is a lot of (imho inappropriate) hero worship of soldiers in Britain currently, and this is likely the cause of much of the reaction. However that same reaction is of encyclopaedic interest. I had a look earlier and it was the top story on Al Jazeera English and the Sydney Morning Herald, but it wasn't the saturation coverage it has been getting in the UK. As for the "under attack" comment, I quite agree - the EDL mob was far more worrying for me than the initial event. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is not workplace violence. It is a shockingly barbaric act of war aimed at the British state. In the US this would effectively be capital treason--although like our friends on the wrong side of the pond it prbably wouldn't be prosecuted as such nowadays. It's at the top of the news in the US, and everyday British murders are not. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you will find that murdering an off-duty soldier does not qualify as treason, either in Britain or in America. Neljack (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This is not an act of war, either in law or in practical fact, Medeis. Nor is it treason. Please take just a little time to familiarise yourself with the situation before wading in. We Londoners have lived through a long terrorist campaign and a recent major attack. This resembles neither. The only thing that distinguishes this from any other murder case is the sensationalism surrounding it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The particulars of the case as interpreted by individuals are not really germane to the discussion at hand. This is clearly the dominant news story in many news sources. BBC is running this as the top item on their website, with half a dozen related stories from all different angles, and news ones coming out it seems like every few minutes. It had been the #1 story on, recently bumped to #2, and is very prominent on many news sites around the world. Insofar as the world's news organizations are treating this as a story worthy of a significant percentage of their effort, visual space, and workload, it is likely that many Wikipedia readers would not find it unusual to see a short note about the story at ITN. --Jayron32 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Dramatic circumstances, hence news coverage (as perpetrators probably intended) but no evidence that this is anything other than a rogue incident involving the two attackers and one victim. Employment of victim, subsequent actions of attackers, and extraordinary deviation from usual standards of decency and discretion on part of media make it more shocking, but not more important. If it turns out that there was a larger plot, we can revisit it at the time of trial, but at the moment, it appears no more than a hate-crime murder, not the launch of a terrorist campaign. Kevin McE (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It's the dominant news story across the globe so should meet the criteria of being "In The News". Terrorist incidents by their definition are notable. The body count shouldn't be the deciding factor, the newsworthyness seems clear to me. CaptRik (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, sorry but no, let's not join the hype. There are murders in London all the time, nothing special about this one except that the media have chosen to hype it, for whatever reason. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably because it was a public beheading in broad daylight, where the perpetrators waited around, and the Prime Minister cancelled a trip abroad to address? If I had to guess, I'd say that's why the media is covering it... --IP98 (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you thought of it this way:The Prime Minster cancelled his trip abroad because the overzealous media demanded to know what his response to an novel incident, which happened to involve Jihadism, would be. YuMaNuMa Contrib 9:45 pm, Today (UTC+10)
  • Support. Jesus Christ. Two men used a car in broad daylight to knock down a passer by on one of the busiest roads in one of the biggest cities in the world, then proceeded to hack his head off in front of onlookers and yards from a school, and then chose not to run away but stay and try and publicise islamic jihad until being gunned down by armed police. All this in a country where armed police are the exception not the norm, terrorist attacks are extremely rare, and the actual murder rate was just 99 in 2012 - in a city of 8 million! The idea that people here can get away with calling this "not terribly unusual" or "nothing special" or downgrading it to simply yet another "tragic killing" defies belief. And what on Earth does this incident have to do with anything that the IRA did before Wikipedia was even created? Or one of a hundred ETA shootings over the years? Or what other horrific things are going on almost as a matter of routine now in war torn places like Syria? The reasons the media are all over this are beyond obvious, therefore the reasons for ignoring it should be compelling and backed up by solid logic/evidence. If this 'debate' ends up being drawn out for days while admins ponder on the pros and cons as if somehow they were all equally valid, then what more evidence is needed that this process page is simply not fit for purpose at all and needs to be replaced with something entirely different. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In what sense do you feel that I 'get away' with my characterisation of this attack? What am I 'getting away' from? And what is a page like this for, if not weighing the pros and cons of proposed postings? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I no longer feel able to respond to you in any meaningful way,given what happened last time, and the threats I am now getting because of it [21]. Better safe than sorry. I don't want to risk angering you with all my confrontational sky is blue talk. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but leaning to support. While I agree with many who posted here that this is no more than a murder or a minor terrorist attack, I'm finding it all-over the news. The blurb is a bit worrying for me, do we know for sure by now if the victim was beheaded or not? The article doesn't reflect either. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Re; the updated blurb; I think were starting to get into the realms of sensationalism now which is not the job of Wikipeada and one which the British media have no trouble doing all by themselves as does the current government it seems. I suggest using something more neutral like "A man was murdered by by two others in Woolworth, London", which is just about all that happened. --wintonian talk 13:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A man getting run over then decapitated by two guys who shouted Islamist propaganda and encouraged others to film them, then waited around for the police, then tried to attack the police who shot them both? An emergency COBRA meeting getting called? The PM cutting short a foreign visit? That is not your everyday murder. GiantSnowman 14:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Okey I admit that some of the details are a little out of the ordinary, I was being slightly flippant with my non-serious alt. blurb. --wintonian talk 14:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree; but the reaction appears far more unusual than the action. People do get stabbed in the street now and then in this country. If we post this because of the reaction, which is substantially the product of the press itself, we risk reporting on the reporting, rather than on the facts. As with the Ohio kidnapping case, the newsworthiness here is largely in the gruesomeness and sensationalism, not in the wider impact. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) There is still no official confirmation that he was decapitated. If there is anything that makes this more notable than average it's the reaction to it rather than the event itself. I must say though that wile I'm still neutral, the blanket coverage is lasting longer than I expected and I've been hearing helicopters most of the day. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It is evidently a sick terrorist attack, but it's not as big as 7/7 or even the recent Boston bombing, yet with all the media coverage and wide reactions I'm leaning more towards supporting posting. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That is not true because the MOD hae not confirmed that. Having edited most of the page I;m aware of the readings that the MOD were peeved at the MP for suggesting it was right off the bat. Oof course then the media are just parroting it. Snsationalism/Yellow pressLihaas (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
BBC are now reporting that the police and "senior Whitehall sources" are saying that he was a serving solider, the Prime Minister confirmed it earlier too. No reason now not to say he was a soldier [22] (that's the latest news page so not a long-term url but I can't find a better one atm). Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually the MoD are now also confirming it: "The Metropolitan Police and the Ministry of Defence can confirm that the man who died in Woolwich yesterday was a serving soldier." [23] Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for confirmation Thryduulf. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Had I seen this yesterday, I would have opposed on the grounds that however shocking the motivation and cause of death, and however surprising the location, this was the murder of one unknown person by two other unknown people. But when I see the wall-to-wall coverage this is still getting, not only in the Western media, but by the likes of RT and Al Jazeera, coupled with the attention top politicians outside of the UK are paying to it, I think there are sufficient grounds to post. —WFCFL wishlist 15:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 26 hours on, still no posting. Despite 2 opposers still claiming that this was just a routine murder and one arguing that him speaking on behalf of all Londoners here should carry more weight than sourced reactions. Discount them and there is clearly a consensus to post when looking at the strength of the rest of the opposition. Can this process get any more discredited? This should either be up already, or there should be a list of concrete reasons here why not from one of the people charged with supposedly reviewing everybody's "reasonable arguments" in support and opposition and come to a consensus. Failure to do either is simply negligence. This is not a paper encyclopedia, yet even the print media is out-performing Wikipedia here. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The print media are generating more coverage, and more hot air, than we are, but that's not necessarily our objective. We're not directly competing with them, and I don't believe we should try. But no-one is paid to work on this site; the admins who might review and post this story make precisely £0.00 from doing so, and it's still working hours in the UK. Please be patient, at least. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Discount all those opposing your point of view so that there will be a consensus that you favour, If that's how you see this process than I'm afraid it is your contribution that should be discounted. --wintonian talk 18:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I only said discount those who were making unreasonable arguments, which is what the ITN guidance says admins should do. And it's no surprise that it's only those two people who seem to have a problem with that statement. Once you weigh up what's left, then the consensus is clear. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
And you again set yourself up as the arbiter of the reasonableness of other people's opinions. Please understand: I am genuinely interested in your view of the case, and of its suitability for ITN. I am not interested in your views of whether my own opinion is 'reasonable' - especially in light of your unwillingness to back your argument up with evidence or even explanation when I challenged it above. Which is, needless to say, what happened last time. I am not upset or angry; I'm actually quite keen to engage. But if you characterise my views in a particular way, and then don't say why, I may feel that your objection lacks substance. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You might not be interested, but without it, there is no debate to be had. Like it or not, this is supposed to be a debate to determine whose opinion is more reasonable. Check the guideance if you're not aware of that. I can defend any part of my view of the incident with evidence, but you've not challenged any of that. The only thing I am unwilling to do now is answer the sort of question that got me blocked last time. I'm sorry if that means you feel unable to question me in the way you want to do now, but you reap what you sow. You were not interested in facts or evidence the last time, you were only interested in whether I said any rude words once it became obvious to me that some people here were not interested in facts and evidence if they thought they had provided a single paragraph on the topic that they thought was not only reasonable but also not open to challenge (sound familiar?). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Victim now identified - I think the blurb can be expanded? GiantSnowman 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready I'm going to boldly mark this as ready. The article is large and well referenced, support is there, and the neutrals are leaning support. --IP98 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please note the current blurb mentions a beheading, there's not one single mention of that in the article. Before we post, please revise the blurb appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Revised. GiantSnowman 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yep, as far as I can see it's good to go, but I won't post it in case of COI issues. It's been interesting seeing that most UK-based or British editors have said this isn't ITN but a number of non-UK-based or non-British editors consider it important enough to post. Something of a contradiction I didn't expect, but (in my case) it's possibly about Blitz spirit and stiff upper lip and trying to "ignore" this revolting act so as not to encourage others. Who knows. Hopefully another admin can come along soon enough to post this or otherwise please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Gosh I hadn't noticed that, how interesting, well if even I am being rather stiff upper lip (which I'm not consciously) it's not a consideration for whether we decide to post or not :).--wintonian talk 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't wish to accuse TRM of any intentional bad faith. But this 'stiff upper lip' argument seems to appeal to national stereotypes in order to suggest that those of us who actually live in the area affected, and consume a high volume of domestic news media, know less about the seriousness and newsworthiness of the case than those separated from it by oceans. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Not ready on consensus )very tight)_ but only on update.
BTW- the confirmation came from the MOD after my last post. Still had MOD said he wasoffduty or is that media sitself?Lihaas (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I've not seen anything official saying he was on or off duty, but as he wasn't in uniform it's not really speculation to say he wasn't on duty. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
See [24] (just bellow the video) "The victim, now confirmed as an off-duty soldier...". --wintonian talk 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Dramatic circumstances of this killing are being trumped up in tabloid style in the Western media. Yes this is in the news but it is not one of the five or so most ITN-worthy blurbs we could post. Supporters do not make a compelling case for their claims of consensus by discounting opposing reasoning, in my view, and this should not be marked as ready. Jusdafax 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear - you're claiming the entire western media has suddenly developed tabloid tendencies for this one dramatic incident? And we're not allowed to discount this sort of opinion as unreasonable why exactly? You could at least give an example of what you're claiming is tabloid treatment in otherwise non-tabloid media. Because I personally have no idea what some other random person on the internet thinks is 'tabloid'. The tone of the coverage I've seen has been no different than any other recent similar incident, the Boston bombing being the one that immediately comes to mind. And it harldy matters if multiple stories get posted simultaneously, does it? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Over 32 hours now. The Encyclopedia Brittanica would probably have included it by now, if it was still in print. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
So what? What, exactly, is so terrible about us taking a while to make a decision? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that, the arrests earlier this evening aside, none of the pertient facts have changed in all that time. It was an horrific, unusual, widely covered terrorist attack 32 hours ago, and it still is now. The only thing that's really been happening for the last 32 hours here is not so much decision making, as decision delaying. Even if we're waiting to see evidence of longevity in the news, that doesn't take anywhere near 32 hours, not in the internet age. Around 8 hours is arguably the new 'news cycle'. I'm more interested in hearing from you what the harm would be in posting the more obvious headline news items like this as soon as the article is half-way decent, which it normally is an hour or two after creation. It can always be removed, after all, if you manage to make that case. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That isn't the proposal here. Pop over to WP Talk:ITN and propose it, and I'll be pleased to discuss it. Let's stick to this story for now. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We've got majority support, larger with the "favorable" neutrals, an historically unique event, and a well-updated article. This is indeed ready for an admin to make a judgment. BTW further arrests today show this is not just a flash in the pan. μηδείς (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Umm this is not a vote, however as the more attentive editors here may have noticed I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that there most likely is now consensus to post - (I still don't agree with such consensus however). --wintonian talk 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Big international news. The news here in the States have covered just two things in the past few days; the tornado in Oklahoma and this story. Absolutely ITN worthy.--Giants27(T|C) 22:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I just noticed two other people were arrested hours ago for conspiracy to murder (making this a 4 person cell at least), so that's another big chunk of the opposition that should be discounted. Meanwhile the coverage/analysis continues unabated as far as I can tell. So, should be being posted any minute now.... Any minute now.... Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please, for the love of courtesy, stop trying to tell us what 'should be discounted'. That is not your decision to make. You, and I, and everyone here, are peers in this discussion, and not in judgement upon one another. When an uninvolved admin comes by, they'll weigh up the arguments and make a decision. Please be patient. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not making any decision, quite clearly. But I am perfectly entitled to point out when someone's argument is discountable through its unreasonableness. Just like you are entitled to try and show how it isn't, rather than simply claiming that doing so is not allowed. It's called a debate. What you're referring to is not a debate, it's a list of unchallenged position statements. Otherwise known as a vote. And as HiLo is fond of screaming, ITN doesn't do that. On the subject of basic courtesy though, you should erase all the comments where you try to portray yourself as the voice of all Londoners, lest you offend any that might be reading here. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, and I think that whole argument should be discounted as we do not know what the arrests were for and besides people are innocent until proven guilty as per WP:CRIMINAL. --wintonian talk 22:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The sources say "conpsiracy to murder". Please read them before claiming what is and isn't known here. And who said they were guilty? Not me. But WP:CRIMINAL has no relevance here, clearly. And ITN can and does post pre-trial stories, if that's what you meant. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Likewise its not up to you to determine if its a 4-person cell. An arrest is not a conviction (other than the 2 that were caught on camera)
It is odd that though you weren't going to continue to comment above for fear of a block you are now commenting in the same thread..Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Okey I concede that I wasn't aware that the grounds for arrest had been made public at that point. As for assumed guilt/ innocence, you did say "making this a 4 person cell at least", rather than something along the lines of "meaning this could be a 4 person cell at least". But you should be pleased it's up now and as a result I'm going to bed as this debating is now fairly pointless. --wintonian talk 02:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, why can't I say cell? 4 people arrested for the same terrorist offence. What other word is commonly used for that situation, other than cell? And more importantly, what relevance does it have to the matter at hand? I was hardly suggesting it be used in a blurb. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You can say it, but that doesn't make it true. Until and unless we learn from official sources that those arrested genuinely had worked together in the way you're implying, this can't credibly be regarded as a cell. No reliable source could be found to say otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This is ITN, it's entire purpose is apparently to argue over whether what random people say about stuff is true or not. Here's what is definitely true and verified by offical sources: terrorism, 4 people arrested, 2 for murder, 2 for conspiracy to murder, all for the same victim. What more do you need? A dictionary maybe? To look up what conspiracy actually means, and compare it to what cell normally means in the context of terrorism? Bearing in mind all that was was a comment on the latest developmnent, not a proposed blurb, not my suggestion for an addition to the article, then your various reactions are nothing short of bizarre. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 21Edit

