Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2014

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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

Contents

November 30Edit


[Posted] RD: Mark StrandEdit

Article: Mark Strand (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Pulitzer Prize-winning poet. Article needs a good cleanup. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support upon cleanup. He seems to meet DC2 given his recognition and body of work. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on cleanup. One fact that would be nice to include that should be able to come from the obits as well as when he won the Pulitizer is some commentary about his poetry, how it was influential, etc. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support after cleanup. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Pulitzer Prize winner. -Zanhe (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 21 Pulitzer Prizes are awarded per year. Is there some other rationale? μηδείς (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Does that fact diminish the Prize in some way, or the fact that this man got one? 331dot (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - An acknowledged master with a distinguished record of accomplishment. Let's post. Jusdafax 07:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Go SeigenEdit

Article: Go Seigen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Japan News

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

Nominator's comments: One of the most important go players in the history of the game. --Catlemur (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • support - when cleanup and refs are completed.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support — Once the article is updated and referenced with reliable sources. ComputerJA () 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Per the above, support as long as the article is tidied up. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon cleanup; seems to be the top figure in this game. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Added refs to most of the paragraphs/cleanup done.Catlemur (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the most celebrated Go master of the 20th century. Two notable films have been made about his life. -Zanhe (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearly a highly important person in his field. Internationally relevant. Let's post it now. Jusdafax 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. I think the articles still needs some referencing (there's a few blocks of text with no citations.) But otherwise I think the DC are met! Rhodesisland (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support--seems to be as notable as Garry Kasparov.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Appears to be significant in his field and his article has now been spruced up. Teemu08 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

November 29Edit


[Closed] 50th Vanier CupEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:32, 2 December 2014 (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: 50th Vanier Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 50th Vanier Cup is won by the Montréal Carabins, winning over the McMaster Marauders 20-19.
Alternative blurb: ​In Canadian football, the Montreal Carabins defeat the McMaster Marauders in the 50th Vanier Cup.
News source(s): http://english.cis-sic.ca/championships/fball/2014/releases/final
 --Aerospeed (Talk) 04:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Would support except for article quality. Article is barely a stub; if you created a relatively complete game summary, properly referenced and with sufficient prose, I'd support posting this. But right now the article is clearly substandard. --Jayron32 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless I'm missing something, this isn't the highest level of Canadian football; indeed, it doesn't even appear to be professional. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not the highest level of play, nor is there a rationale given as to why it should be posted despite that. News coverage also seems limited. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I like the Vanier Cup myself, but Canadian university sport is relatively minor at all levels, and the game exists in the shadow of the Grey Cup, which is being played today. Resolute 20:56, 30 November 2014 (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] Luc De VosEdit

Article: Luc De Vos (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Luc De Vos, lead singer of the Belgian rock formation Gorki dies at the age of 52.
News source(s): VRT Nieuws

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: An icon in Belgium and a great loss for the Belgian (and Dutch language) music scene --Nychus talk to me 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC+1)

  • Strong Oppose, I don't see that he's notable enough for this, and the article is definitely not in good enough shape to have a blurb on ITN. Forget all that, Luc De Vos doesn't even have an article! --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as De Vos doesn't have his own article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose needs an article. :/ --Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 03:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As the article has now been created (and I have done my best to make it high quality), your previously valid reason is no more. As for people