[Closed] RD: Dominique VennerEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Dominique Venner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Independent, The Guardian

Article updated
Nominator's comments: An award winning French historian who committed suicide as a result of protesting gay marriage. The section about his death is updated with a good amount of information so far. Andise1 (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The BBC headline "Man kills himself inside Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris" does not seem to me to indicate someone with significant enough prior notability for posting. Would we be considering him had he died of a heart attack? If not, then we should not be considering him. If his suicide is in itself considered an ITN-worthy event, then nominate it for a blurb as an event. Formerip (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose while it is being reported, this is a minor individual who has committed a truly selfish act in front of 1,500 innocent people who didn't deserve that in their lives forever. We don't post every monk who self-immolates in protest at genuine human rights issues, we shouldn't post this "man". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with FormerIP that we should effectively negate the manner of his death from this RD consideration. FormerIP's question Would we be considering him had he died of a heart attack? may well warrant the answer "yes". This individual was notable before his death, and the article is fairly extensive. Considering how he died, it's going to be difficult to make a post-mortem assessment of the "super-notability" that RD seems to require. I'm not going to !vote at the present time, but I will note that this shouldn't be a moral judgement on the man or his final act but rather an WP:NPOV assessment of pre-death notability. --LukeSurl t c 19:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with that, but people kill themselves for what they believe every day. Just because this is "sensational" because it happened in Notre Dame and involves a man who is barely notable (in Wikipedia terms - 10 or so hits a day on his article), I'd suggest this isn't worth the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD - like those above have alluded to, when someone's death headline doesn't mention their name it is a pretty clear indication that they are not very well known. Since RD items list only a name w/no details, the person should be expected to be easily recognizable to at least a large % of some region of the world. That does not appear to be the case here. Neutral on full blurb since I can't evaluate what has not been proposed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose When I read the BBC article (before this nomination was posted), it didn't even occur to me that the individual would have a wiki biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose against posting "mere" suicides. Perhaps if the Pope or the Queen killed themselves. Otherwise, no. μηδείς (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As above - let's not assist extremists in gaining publicity for their attention-grabbing antics. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

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

May 20Edit

[Posted] World Table Tennis ChampionshipsEdit

Article: 2013 World Table Tennis Championships (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At the World Table Tennis Championships, Zhang Jike wins the men's singles and Li Xiaoxia wins the women's singles.
News source(s): BBC - women's, BBC - men's

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R. Bit of a non-anglophone one here --LukeSurl t c 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment you don't me to tell you the article needs several lines of prose and more references before this crowd will even consider it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess I won't tell The Rambling Man ;), but to everyone else the article clearly is not ready for posting since it is almost entirely tables. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Heh. One issue is that there seems to be very few sources even interested in this. This is ITN/R (at the moment) but with few sources, I'm not sure how successful an update will be. Still, if it's hanging around tomorrow night, I'll give it a go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready - I've updated the article beyond the minimum ITN standard. I plan to work on it more later tonight, but it is good enough to post. A picture of Li is available, if desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 23:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've covered this event for Wikimedia. If needed, this is a pucture of Li Xiaoxia taken during the final. Pyb (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added it to the main and women's singles articles. --LukeSurl t c 16:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

[posted] RD Ray ManzarekEdit

Article: Ray Manzarek (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN LA Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Manzarek co-founded The Doors and there would have been no famous Jim Morrison without his encouragement and subsequent signature keyboard work. Jusdafax 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Pretty big name in music. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Updated would like to see sources/reaction--assume I can support this, but not yet. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added a quote from the CEO of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It may be helpful to note that Manzarek played bass keyboards (allowing the Doors to perform without a bass payer) along with the normal keys, so in effect he had twice the impact of a normal band member. Jusdafax 01:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (edit conflict) I've never heard of him myself, but many people seem to have, and his death is popping up everywhere, at least here in the US.  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A key member of a very influential band and his death has been getting a lot of coverage. He's also considered one of the best rock keyboardists, which adds to his notability. -- Scorpion0422 01:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
People around the world are familiar with the opening of Light my Fire. Jusdafax 01:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 04:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Postmortem support — One of the most influential keyboardists in history. Definitely notable enough to be mentioned in RD. Kurtis (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    That's an unfortunate choice of words. --Jayron32 00:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
For a moment there, I didn't know what you meant. Then I remembered the other definition of "postmortem"... sorry, didn't mean to sound so distasteful. Kurtis (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. I found it funny. Even if you didn't mean it so. --Jayron32 02:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I ROFL'd when you pointed it out. :-) Kurtis (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A perfect nom: no opposes and ghoulish humor to close. Now if I could just get an ITN credit from someone... hint hint! Jusdafax 07:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Take it... you've earned it, of course. No one is stopping you. --Jayron32 04:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
LukeSurl (thanks Luke) was kind enough to fix me up! Jusdafax 06:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rios Montt's conviction overturnedEdit

Article: Efraín Ríos Montt (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Constitutional Court of Guatemala overturns the genocide conviction of Efraín Ríos Montt

Nominator's comments: When a conviction is newsworthy, surely its reversal is so. --Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Per the ref in the article [25], the conviction was overturned, but "reset" back a month and sent back to the lower court. If he was permanently cleared of charges, I'd say it's notable, but this is just an interim legal step in the ongoing case. Wait until a final verdict is reached. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We posted the conviction; now we must report that our prior report was premature - the essence of WP:BLP and good journalistic standards. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Our report was not premature; the court's conviction was premature. Simply stating that the conviction was "overturned" does not explain the situation very well, due to the "reset" order from the Constitutional Court; I updated the article to reflect that. At the very least, the blurb needs to reflect the court's order better. (There also may be more info in the next few days, since apparently the issue over recusal of judges was ordered to be handled within 24 hours, but nobody seems to know how that's going to be done.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The conviction which was reported in our ITN is now known to be non-existent. What happens next is anyone's guess; but the removal of the conviction that has been announced is news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support It seems to me that if we have posted a conviction we should also post when it is overturned, both as a matter of fairness to the person concerned and because if the conviction is sufficiently notable so is it being overturned. Neljack (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Per Neljack. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposee for now. The supports should read that this is an appeal, not a final acquittal. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I am aware of that, and took it into consideration; I stand by my support. Neljack (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Far be it from me to demand you retract your support! :D μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, no conviction should be news, either as the appeals are underway for sometime (legal options remain), but - by then - it's not news. Here, in fairness, we must report that our prior report with all its hoopla of some modern-day sic semper tyrannis is no longer true. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is a weird non-final ruling and it portends many more weird non-final rulings before it is over. Wait at least until his legal options have run out. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 Oklahoma City tornadoEdit

Articles: 2013 Moore tornado (talk, history) and May 18–20, 2013 tornado outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A tornado with winds reaching 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) strikes Moore, Oklahoma, during a tornado outbreak.
Alternative blurb: ​A minimum EF4 tornado tornado strikes Moore, Oklahoma, killing dozens.
News source(s): [26]

 --– Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tornado as it passed through south Oklahoma City towards Moore. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. This is clearly going to be a major story, as the devastation is significant. CNN says the tornado was reported as two miles wide. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot on being a major disaster. Article is in good shape too even with today's developing storms. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait, please. As of now we have absolutely no idea what kind of effect this has had aside from the visuals. Once we get a sense of just how much damage was caused and how many were hurt, we'd be better poised to form consensus. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It's already quite clear that most the town of Moore, OK was pretty much wiped out. Based on the visuals we don't need an exact casualty count here. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
We thought that as well when the explosion at the West Fertilizer Company explosion happened, but it turned out to be much less catastrophic than it seemed. Hence why I urged not to jump too quickly on this (which we didn't!) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when updated Significant tornado, massive damage and several casualties already reported. Media worldwide are covering this as a headline story. Blurb needs to be updated to point to 2013 Moore tornado, and note > 200mph winds, not that it was traveling at 200mph. (Current initial information seems somewhat incomplete, but I imagine the full extent will become more clear soon enough.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Do we really need a separate article on the one storm out of several? The overall disaster relief will be the same as the rest of the state that's been affected. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • This is probably addressed better on the articles' talk pages themselves, since this probably isn't the best place for a merge discussion; but in any case, the specific Moore tornado does seem notable in its own right from the news coverage being given to it. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Six confirmed dead per CNN and based on the devastation, that number will more than likely rise in the coming days. Absolutely worthy of being on ITN.--Giants27(T|C) 23:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support One of the largest tornadoes ever. --SubSeven (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Support. This is definitely something that we should post (wow 2 miles wide and "the worst ... in the history of the world"), but only after we have a rough idea about fatalities/damage. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Question has the NWS published coordinates? It would be nice to add before posting. --IP98 (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with a revision of the blurb. The tornado wasn't moving at 200 mph, it had winds up to 200 mph. And that's still preliminary. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose current blurb: It makes it sound like the tornado had a ground-track speed of 200 mph. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Tornadoes are not my forte. Any blurb rewrites would be appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your updated blurb seems better, but needs to note Moore, Oklahoma, and point to 2013 Moore tornado. Maybe stick "catastrophic" at the beginning, and initial information on casualties at the end (though it's really too early to know the true extent of casualties.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd avoid an adjective here (at least for ITN posting) unless it's a word that comes down from something like the NWS. On the other hand, saying it was an estimated "EF4" tornado with wind speeds exceeding 200 mph is sufficient qualify to stress the strength of this storm. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right, that's probably overly sensationalistic. The technical description is more than adequate. I edited the location as the original article moved (not sure that's correct procedure as non-nominator, but it was pointing to a redirect.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Picture forthcoming. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City is reporting at least 20 fatalities in an elementary school in Moore. Meteorologists believe it may have been an EF-5 tornado (the highest category of tornado). This is obviously a major disaster, as bad as the May 3, 1999 tornado, if not worse. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; very significant disaster. (Of course, it's a bit US-centric: do we post Thai disasters with 20 fatalities?) -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Death toll here will likely exceed 100 (37 already reported and it is very early), and yes if someone nominated a Thai disaster with 20 deaths it would probably be posted. I can't recall the last time a proposed natural disaster was rejected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Blurb I suggest we focus on Moore, something concise, like "A possible F-5 tornado in Moore, Oklahoma kills dozens". μηδείς (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Marked ready, Moore Tornado article is updated and no opposition> μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Heavily in the news, no doubt. Lean towards shorter blurb. Jusdafax 00:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted with a simple blurb, similar to the usual ITN formatting. Suggestions for improvement of the blurb can continue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19Edit

Yahoo to acquire TumblrEdit

Article: Tumblr (talk, history)
Blurb: Yahoo! announces it intention to acquire microblogger Tumblr for US$1.1 billion.
News source(s): Time

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Its been a long time since we posted a non-crime related business story on ITN. This is the biggest acquisition I've seen in several months and thus presents an excellent opportunity to get this under represented area on to ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Withholding support pending update. The story's being well covered in many news sources, but I need to know what text we're putting on the main page before I give my full support. --Jayron32 05:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Tumblr while a major microblogging site is not a major brand-name player on the Internet (and arguably, Yahoo, nowadays) If it was like Yahoo buying Facebook, that would be one thing. This is the right point for an ITN, but I don't think this news qualifies as ITN per past discussion on business matters. --MASEM (t) 05:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think we need to adjust our standards. Billion dollar deals are very rare, much more rare than say a natural disaster than kills 20 people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Can you quantify how rare? I oppose this for now, but if shown that this is indeed very rare, I'd probably feel differently. I'm not sure how often $1B+ deals do occur. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
        • About one/month on average, but its been several months since the last one, based only on my experience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now) Wait for an official announcement. Yahoo!/Tumblr haven't announced anything yet, the news reports so far are only based on sources close to the board. Also change "microblogger" to "microblogging platform" or "microblogging service". Kollision (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose without further evidence of notability. Need evidence that this is more than a routine business deal; while these are major names online, and there is significant news coverage, I'm not convinced that such coverage meets notability guidelines. For example, random Facebook changes are covered in the media as heavily as things like this deal, simply because they're part of the social media sphere that affects the portion of the world that participates in such, and thus drives media coverage. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If I recall correctly, we didn't post the (ultimately failed?) Dell leveraged buyout announcement, or Facebook buying Instagram. At least I hope we didn't for either. Or the American Airlines / US Airways merger, which was 10x bigger than this one. Businesses make strategic decisions all the time. I don't see a reason to post this one on ITN especially. Oppose. NW (Talk) 06:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - There have been bigger acquisitions than this (Skype's US$6.3 billion purchase by Microsoft comes to mind) and Tumblr isn't a really big player as far as Internet companies go. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose since it's not a done deal, but only intention for acquiring. I'd support it when the deal is over and the acquisition takes place for sure. This is obviously the first phase in the acquisition process, and it's too early to support something which is not probable to occur. The second phase, in which the acquisition would be announced, and the last phase, when it actually takes place, are worth enough for supporting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not sure Tumblr is as significant as all that, and this is - as Kiril observes - not a done deal. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait for announcement The Tumblr article says that "they're in talks", but I might support when they announce an agreement. We really missed the boat with the AA/CACTUS merger. It was approved on March 27 by some stuffy judge with very little fanfare (didn't even make it to the current events portal). It seems with business news, the announcement is the big story, and only if regulators shoot it down do you hear about it again. --IP98 (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The deal was officially announced today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Changing to neutral. The AA/CACTUS buyout had obvious results: a new gigantic airline and an end to AA's financial woes. The implications for this are less clear. It's more a case of Yahoo adding to it's portfolio of internet properties. The update doesn't do enough to satisfy this. With the acquisition, how does this position Yahoo vs it's competitors? --IP98 (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting tech internet story. Been in the news for days, and of international significance, so it makes a good ITN blurb. Jusdafax 04:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't remember us posting Facebook's billion dollar acquisition of Instagram (and that was when both were highly fashionable....) and I don't see a good reason to post this, big tech company acquires smaller tech company for ridiculous sum, all too common. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

[New Article] SyriaEdit

Article: Al-Qusayr offensive (2013)#Battle of al-Qusayr (talk, history)
Blurb: Syrian government forces commence a counter-attack in the opposition stronghold of Al-Qusayr, Syria.

Article needs updating

 --Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Thank god the other side is finally fighting back is not a valid rationale--there may be others, but they haven't been given. μηδείς (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If they take the town, that might in principle be postable. But, as things stand, the nomination amounts to "did you know there is a war going on in Syria?". Formerip (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Sticky?Lihaas (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What sources are there for this? Like Medeis I'm not really seeing a reason to post. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
[28][29]Lihaas (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Update the article, and I will consider the nomination :). Thue (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Edit: Support now, seems to be significant and widely covered in the media. Thue (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
[30][31]Key capture imminent. NYT: "The fight is viewed by both loyalists and government opponents as a turning point that could, in the words of one activist in Qusayr, “decide the fate of the regime and the revolution.” “It is one of the hardest days all over Syria,” said Tarek, the activist, who would give only his first name because of security concerns. “If Qusayr is finished, it will be the end of the revolution in Homs.”...Syrian rebels have shelled Hezbollah-controlled areas. On Sunday, they hit the Lebanese town of Hermel with Grad missiles
Int'l media affirming a Syrian army victoryLihaas (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually that's the intl media affirming that the Syrian army is affirming a Syrian army victory. Like I said, though, that would be ITN-able if confirmed, IMO. Formerip (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
This was a major victory: Iranian arms for Hizballah can now go through from Syria to destination unobstructed. In more than two years of battling the Assad regime, this was one of the rebels’ most devastating losses after three weeks of bitter fighting and the last of a whole row of recent setbacks.Lihaas (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It might make sense to have a discussion of stickies for Syria and Iraq on the talk page, given there's so much going on on a regular basis. The problem is, of course that we can't predict what will happen. A North Korea sticky based on news from February would have sat stale for quite a bit. I am not sure that anyone actually comes to wikipedia for such geopolitical topics. (May 2013 Iraq attacks got 1898 views yesterday under its original title) I think it's much more likely we get readers for notable recent deaths and topics like coronations which deal with singular personalities and unique events. (Joyce Brothers, a recent nomination, got over 100,000 views without being posted.) I suspect we need to focus more on our readers, and less on what "should" be notable. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Iraq was only up a small % of its first day. It got 14092+1837 views on its first full day. That's still a below average # for ITN, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I suspected that would be the case given the name was changed, so, in good faith, I mentioned it. The point is still illustrated. And frankly, I do support a sticky. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now.) This is too vague. What is the scope of the counter-attack? Why is it notable? The blurb and article do not explain this, thus it seems far too vague for ITN. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Extending Hezbollah (and thus regional) involvement. [ Battle of al-Qusayr?
more risk
Added a new links to the battle article. While there is a tag there it is mostly for the 2012 article.Lihaas (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Weak support after updates; relevance of the counter-offensive is explained more clearly now, but the significance in the overall conflict could be expanded on. Needs some further copyediting. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support-Now with new article. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - No doubt that this topic is ITN-worthy for a blurb. I do however notice the new article is a section of an article with an "unbalanced" tag at the top. That has to be fixed before we go to the Main page with this. Jusdafax 19:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose unless the blurb is linked to the 2013 battle article:Al-Qusayr Offensive. Putting two different battles into one article (as is currently done for Battle of Al-Qusayr) makes no sense and is WP:CONTENTFORKING.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait - The city is of highly strategic importance. If government forces do take it, then I would support posting that event.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Article: Boko Haram#State counter-offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Nigeria continues its offensive operations against Boko Haram, including air strikes and a blockade against its traditional base.

Article updated

 --Lihaas (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Just from reading the Wikipedia article, seems like an extraordinary confrontation. The Boko Haram grouping is mentioned in my lokal news fairly often, and are obviously notable in themselves. Thue (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I follow this conflict intently, and I can assure you this is biggest development/news item to emerge in a fairly long time. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but would support given an update to support the stated magnitude of the situation. "Seems big" is not a good enough rationale; there needs to be enough information such that the article does reflect whether or not it is "big." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • A country using airstrikes against a group on its own territory is almost per definition notable. Thue (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • That Nigeria notably used airstrikes in its own territory is not clear from the blurb or the article itself. That it needs to be explained here shows the issue; the article needs to explain why this is notable. Without that being noted and referenced, it doesn't seem to be notable for ITN. The article/blurb need to better present the magnitude of said airstrikes for it to make sense as an ITN item. I don't question that it's perhaps quite notable, after reading other sources, but the given information doesn't suggest that. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 10:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The blusb and article mention the events or the airstrike AND the blockade.Lihaas (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
They still do not seem to explain the particular relevance of those events, though, simply that they occurred. That's my concern. Was this the first major government counter-offensive? Was it some sort of turning point against Boko Haram? It seems like those things may be the case, but I cannot tell from the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes, this marks a precipitous turning point. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question, but the real issue is to make the article do so without me needing to ask the question. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 19:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As the blurb says 'continues', it's not clear what the actual event is here that provides a hook for this posting. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It started 4 days ago. So its not stale, but its also ongoingLihaas (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment-I notice above that User:Jusdafax posted the following: "No doubt that this topic [Syrian Army offensive] is ITN-worthy for a blurb." Please, do tell how this topic differs in essence? In fact, this topic is slightly more strident, within the context of the respective conflicts. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] 2013 IIHF World Championship FinalEdit

Article: 2013 IIHF World Championship Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the IIHF World Championship concludes with Sweden/Switzerland defeating Switzerland/Sweden in the final.
Alternative blurb: ​In ice hockey, the IIHF World Championship concludes in the [first victory by the host country since 1986/county's first-ever victory] as Sweden/Switzerland defeats Switzerland/Sweden in the final.

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: Some historical statistics bits to consider: if Switzerland wins it is the first time in the tournament's history that Switzerland has won, and if Sweden wins it is the first time sine 1986 that the host country has won the tournament. The suggested blurb is a copy of last year's, but should any of the statistics be reflected in this year's blurb? --hydrox (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Support When a match summary is available when the background section is fully referenced (I think looks good otherwise), due to it's listing at WP:ITNR as a major tournament with participants from numerous nations. --wintonian talk 16:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the stats I would say no as the important thing here is the first ever win (by a host since 1986). --wintonian talk 16:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
So do you mean you are for the altblurb in case Switzerland wins, but not in case Sweden wins? --hydrox (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes thats right the Alt blurb which ever way it ends up. - Sorry I should of made that clearer. --wintonian talk 17:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
That makes lots of sense. First-ever victory is obviously much bigger deal than first victory by the host since X years. --hydrox (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose completely unreferenced at this time (per the Heineken Cup example below, seemingly irrelevant that it's in ITN/R). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • TRM, thank you so much for pointing that out. I've added the appropriate template to that section in the hopes that it's corrected for posting. --IP98 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Could you at least wait until the game has ended and there's something to reference? --hydrox (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Could you have waited until there was something to post before nominating it or was it simply a case of getting another nomination? I don't understand. Opposing on quality ground for ITN/R is perfectly justified, surely, since that's the only ground to argue with these types of nominations. Oh, and all of the existing article can be referenced while you wait for the final result. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Sorry for nominating this item prematurely. For my defense, it clearly says in the nomination that the game's result will not be known until 21:00 UTC. I requested opinions regarding the blurb in hopes of establishing a consensus, if you read above. I believe your opposition is just a provocation, as you should know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid nor helpful argument here. --hydrox (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • It's fine, just reference those things that can be referenced in the meantime, and then be prepared to write several dozen sentences of referenced prose before it's acceptable. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • No, it's not a provocation, when I looked at the article it had not one single reference. That was mentioned in my oppose. Your response is neither valid nor helpful. Please, if you haven't already, address those concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. The article lacks information about the summary of the game and its aftermath because it has just ended, so there should be substantial improvements to put it in order for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article has very few sources and is of low quality currently. It would be a shame to post it in this shape. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because, as Kiril says, the game has just ended, and the article will be easier to reference soon. But right now I think it's sufficiently referenced. This news is a no-brainer for ITN. Perhaps write: "In ice hockey, the IIHF World Championship concludes with Sweden defeating Switzerland in the final, becoming the first host nation since 1986 to win the tournament." HeyMid (contribs) 21:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added a summary as well as more references to the article. I think it's ready to be published at ITN. HeyMid (contribs) 23:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R, good update. --IP98 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and frame this for people who put sporting events/contests etc. (like Super Bowl, Eurovision, etc.) for an example of what a decent update looks like. This has a sufficient prose update of the event itself being reported on, exactly as it should. --Jayron32 02:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted - nice job on the update. I echo Jayron's sentiment, agreeing that this is what an update on a sporting event should look like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, with an inadequate lead, unreferenced paragraphs in the prose, a vastly inaccessible table, no key for those who are lucky enough to see the "colourful" approach, a match summary with odd italicised terms that are meaningless to most of the readership, one reference for most of the Summary, (and 40% of refs in Swedish).... sure thing, "nice job". And yet we get bitching about "European" sports updates. Ironic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • What's really ironic is that someone who bitches constantly about too much "arbitrary" counting, says an update is bad because it uses one source. Using two (or 15) sources for the same exact info would not make it better, and you know it. On the other points, non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, the lead is OK - our standard is not perfection, and this was a match played between two European teams so I have no idea what "double standard" you think I am imposing. Why do you feel the need to make everything personal here? Are you trying to upset and/or chase away everyone who has a different point of view than you, because it sure feels like that is your goal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
        • No what's ironic is that you made a statement which was patently incorrect. Perhaps you're not aware of what makes a good article, but your position that the update to this article was something akin to a "test case" is depressingly incorrect. There is so much wrong with this article and its "good update" that it should be pulled, but I haven't the time or energy to deal with those who genuinely believe the update made to this article is "what an update on a sporting event should look like". That's just unreal. For 12 hours this article had linkrot issues all over it, the tag was just happily removed by someone who said they'd deal with it at some point. But they didn't. It also suffers from the other problems I've noted above. It's clear there's another issue here, that articles which are promoted to the main page (and I assume this wasn't promoted with stacks of bare URLs for refs, surely not?) in a good state are then allowed to sit with maintenance tags almost immediately afterwards because this process doesn't extend beyond this "getting on the main page" issue. Ship it, then it's someone else's problem.
        • " Are you trying to upset and/or chase away everyone who has a different point of view than you, because it sure feels like that is your goal." No, I just want some of the people here who do nothing but bitch and "vote" to actually step up and edit articles. I know you do Thaddeus, but many, many people here are simply jeering spectators. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
          • In my opinion, the update was very good. The overall quality of the article is roughly "start class" and can be improved, but that doesn't chance that the update itself was good. It seems to me that you regularly argue a single sentence is a good enough update, so I don't think you have much ground to say this update was inadequate. However, if you had a problem with the update you could have mentioned it before it was posted. Irregardless, by making everything personal you undermine any valid points you have. Edit summaries like "double standards personified" do nothing but provoke people. Based on the multiple personal slaps in your complaint+replies, I doubt you would have even commented if someone else posted it. Your recent behavior towards certain editors recently has been really unbecoming and has only increased hostilities here. An editor of your experience really should know better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
            • I did oppose it, as you can see, and you posted it in the middle of the night. It was not a good quality update. And thanks for your advice, always appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • You opposed before the update occurred (and before the event even happened), so there is no way I could have known you thought it was insufficient. It's always the "middle of the night" somewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18Edit

[Posted] Heineken CupEdit

Articles: 2012–13 Heineken Cup (talk, history) and 2013 Heineken Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In rugby union, the Heineken Cup concludes with Toulon defeating Clermont in the final
News source(s): BBC

Both articles need updating

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

Nominator's comments: The top club rugby tournament in the northern hemisphere. On ITNR. --Modest Genius talk 21:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on article quality. No update, article still written in the future tense, no synopsis of the game, giant orange tag at the top. Fix this up to something we'd be proud of on the main page, and you can consider this opposition withdrawn. --Jayron32 21:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with those observations. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on the articles right now. Modest Genius talk 21:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Have done some work on the "final" article, at least to remove the orange tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Updated to correct tense, to include final score, scorers etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If you really want to convince non-aficionados of the merits of this, put the name of the sport in the title or the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Done. Modest Genius talk 00:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article not updated. Also seems rather insignificant on the scale of world events. Kaldari (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What's missing from the article? It's ITN/R, so your opinion regarding the significance is somewhat irrelevant I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • C It's ITN/R so a vote is not really warranted, but Rugby items are more uncommon and frankly less hyped than AFootball ones. That would work for/against it, depending on your POV. -- (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not a "vote" on it's notability(nor is it ever a "vote"; consensus decides things, not a vote), it's a discussion about the quality of the article suggested; it can still be rejected on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose didn't we already post a rugby union cup contested between the exact same 6 nations? One which has been around for 130 years? I think called the 2013 Six Nations Championship? The Heineken Cup is played by "regional and provincial teams". Sounds like not top of sport to me. --IP98 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 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. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your kind clarification, it's truly appreciated. --IP98 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • It's been sitting here for a day as an ITN/R. I shouldn't have to clarify these things to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, of course, thank you again, you're correct. --IP98 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Don't see you using the same "not top-tier" argument for the NCAA noms...-- (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment for those of you who understand ITN/R, could you let me know precisely what more you need for the "update" to be sufficient quality for it to be ready to post? Despite most of the blustering editors here, I'm still prepared to actually fix things. Please let me know soonest what you want to see. By the way, I've looked for "reactions" all over the internet, and have failed, if you think I've missed something there, perhaps you can present alternative information that's missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe it would make sense to add a prose update to the 2012–13 Heineken Cup#Final and bold link that article. From a WP reader standpoint, I don't see what value a list of players has for me, which is a big part of 2013 Heineken Cup Final. Just a thought. --IP98 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The final is bold linked in the blurb, the list of players is information useful just as you'd expect to know who played in the final of a Superbowl or who played in the final of the FA Cup. What more prose do you expect? (compare 2012 Heineken Cup Final which was happily posted last year)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • My sincere apologies if I was unclear. I propose bold linking "2012-13 Heineken Cup" and adding a prose update to the Final section. If an interested reader really cares about the players, they'll find it in 2013 Heineken Cup final. --IP98 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Well sure, but last year's final article (which is what ITN/R suggests) was posted, and we should do the same this year. So what's wrong with the final article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
            • We don't have to keep doing the same thing year after year. The "route to final" section has helped to build out the article, so the suggestion is moot now. --IP98 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Well it's not moot as you still oppose, so what else do you want to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
                • It's fine now, just needed to be padded out. You did great. The 2012-13 Heineken Cup article is also in the blurb. My oppose will be ignored as invalid, so good there. Mark it ready. --IP98 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • Of course not, that would be a conflict of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the article has already matched last year's final article in content and refs which was posted at ITN. Can someone identify what's actually wrong with the "final" article to stop it being posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support why is this a debate? We need a new ITN even and is on ITN/R. Is there something against sports at ITN? YE Pacific Hurricane 19:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose What's next, Bud vs Bud Light? Where's the link to the original discussion establishing this as an ITNR item? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing side drama that has been consistently infecting ITN/C. Take it to user talk pages. SpencerT♦C 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Stop posting trite Youtube videos Meds. And you can find where this was added to ITN/R, I'm sure you can manage that. And note, please follow IP98's lead and do some research to get this actively removed from ITN/R before just wasting more community time. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I believe that Medeis has indicated that he does not like to be called "Meds". It's only a few extra characters. Medeis, I've nominated this item for removal at WT:ITNR. --IP98 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I've indicated that I'm not keen on "Rambler" or being told to "take meds" but hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I have noted the resumption yet again of personal attacks here and the attempt to justify it when shallenged on the talk page [32]. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
            • And I've noted the ongoing tedious hypocrisy. "Shallenge" away. I'll keep taking "more meds". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ready It says about all it can say. Sourced. The summary section is shorter than 2012 but it looks like it was a less eventful match. --IP98 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage extended to same-sex couples in FranceEdit

Article: Same-sex marriage in France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President François Hollande signs legislation extending marriage rights to same-sex couples in France.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Sydney Morning Herald
Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The article is up to date. Here's the chance to right a much talked about recent omission on the ITN space. -- (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose stale, not news, and we don't "right wrongs". μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's on every news site on the internet. How can it be "not news"? Not sure I understand you comment about "we don't right wrongs". What does that mean? Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Did we post this for New Zealand? --wintonian talk 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Further comment, France is a major country and this is a major development plus the previous discussion was probably in support of posting now makes me want to support this. However are we going to post this every-time a major country legalises same-sex marriage? and how do we determine what is a major country or not? --wintonian talk 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the same way it is determined what is a major killing. The threshold for that seems to be around 10, so maybe for major civil rights changes the threshold could be 10,000,000? --ELEKHHT 01:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like significant world news. France is the 4th biggest country in Europe so this affects a lot of people. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was already basically nominated and failed a week or two ago. And no, we did not post the New Zealand one either I cannot remember it passing. (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because this came up before and was not posted. I won't beat the dead horse. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • If not posting would have been the result of consensus not to post I would understand your position. --ELEKHHT 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
To 331dot and IP 75.73 - there seemed to be widespread agreement after the France and NZ votes had dropped off ITNC that they should, arguably, have been posted after all. There did not seem to be any clear explanation as to why they were not. However, it is not my purpose to revisit those discussions. What I'd like to do is to ask you to consider this nomination on its merits, rather than on the basis of the alleged lack of consensus earlier. (If the previous French nomination had succeeded, or been clearly defeated, I would naturally not be asking this.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on the merits and on a reading of the previous discussion. First, France is a reasonably large and influential country and the opening of a long-standing social institution to a significant proportion of its population is important news worthy of ITN. Second, I'd read the previous discussion as either "no consensus" or weak support for posting. Part of the issue appears to have been that it was premature, as the bill hadn't yet been signed into law.--Chaser (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose France is the 14th country to legalise same-sex marriage, so it's not particularly novel. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's quite novel in France, affecting the rights of 65 million people. It is also novel in comparison with the current top news item about the most recent bombing in Iraq. --ELEKHHT 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose These stories have ceased to present any meaningful threshold. It is a minor, and no longer novel, change in internal legislation that is gradually rolling out across the world. There is no merit in spotlighting every step in the journey. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I can cut and paste as well: It's so minor that groups on each side around the world engage in massive protests(on some occasions violent) and spend large sums of money to persuade people to support them. The pro side is still a minority view, as it's legal in less than 10% of sovereign states. I oppose posting this story, but this isn't minor or novel. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As historically a Catholic country, this is a major step. (Although, if this is rejected it won't upset me too much because from then on only a fool would nominate another US state.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think legalisations in the US will continue to get nominated and posted, but we'll see. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
France is a legally secular country, with a nominally Catholic Majority but Mass attendance of <5% and only 3% placed "Belief" among the four most important governing principles of their life in a 2008, the 25th out of 27 countries surveyed. The "Catholicism" of the country is not an issue. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Widely reported world-wide, and as it hasn't been posted when passed in parliament despite 2/3 support. --ELEKHHT 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It was never really illegal, all that's happened is that any ambiguity has been cleared up. Less than 10 years from the first attempt to legalization. The left leaning parties control the national assembly and senate. No Tiblisi style street protests. Generally this seems to be a continuing trend in highly developed western societies. I'm opposing this so that we don't become a "Gay marriage ticker". I'm reserving support now for societies where there is significant social opposition (Russia), legal opposition (USA), or where a constitutional change would be required (rather than a legislative one) (IE Poland). --IP98 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It's estimated that a million people demonstrated in Paris the weekend before the bill entered the legislature and it's the biggest change to gay rights in France since the Revolution. 11:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerIP (talkcontribs)
More like since 1981/82 given the repeal then of the last criminal laws and the equalization of the age of consent. μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I know what you are referring to. Looking at our article, gayness was an aggravating factor for indecent exposure until 1980. I'm not dismissing that, but I think gay marriage and adoption rights are a bigger change that more people are likely to notice. Formerip (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
strong oppose nothing landmark or unexpected about it. It breaks not hirsotry/traditionLihaas (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Is that why there were massive protests against it? Because it didn't break history or tradition? 331dot (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This should have been posted when it was voted through; however, the signing-in has made the news, and the story remains as relevant. I don't want to see an endless deluge of such articles, but this one has been particularly close-fought, and HiLo48 is right - this is a big deal. I'm quite conversant with the history of queer rights in France; Lihaas' argument is (and I don't say this on ITN much) wrong as a matter of fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Of what does the update consist" All I see is On 17 May 2013, the Constitutional Council declared the Act constitutional. The same day, President Francois Hollande signed the bill, which was officially published on 18 May 2013, in the Journal Officiel.. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose No more gay marriage ITN's until Afghanistan legalises it. --RA (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] DSM-5Edit

Article: DSM-5 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is published.
Alternative blurb: ​Following publication of DSM-5, Asperger's syndrome is incorporated in a group of autism spectrum disorders.
News source(s): Guardian, Washington Post

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article is in good shape. Although this is an American publication it has a global influence in the field of mental health. The new content is not without it's controversies but nevertheless will set the tone in the diagnosis of mental health and discourse around this field for many years to come. The renaming of Asperger's syndrome within the broader group of ASD is arguably the most newsworthy change. --yorkshiresky (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment changed updated to no. Article needs a tense update. --IP98 (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support posting after update. DSM is used worldwide, so an update like this one has a huge impact on clinical providers as well as on individuals with mental disorders. There's been a lot of controversy related to its contents, and it's been almost 20 years since the 4th edition came out. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when updated - The pending publication has been in and out of the news for weeks, so clearly this is a major story. I prefer the main blurb which does not try to decide what is the most important update of the manual. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This isn't exactly In The News (unless...), it's been discussed for months, and it amounts to a commercial role-out, no different in essence from the debut of Windows 8 (ad perhaps eqally lamented). μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
oppose;;; not in the news anywhere. At any rate, doesn't indicate global noteworthiness.Lihaas (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I doubt that this is about a commercial product. It is a notable manual for a very notable section of public health. I don't think it would hurt to feature this on ITN for a few days. Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The DSM is not just another product. It is the Bible for mental illness. It is the key guide for anyone who regularly deals with mental illness in their profession (not only psychiatrists and psychologists, but also for other professionals and paraprofessionals, such as attorneys, paralegals, medical doctors, health care providers of all kinds, etc.). New editions are rare, with the years of publication of prior editions being: 1952, 1968, 1980, 1994 (with intervening revisions in 1987 and 2000; see the article for more details). Of course, much of the news is past, in the sense that a lot of the controversy and discussion about the contents of the DSM-V necessarily happened prior to publication. But readers who click through will get to read about that, many for the first time.--Chaser (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support sadly the opposes show distinct lack of understanding of the significance. Links to unrelated Youtube videos are twee and entirely unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, only because we did not bring this up in December, when it should have been a no-brainer. This is a very important publication in psychiatry, and aside from the text revision in 2000, it hasn't been updated in almost twenty years. Not to mention how damn controversial this is... so I think this is still worth posting now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Per Chaser above, the DSM is the #1 professional resource for all things dealing with mental health. A new edition is a pretty notable event. Kurtis (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Unusual, but an interesting change of pace. I lean towards the alt blurb as the way to go. Jusdafax 08:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Willing to post. Reading the comments, the book being published is a big deal. However, I am not fully convinced we should stress Asperger here. Some more thoughts maybe? --Tone 08:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Leave Asperger out. I'm generally opposed to any sort of "highlight" in a posting. --IP98 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Use the main blurb.--Chaser (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The DSM is a product of the American Psychiatric Association, not a peer-reviewed scholarly work. It's latest rollout has been rejected by the NIMH under the Obama administration as the basis for Federal grants. This posting would be highly uninformed--a blurb saying the NIMH has rejected the DSM would be appropriate. Nonprofit Quarterly: "The DSM is used not only by practitioners to diagnose conditions, but also by insurance companies to determine treatments to be covered, so it is a socially powerful document. Insel, however, believes that the DSM is less than scientific." [33] μηδείς (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • We're not here to play psychiatrist and assess the validity of the thing. We're here to judge whether or not it makes for a good news piece. And it does. If users are really interested, they will read the article we're advertising and learn all about the controversies (and I don't deny that they are valid arguments) that you mention. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I have no idea what you mean by "play psychiatrist", and the criticisms of this guild handbook still stand, but the sources evinced for this are a book review and a blog. That's not news. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The altblurb may be slightly misleading, since it gives the impression that DSM is a list of things that do and don't exist. AS will still be diagnosable and it will still be in other manuals such as ICD-10, it just isn't included in DSM-V. Formerip (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with primary blurb; oppose alternate blurb, as it puts undue emphasis on a particular syndrome which will still be recognized elsewhere. This appears to be a significant update to a widely used and highly notable medical text, which hasn't been updated past a "text revision" in nearly 20 years. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not Ready - The majority of the article reads "it is proposed..." Someone really needs to clear up which of the proposals made it through to the publication version before we post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when updated - This is a landmark in the field of mental health - which we rarely if ever carry stories about. I'm well aware of the problems with DSM5's status and acceptance; but the publication is making the news, in part because of those issues. I oppose the altblurb - ASD reclassification is only one of several contentious areas. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Very interesting. Great topic for an ITN. --RA (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I jumped the gun on this one. ThaddeusB's concerns still apply and should be addressed before this is posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Aleksei BalabanovEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Aleksei Balabanov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Directed such films as Brother and Brother 2, that are popular in Russia and feature Sergei Bodrov, Jr. Brandmeistertalk 16:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the article is a stub which contains little more than a filmography. It cites hardly any sources (there is a "citation needed" tag right now). This is not the sort of article we want to present on the main page. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I take it that's not a hard oppose, and that like me you might support this if the nominator or someone else improves the article sufficiently? μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, this is NOT updated, and the nominator should look at the update requirements for an obit. μηδείς (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
That's update "guidelines", of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ITN/DC #2. Popularity != top of field. Ref Tony Scott. Also article is orange tagged, too short, and not adequately updated for his death. --IP98 (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Quality of article is poor, and no indication that he is sufficiently noteworthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Brat and Brat 2 are nowhere near notable enough to make a director ITN worthy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2013Edit

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: Emmelie de Forest (pictured) with the song Only Teardrops wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 for Denmark.
Alternative blurb: ​"Only Teardrops", by Danish singer Emmelie de Forest (pictured), wins the Eurovision Song Contest.

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.

 --EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 08:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support ITNR, notable event.-- (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. The largest annual music competition in Europe with about 500 million people watching it every year is a very big deal. Australia is one of the non-European countries that broadcast it, and the event is widely followed on the Internet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the links to the Denmark's entry because we don't know yet who will it. Wikipedia does not predict the future to document anything that will or is likely to happen, regardless of its favourite role according to the odds by the bookmakers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support big international event. I guess the purpose of the links was to show how the blurb might look when the winner is known. Last year ITN said:
A similar blurb if Denmark wins:
PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but why to use Denmark as an example? Why not any other country? However, it's better and simple not to use any of them. And yes, Denmark has the best song this year and deserves to win the contest finally after having good songs for many years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The bookmakers have Denmark as a huuuge favorite. They are basically refusing to take bets on Denmark. The next-lowest odds gives the money back 6 times. Since the bookmakers are usually right, the contest is very close to a done deal. Thue (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
We need something which is 100% sure. Your opinion that it's very close to a done deal is not appropriate as per one of the main rules on Wikipedia. As for your information, two years ago France was given evens and even 4/7 by the bookmakers, but the contest was won by the Azerbaijani entry.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
...or maybe prepare a really shocking blurb for when Romania wins: 'It's My Life' by Cezar... etc., etc Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
For gods sake what difference does it make whether the blurb mentions Denmark when it's only a hypothetical. Nobody's going to post it to the MP until it's official.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
And what if there's dead heat?! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, no question of inclusion as recurring and importance in EU, just the wording.(And please let it be "My Lovely Horse" by the Craggy Island Parish :) ). --MASEM (t) 15:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - definitly for ITN. And if posted, I want credit to as I nominated this article already yesterday a bit premature bit still.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support when updated and if of a good enough standard at the time etc. Europe's annual political relationship bickering update - of course it should be posted, plus it is the largest and most prestigious music competition in Europe. --wintonian talk 16:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note I was ready to post this, but in scanning the article I don't see a suitable prose update of the final, just charts and infobox update. If someone can do a referenced synopsis of the final (like we would expect for sporting events and other contests of a similar nature) and/or some meaningful prose about the winning entrant, something like that, I will post. --Jayron32 22:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you expect other than "Denmark won". This is all that's happened. The overall article is in good condition, I don't really know what more you want to see there. But hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Surely something happened in 4(?) hours of TV coverage besides the host announcing "Denmark won" to which not one RS in the world reacted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
        • A mere 3 hours and 30 minutes, in fact. 1) The winner was announced before all the votes had been counted (apparently by mistake). 2) UK got more that 20 points. 3) Graham Norton stayed awake. So all quite extraordinary really. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not what we did last year or in 2011 when Eurovision Song Contest 2012 & Eurovision Song Contest 2011 were linked to respectively. --wintonian talk 23:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      • So bad decisions from the past should be perpetuated merely because they were done before? That's a pretty lousy reason to refuse to make an article better, which should be our goal at Wikipedia regardless. --Jayron32 02:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I haven't said or suggested that, what I have done however is to meraly point out that this hasn't been necessary in at least the last two occurrences at ITN as I thought such history may be useful in aiding the discussion. Perhaps you misunderstood me? --wintonian talk 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I understand you would rather post substandard articles on the main page than fix them up into a decent shape. You know, the time you spend arguing that you shouldn't add some prose to the article could have been spent adding that prose. Had you done that, I would have already posted this instead of leaving this response. --Jayron32 03:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Contest has now ended, Denmark has won. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb only. Quite a significant competition for a large percentage of the world population. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Posting. Regarding the prose update - Denmark won is pretty much all that happened. Reactions here are mostly personal opinions of commentators and are not encyclopedic material per se. --Tone 07:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where anyone asked for reactions or personal opinions. Synopsis of the four hour event or an overview of the winner and/or her song would have been appropriate and would not have required any opinions or reactions. --Jayron32 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you're not familiar with Eurovision. It follows this format every year: half an hour about the previous winner and the host city/nation, 26 (or so) songs from the nations who qualified for the final, half an hour (or so) of padding while the voting happens, then results. The winner and her song have a separate article already. That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting articles with essentially zero prose update makes a mockery of having update standards. It would have taken 10 minutes of work to describe the voting phase, for example. Tables of stats do NOT sufficiently convey what happened. And yes, a sampling of reactions from notable media sources is perfectly appropriate and "encyclopedic". It is a standard part of articles on music albums, for example. It amazing how when something is a European sporting event/cultural item it gets supported/posted with "a sentence update is all that can be said" (yah right) but when its an American sport/cultural item its "this update is insufficient until multiple paragraphs are written" (the appropriate standard). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    I have to agree with your awareness on the quality, but every year the articles documenting the Eurovision Song Contest are of exceptionally high quality. If we use these articles to set a standard for posting, then it would be very hard to post anything else on the main page. I don't think it's a good idea to detail the voting process since there already is a particular article explaining it. You can note there are many other complementary articles documenting many different aspects of this contest and thus looking for shortcomings in an article in this shape is not welcome and appropriate for the future evaluation of the other articles. To make additional note, the blurb documents the whole event, not only the voting process and the reactions after the win.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    P.S. I also don't agree with you that the topics relating to something happening in the United States are the only requiring substantial updates, while anything else is easily posted with only one-sentence update. Recently, there where many fellow users who regularly contribute to the ITN section and were trying to introduce a five-sentence update as a minimum requirement for posting. In this case, the news is the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and you should evaluate the whole article instead of some specific details. Honestly, less than 5% of the articles emerging in the ITN section on the main page do have quality greater than this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    Let me phrase it a different way - those who don't care about update length (as per their usual comment pattern) are mostly from Europe and those who care a lot are mostly from the US. That is probably what causes the discrepancy in !voting (almost all posts form all regions are well updated), rather than actual bias. No dispute that the overall article quality here is very good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Philippine general electionEdit

Article: Philippine general election, 2013 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Philippine general election, Team PNoy wins a majority in the Senate and Y wins a majority in the House of Representatives.
Alternative blurb: Team PNoy wins a majority in the Senate election and House of Representatives elections in the Philippines.
News source(s): [34]

Both articles updated

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

Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. --LukeSurl t c 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I added an altblurb. In Philippine political history, the party (or coalition) of the president always wins. In this case, most of the seats were contests between coalition parties of Team PNoy. –HTD 02:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready to go. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The article still needs some work. Some parts are still in future tense, even though the election was seven days ago! It is quite messy, the results are not complete, and I do not see a considerable update in prose. --RJFF (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe I sorted out the verb tense problems now. As for the results, they are either incomplete (lower house), or the remaining votes are already immaterial (upper house). The party (or coalition) of the president always "wins" the lower house elections, so the pronouncements of "Team PNoy 'winning'" is a done deal. As for prose updates, Philippine Senate election, 2013 has 19 references and 3 sections of at least 2 long paragraphs each, and the updates Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2013 is certainly longer than what are currently being proposed here. –HTD 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Then I'd say it's ready. --RJFF (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
        • What's the deal with this section? --LukeSurl t c 20:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
          • They are expected to make a partial proclamation today. –HTD 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Postponed again to Friday. Teehee. –HTD 14:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - most of the article is still in present tense ("are up for election") and a few lines are still in future tense ("will be used"). The election is over, is it not? Thus, it should be in past tense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Which article is this? –HTD 13:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Philippine general election, 2013. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That's not the boldfaced article on my altblurb. –HTD 14:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Nevertheless, this has been dealt with. –HTD 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Thank you, HTD, for the fresh update and providing a reason for the absence of final results. The article really should be posted now! --RJFF (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb, since those articles are in much better shape than the main article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17Edit

[Posted] Tbilisi gay rights protestsEdit

Article: 2013 Tbilisi gay rights protests (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An anti-homophobia demonstration in Georgia clashes with Orthodox priests and a mob
News source(s): [35]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: My apologies if I overestimate the importance of this event. This part of the world is rarely featured in the news. It's rare to see 10,000 protestors led by priests attack a tiny demonstration by rights activists. It's what one would expect from the Taliban, but it's happening right there in a Christian country that aspires to accede the European Union. Note also that the scale of the counter demonstration is unheard of. -- Nestrabonk (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - I support it because it is a rare event in the region.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as creator - Not only a rare event in the region, but also very interesting because of the active involvement of the church. The Orthodox church in Georgia has extreme popularity among the public (I've read somewhere that 94% of the public has confidence in it) and PM Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is in a confrontation with President Saakashvili, seems to be sympathetic to the minorities. --Երևանցի talk 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose No deaths or otherwise notable things. Such demonstrations occur in other countries as well from time to time. Brandmeistertalk 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Major English-language media reported, like NYT, BBC, Daily Mail, Chicago Tribune, etc. --RJFF (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed Interesting given the religious involvement, but not a major event or news item. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, the article could use a little work getting it into polished idiomatic English. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Especially the blurb as it is. No evidence of priests "attacking" as the blurb implies. I have watched many videos of it and have only seem them marching, so I wonder where that came from. The attacking was not too violent, there were no deaths. Although quite a few injuries! (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - If you look in the NYT article the priests removed the police barricades cause the police don't want to stop priests in Georgia and the busses saved the incident from being much worse. It's got priests, it's got gays, it's got ex-Soviet politics, it's got future EU member, it's got violence. Almost as many diverse things as a Stalinist + Big-Ben -esque world's biggest building financed by petroleum built next to the Kaaba by an absolute monarch. And I learned something today about Georgia. We post many things that are merely interesting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per SMW. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the new blurb is much better, but might want to change "mob" to "protesters". Or perhaps even change it to just mention a clash with "protesters" and various injuries, not sure how important mentioning priests are. but I am no professional. but i am almost learning in support now75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as during editing, I found this was the first officially sanctioned demonstration of its kind in Georgia. I don't think I'd support it otherwise, but being the first of its kind in that country seems notable. Blurb should perhaps be updated to note something like "The first officially sanctioned anti-homophobia demonstration in Georgia clashes with Orthodox priests and other protestors" ("a mob" does seem excessive.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Could we perhaps throw in a "nation of" for Georgia? I regret to say that many of my fellow Americans will no doubt be confused by this entry at first glance (as I was myself, momentarily, when I first saw the Times headline). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pull or change to ″An anti-homophobia demonstration in Tbilisi, Georgia, leads to clashes between activists and is attacked by members of the Georgian Orthodox Church″.--В и к и T 10:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

[Posted] Iraq attacksEdit

Article: 17 May 2013 Iraq bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A series of bombings in Iraq leave at least 76 people dead.
Alternative blurb: ​An upsurge in violence leaves 130 dead over three days in Iraq.
News source(s): [36]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Deadliest day in Iraq in 8+ months (specifically since Sept 9, 2012); part of trend of increasing violence in the country --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Obviously in the news, and obviously big. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • God, when will it end? Obvious support. I wish Iraq could find peace again. It is painful and distressing to me that the very ancient and wonderful nation of Iraq could be subject to such horrors on a regular basis. I hope peace will come soon. Kurtis (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Escalating level of violence. Lean towards alt blurb. Jusdafax 08:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Thank goodness the war is over, right? Er, hmm... Anyway, the death toll is significant in the country's struggle with sectarian violence. --WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously, very tragic... many deaths75.73.114.111 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the infoboxes really make the article look ugly on 1024x768. I tried adding a TOC to push the second one down but it made things worse. More text would certainly help. Has nothing to do with the suitability of the nom, but it just looks "ugly". Anyway... --IP98 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose there seems no point in continuing to list continuous indiscriminate slaughter, it becomes a gruesome farce. A sticky would make much more sense. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted --Jayron32 21:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] RD Ken VenturiEdit

Stale, no consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ken Venturi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [37]

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: World Golf Hall of Fame Member; Nominated on the combined basis of his playing career and "longest-ever" (in the US) broadcasting career --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose His playing and broadcasting are both notable, but I don't think that (even combined) they make him a very important figure in golf. Neljack (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose at this stage Obviously successful, but I'm wondering, given the attention to media people here lately, if we're going down the Marshall McLuhan path and attirubuitng too much improtance to commentators. After all, these aren't the people who are doing the great sporting things. They are the people talking about those people. It's hard to get my head around how important it is to talk about other successful people for a long time. (PS: I note ThaddeusB's thoughtful qualification on his broadcasting career record. It's interesting that only one source seems to mention the record, and that's a golf source claiming a golf person is the best in all sport. Hmmmm. The source doesn't qualify it as being only an American record, but American sources tend not to do that sort of thing anyway. Not questioning it. Just noting...) QUESTION: Did he ever play golf internationally? HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Neljack. Not the top of his field. Only recognition seems to be being in the Hall of Fame for his combined body of work(golf and broadcasting) but not particularly notable in either field individually. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD Jorge Rafael VidelaEdit

Article: Jorge Rafael Videla (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Putting the header on the nom created by EdwardLane --IP98 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

was going to nom Jorge Rafael Videla for RD but wondered what happened to the header for the 17th, I thought that was automated ? EdwardLane (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support NYT on the subject.
  • Support, personal opinions aside, it's still the death of a former head of state Cambalachero (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, former de facto head of state, also notable for how he got there. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Former head of state, war criminal. Important to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment the update is a single sentence, and it may be as good as it gets, but be prepared for the backlash on a "minimum update standard requirement" (even though the article is in a very reasonable state). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support important to post. Rambling man is right about the minimum update however.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support pending update Article is ok (illegal detention centres is factual but slightly POV). Would prefer a longer update. Cause of death? Funeral date/arrangements? Any protests in favor or against? Reaction from the current political leadership? International? etc... --IP98 (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks good now. Ready? --IP98 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have expanded the section a bit. There's not much to say about the death itself: he simply died while sleeping. The info is more in the side of the reactions to his death. Cambalachero (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, marked as ready, and I support its promotion to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, dying in prison is interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Came here to check on this. Made a few grammatical edits. Totally ready and support as full blurb the infamous deathLihaas (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is not linked in the template... --IP98 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Woops now fixed. SpencerT♦C 22:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I support a full blurb, let alone an RD uptade. Am I in the minority here? Kurtis (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I oppose full blurb. He was long out of power, had been tried, convicted and was in prison. His natural death does not in any way impact the future of Argentina. His death is noteworthy, and belongs on RD. --IP98 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Well yes, but the fact remains that he was a significant figure during Cold War era Argentina. His regime was considered one of the world's most brutal, alongside those of North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, Somalia, Nicaragua, Albania, Ethiopia, etc. Kurtis (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Don't go to the extremes, his rule may have been brutal, but "the world's most brutal" is for people like Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. As for a full blurb, I'm not sure. IP98 is right, as of 2013 Videla was just a man who played a role in a historical period of Argentina, but not an active actor of the day-to-day politics. His death will generate comments by noteworthy people, but nothing else, his death does not change anything in the current politics of Argentina. This is completely unlike the death of Néstor Kirchner, who was not a sitting head of state either when he died, but he was highly influential, and his death became a turning point in the administration of Cristina Kirchner: in that case, the blurb was justified. I think in an article "Death of Jorge Rafael Videla", and I really can't think of anything interesting to write about that. Cambalachero (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
          • He was directly responsible for killing tens of thousands, Cambalachero. At the time of his presidency (mid-to-late 1970s), Argentina was among the world's worst violators of human rights — perhaps eclipsed only by North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, and Ethiopia. No, he's obviously no Hitler or Stalin, but he was still very brutal. Kurtis (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
            • That's not the point. Yes, from a historical point of view, he's very notable, but from a "in the news" point of view, he has long left the political life of the country. Check the latest news of Argentina (18A cacerolazo, the Lázaro Baez embezzlement scandal, the floods, Kirchner's bills to control the judiciary, her projects to expropiate newspapers, the decree of Macri against that, the "CEDIN", etc.), Videla is not even remotely related to any of them. All those other news will continue their development without any influence from Videla's death. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 16Edit

[Closed] RD: Dick TrickleEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Dick Trickle (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN, ESPN
Nominator's comments: He was a well known former NASCAR driver who died from committing suicide. Andise1 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I rarely, if ever, oppose anything, as I think that we're far too elitist around here in enforcing our own opinions of what should be important to the world at large, but in this case, I can't see this being up to RD standards. Broadly, Trickle was famous mainly for his double-entendre name, he was a marginal NASCAR driver who raced mainly in the lower circuits, a minor league driver who won NASCAR's rookie-of-the-year in 1988 at age 48. His never finished higher than 3rd place on any regular Winston Cup (now Sprint Cup) race, the senior NASCAR circuit. He became a bit of a "meme" in the 1990s for his funny name, especially with the late-nite ESPN SportsCenter crew who never gave up the opportunity to say his name on the air; but that's all he was. I would not really object strongly to this getting posted, but in general, based on the standards most people hold at this desk, I can't see anyone else supporting this, and I hope I have laid out the case why people may object to posting this. His death is sad and tragic, given its circumstances, but he's a marginal figure in his field whose greatest claim to fame is a funny-sounding name. --Jayron32 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Doesn't meet the criteria. He was not near the top of his field; while he was successful in lower levels of racing, that didn't translate to success in higher levels, nor do I see any evidence of some other significant influence in auto racing. While his unfortunate death was tragic and sudden, that is not enough in and of itself to be posted. Like IP98 it won't really bother me if this is posted, but I can't support it. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose If we include this person then we should include Paul Shane because he was a well known actor (in a single country) and well liked. In my opinion neither are notable enough, if they were a well known head of states or religious leaders for example I would support it. --wintonian talk 01:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment has Paul Shane been nominated? Trickle's article says he was "bllied as" the winningest short track racer in history. I have no idea what hat means, or why he would be billed that way, instead of actually being such. Clarification would help. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
He would be described that way because an awful lot of what comes out of industries like that is marketing hype rather than reality. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Being the winningest short-track driver of all time is not unlike being the minor league baseball homerun champion. It means you're really good against mediocre competition. Short track driving is minor league driving for the most part, as the small towns that support lower-tier stock car tracks couldn't afford to build and maintain a large tri-oval like Talledega or Daytona. It should be noted that his so-called "short track success" in the lower levels did not translate similarly to the Winston Cup, which has always featured several short tracks. Just as an example from the 1990 NASCAR Winston Cup Series, which was during Trickle's era, when he would have run a full season at the top circuit, there were seven races run on "short tracks", defined as less than 1 mile in length. Richmond twice, Bristol twice, North Wilkesboro twice, and Martinsville. I picked that season because Trickle took his highest finish that year, a third place at Dover Downs, a race track that he started from the Pole; Dover is not a "short track". Among the short track races on the calendar that year, Trickle's best finish was 5th at the Pontiac Excitement 400, the first Richmond race. He did win the Winston Open that year, which is a non-points race, and it's also not on a short track. So, even the claim that he was the best short track racer doesn't hold up against the evidence, because when he raced on short tracks against top level competition, he didn't hold up to the hype. No, he's maybe the best minor league racer of all time. That's not much to hang one's hat on. His death is also not being covered heavily as it was with Joyce Brothers below, who was the subject of long obits in print sources and televised retrospectives. All I've seen is very short blurbs about Trickle's death. So, unlike Joyce Brothers below, this can't even be claimed to be "in the news". --Jayron32 02:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment Is winningest even a word? If not I suggest we don't use it in any blurb that my be considered. --wintonian talk 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
For 31 years it has been. It is a bit of an Americanism, as OED notes its as a North American informal usage, but its a common enough word that many American sources use it; sports journalism uses it all the time. In other English varieties, it may not be, but Wikipedia does not give a preference to one variety of English over another. --Jayron32 03:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
In that case I suggest it's use is either wikilinked to somewhere or avoided, so those of use that use the Queens English as well as possibly a few Aussies etc. aren't left scratching our heads. But it's probably a moot point by the looks of things. --wintonian talk 03:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Even though this nomination most likely won't succeed, "winningest" is still in his article. Do we care if it's crap? HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The word "winningest" isn't any more crap than "petrol" is for what Americans call "gasoline". It's a valid recognized word in a national variety of English. Just because it isn't your variety of English isn't important, a factor which is enshrined in Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that Wikipedia does not itself recognize any one variety of English as superior to any other. --Jayron32 03:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely true, but we have a global audience. If parochial words are used we really should try to explain them to the world. If we don't have to, then strewth, we Aussies can go the whole hog with jargon in our articles, can't we? Australian usage everywhere. You beauty! HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not that we favor one usage everywhere, we use American English on American topics, British English for British Topics, Australian English for Australian topics, Indian English for Indian topics, etc. No one of those is "parochial". Different =/= worse. --Jayron32 03:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Gee, I think I've just proven (without trying that hard) that there are big linguistic differences between us. Jayron - I think we're really in furious agreement here on the basic principle. Maybe we just have different understandings of parochial. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. I don't define "parochial" as "Common and frequently used words from varieties of English other than my own". That's how I interpret the context of your usage. Perhaps parochial is one of those words with different meanings in different varieties of English... --Jayron32 04:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Using an American word in an article about an American is not "crap" it is the normal, consensus backed thing to do, just as using British words in articles about British subjects. See WP:ENGVAR. (Also, I am sure the meaning of winningest is obvious to any native English speaker even if it looks like a non-word to them) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Misunderstanding there. My use of "crap" was to refer to the whole article. Irrespective of whose English it's written in, it ain't a great article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, that may well be an accurate assessment of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I was thinking about it's inclusion in any blurb on the main page rather than the article. In any case it's a North American type article so American English should be used there. --wintonian talk 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose he just doesn't seem notable enough. Hot Stop 03:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jayron hit the nail on the head- this would be like posting the minor league home run king. In fact, he would be closer to the A-ball home run king than AAA. Or, in more WP terms, he simply lacked the sufficient notability in regards to being a top-level athlete. -- Mike (Kicking222) 16:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose not top of the game, not award-winning, although would love the debate over "winningest" (which is frankly the most abhorrent misuse of English I've ever seen). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This twee winningest whingeing is naff. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Cyclone MahasenEdit

Article: Cyclone Mahasen (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Mahasen strikes Bangladesh, killing 14 people there, after leaving at least 79 casualties across five other counties in Southern and Southeastern Asia.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Mahasen causes significant damage in Southern and Southeastern Asia and Bangledesh, resulting in over X deaths.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant meteorological event in the Bay of Bengal that has resulted in widespread damage and loss of life. Six countries have reported fatalities, with 58 Myanmar occurring in Myanmar. I would appreciate a better blurb from someone though, I'm having trouble trying to phrase the information properly. --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support why not? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Support The storm has been in global news for quite a time now, and seeing the damage it has caused within a span of six days, it deserves an ITN. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
On second thoughts, i think an alternative image can be used. The current image shows the storm when it was weakening. We can consider adding the image taken on May 13, it has a stronger look. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the May 16 one would have more relevance to the situation rather than an older one, despite the weakening. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This has received a lot of coverage, and is a fairly destructive cyclone. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as per Alex. --LukeSurl t c 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Very important and unfortunate event. Just now, I was reading about it in an online newspaper, it seems it is getting lots of media coverages. --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support has been on the BBC tickertape and is clearly significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note - Updated to note that deaths in Bangladesh are now up to 14. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment it may not be necessary, but the lead is totally unsourced. --IP98 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Usually only an issue if the the fact you're looking at is only noted in the lead and not referenced in the main body of the article, after all the lead is supposed to be a "summary" of the article, and not contain anything that isn't expanded upon in the main body. Can you be more specific about your sourcing concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
      • It's fine, no claims which aren't covered in the body. Just stood out as a block of text with nothing inside super tags. --IP98 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support significant flooding in Sumatra, 30,000 forced to evacuate. Is there any value in waiting until the storm dissipates? --IP98 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The storm itself is on the verge of dissipating so its impacts will end within a day. Only changes coming will likely be more detailed damage reports and casualty updates. Nothing big worth waiting for basically - I suggested this for today since it made landfall today. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • JTWC has posted its final warning, and so did RSMC New Delhi. IMD CWIND is still tracking the storm as a Deep Depression. I just had a look at the satellite imagery, and I believe the storm has dissipated. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer the altblurb. The main one is a bit weird in that it gives more weight to 14 deaths than the previous 79. The multiple-day damage of the storm is what is notable, not just the last 24 hours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posted altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Spot-fixing in the Indian Premier LeagueEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 04:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2013 Indian Premier League (talk, history)
Blurb: Delhi Police arrests three cricketers playing in the 2013 Indian Premier League on the charges of spot-fixing.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, Times of India, AFP

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Top news in India and Cricketing world --♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

*Support. I know little of the cricket world, but I know it is very popular in India and this is likely a big story there- and I would support such a story if it was about a sport I was more familiar with (NFL football, baseball) so I see no reason to not do the same here. Seems to be getting some international coverage (WSJ). 331dot (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Serious case, and worth reporting. But we can't keep reporting arrests (how would it look if we treated Operation Yewtree or Operation Elveden in this way? Let's wait for trial and verdict. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and wait per AlexTiefling. A previous cricket spot fixing scandal discussion is here. --IP98 (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the right approach. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Change to wait for conviction per precedent. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose wait until they're found guilty. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If they're found guilty... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Sanjay Dutt surrenders to Mumbai PoliceEdit

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 04:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sanjay Dutt (talk, history)
Blurb: Sanjay Dutt who was sentenced for five years' imprisonment for illegal possession of arms during 1993 Bombay bombings is going to surrender to Mumbai police today.
Alternative blurb: Sanjay Dutt who was sentenced for five years' imprisonment for illegal possession of arms during 1993 Bombay bombings has surrendered to Mumbai police.
News source(s): Indian Express, NDTV
Nominator's comments: Sanjay Dutt's mercy plea has been rejected and he is going to surrender to Mumbai Police today (most probably within next 2 hours). --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Let's wait for trial and verdict, as usual. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, there's already been the trial and verdict; I still oppose. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Trial, verdict, mercy plea to the Supreme Court, rejection— these have been done. He is going to surrender today for three and a half year's imprisonment. And, just for information, Sanjay Dutt is one of the most popular film actors of India, and politician too! This has created lots of stir in India.
I know who Sanjay Dutt is. I'm just concerned that this is a late act of a drama that I think we've already covered. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If I understand this correctly, he has simply been exercising legal avenues to appeal his case, which has stalled the start of his sentence. Maybe there is, but I currently don't see much of a difference between this and posting every move about Lindsay Lohan's legal problems. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's obviously a more serious case than Lohan's, and Dutt is by far a more prominent celebrity than Lohan. I also understand that he's effectively been conducting his appeals while in hiding from an outstanding warrant. Even so, this not the pivotal part of this case - that's been and gone. This is more a denouement. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't know if he is exercising legal avenues to appeal his case, but, today he is going to jail for sure. The latest update of Times of India says he has reached the jail and going to surrender within half an hour so (the news article published half an hour ago, so, don't know current status). It also shows how seriously the best newspapers of India covering the events of today. Wait 1—2 hour, you'll get another Times of India update with more updates (he has been taken to jail most probably) --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose this isn't in the news in any major outlet I read, and it's a hypothetical. Can we close this and re-start a new nom if something actually happens? It would also be useful to prefix Sanjay Dutt with "Indian actor and producer" or something to give the rest of the world some context. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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

May 15Edit

Game over for Kepler?Edit

Article: Kepler (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Kepler mission suffers a catastrophic equipment failure.
News source(s): CNN New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Standing by to see if the mission is officially over (Jusdafax). Jusdafax 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The linked article says that it's "in trouble" and other phrases saying that the mission is not yet over. Might there be an official "mission end" date if all options run out? SpencerT♦C 01:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I helped format this so it would be a proper ITN candidate, but am not ready to support until there is more information on the mission's possible end. That announcement could come very soon however. Jusdafax 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems it will still be able to do some science, but not the planet-hunting for which it has made headlines. --LukeSurl t c 12:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait. The fat lady is not yet singing. It's down, but not out. If and when the mission is officially terminated, then we can think about posting it. Also. the blurb is misleading: there's nothing 'catastrophic' about a reaction wheel wearing out, after longer than the designed mission lifetime. Modest Genius talk 12:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and renominate if/when it actually happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Europa LeagueEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2013 UEFA Europa League Final (talk, history) and 2012–13 UEFA Europa League (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Chelsea wins the UEFA Europa League after beating Benfica 2–1.
News source(s): BBC

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Second highest football trophy in Europe. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A look at the list confirms that the UEFA Europa League is not ITN/R. I see no reason to post a second-tier continental club competition. Neljack (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose To all intents and purposes, this is the plate competition. Chelsea "qualified" by failing to reach the last 16 of the main tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not the top club competition in the sport and it's impossible to support it even if this is football and there is a good media coverage. Chelsea are not certain to play next year and defend the title if they qualify to the higher ranked UEFA Champions League.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Note the only reason why this is actually more notable than the run-of-the-mill winners in lower tier competitions, is that this makes Chelsea only the 4th team to win all the three major EUFA competitions: List of UEFA club competition winners. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Champions League Final is in 10 days time, and that is ITN/R. The Europa League is 2nd tier to that, especially as many of the competitors (including the winners) are only in it because they've been knocked out of the Champions League. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is a booby prize competition for teams who weren't good enough to enter / stay in the Champions League. We'll post that, but not this. Modest Genius talk 23:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would be like posting the Calder Cup or Eastern League winners. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. The Europa League is an international tournament. But I still oppose this nomination. ComputerJA (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Point taken(though the Calder Cup involves Canadian and US teams); though my point was that those are second-tier tournaments. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Is Europe even "international" anymore? I'm having a harder and harder time sewing the "international importance" patch on to European stories. --IP98 (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Europe is a continent that consists of more than 50 countries, which demonstrates a very good example of something international. Unfortunately, many people from the United States define Europe same as the United States, which is completely false, and equalise a whole continent with a single country on another continent. Given all the relevant information related to the UEFA Europa League, I'd say that its importance and popularity are equal or slightly greater than the NCAA in North America.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No comparison to the USA here, or the NCAA. With unified currency, trade, border security, (somewhat) judicial, agricultural and environmental policies (to name a few); and with ITN posting numerous EU actions (ban on pesticides for example), personally I refuse to acknowledge the UEFA as "international". I'm technically wrong. Fine. I don't care. This type of tight multi-national cooperation does not exist anywhere else in the world. --IP98 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. I live in a European country with borders, trade barriers, different currency, and separate institutions compared to the other European countries. Please don't confuse Europe with the European Union. The UEFA Europa League is a competition for clubs from Europe, not particularly from the European Union. Thus it's an "international" competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's clear the Chinese are not the only people IP98 has a dislike for. Also oppose - not notable enough in the sporting world.-- (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I dislike the Chinese government. No problem w/Europe. --IP98 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain how that's relevant to this discussion? If not, please remove it entirely and don't do it again. You are entitled to your personal opinions about China, but this is not the correct forum for you to express it. And I'm certain that not all Chinese people are "facist baby butchers". If you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia, please exercise some self-control. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Is the 82.8's comment relevant? Clearly it is not and its personal for no reason. Perhaps all parties, not just IP98, should do a better job exercising self-control. Personally, I am sick of all the off-topic banter that seems to enter every thread these days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the 2nd-tier arguments above. --LukeSurl t c 09:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as not the pinnacle of the game in Europe, but note to some editors above, Europe is "international" as it has vast swaths of different cultures, languages, currencies, political and religious affiliations. Attempting to assert otherwise is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone should tell Daniel Hannan [38] :) (and yes I recognize there is a difference between the EU member states and Europe the continent). --IP98 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
And now please explain what relevance that has to this nomination for ITN of the Europa League final? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

May 14Edit

[Closed] Same-sex marriage in BrazilEdit

Consensus not to post. --LukeSurl t c 18:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Same-sex marriage in Brazil (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A ruling by the Brazillian National Justice Council declares same-sex marriage legal in the country.
News source(s): AFP
Nominator's comments: Not posting the equivalent story for France has been considered by some as being a poor decision in retrospect. Brazil is bigger than France anyhow, --LukeSurl t c 10:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose From the article, it was not only never illegal, but had been performed over the last two years. This decision forces all notaries to perform same sex marriage, but thay have been able to for a while. Secondly, the order must be appealed by the Supreme Court, so surely the point where the appeal is dismissed would be the time to post in any case. MChesterMC (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. This is different than the France situation; this is not a ban being overturned, merely an interpretation of existing law. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I can tell, this Brazil-related story is getting far more coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be getting quite widespread international coverage, and obviously a very large country. Neljack (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose These stories have ceased to present any meaningful threshold. It is a minor, and no longer novel, change in internal legislation that is gradually rolling out across the world. There is no merit in spotlighting every step in the journey. Kevin McE (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It's so minor that groups on each side around the world engage in massive protests(on some occasions violent) and spend large sums of money to persuade people to support them. The pro side is still a minority view. I oppose posting this story as it does not overturn a ban, but this isn't minor or novel. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - Perhaps I am in the minority, but I couldn't be less interested in a different gay marriage story every other week. I realize that this is the hip and trendy cause du jour at the moment, but as Kevin McE says, the novelty has largely worn off. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a final court decision (this can be appealed), and unless there are extensive violent protests, this really isn't that notable. SpencerT♦C 01:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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

RD: Asghar Ali EngineerEdit

Article: Asghar Ali Engineer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Times of India Times of India 2

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Saw this on Deaths in 2013. Can't say I've heard of him before, but from a read of the article it looks like he may have been as a significant a figure in his culture as persons we have posted before have been in Western culture. This might be a good exercise for us in assessing the notability of such a person. --LukeSurl t c 20:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. From reading the article, this man seems to be recognized and a leader in his field, and has recognition internationally. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment not updated at all, but as Luke suggests, a good test. Please note there's a discussion ongoing about the recent deaths nominations at the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The beliefs on women's rights section is terribly written and should probably be scrapped in its entirety. However [39] should be a very good source for constructing a section on Engineer's theology. LukeSurl t c 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I also had not heard of this man, but appears to be significant and internationally noted. Agree that article could use more work, but it appears to fairly acceptable. Jusdafax 23:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Withholding support pending update and cleanup. Seems like something that would be of interest to our readers, a notable person, however as yet the article has no information on his death, not even a single sentence saying that he died, or how or where he died, there's simply a death date in the first sentence. Also, there's an orange tag that needs cleaning up. Otherwise, I would not object to a suitably updated and cleaned up article appearing in the RD section. --Jayron32 00:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm finding it difficult to determine how much impact he had: was he so much out of the Islamic mainstream that he had relatively little influence, or did he have a significant impact among the wider Muslim community as a progressive voice? Without knowing that, it's hard to know whether he was widely regarded as a very important figure in his field (presumably Islamic theology?). Neljack (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, doesn't seem to have notability outside of India, plus can't support an article in that condition. Wizardman 16:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The condition of the article may well be a serious issue; but I think the proposal is on the basis of the subject's notability inside the world's second-most-populous country. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
India might be the worlds second-most-populous country, but with only 10% of that population online and 12% of that population speaking English, I don't think the English Wikipedia needs to heap support on every cricket/building/bus crash/death story from the region just yet. --IP98 (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Stop me if you've heard this before, but this is Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia of the Anglosphere. Whether or not the people affected by an event speak English should have as little effect as possible on what we report. We're already hampered by the lack of English sources for many things; let's not prejudice matters further. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I actually hadn't heard that before, and it's a valid point. I do believe that when the size of a country is invoked, the number of potential English Wikipedia readers is worth considering. --IP98 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose if ITN/DC #2 still stands. Unfortunately the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra movement doesn't appear big enough for it's founder to get a pass on that category. It's too bad, the orange tag not withstanding the article is ok, the subject seems to have been a prolific writer, and the subject might have interested WP readers. --IP98 (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 13Edit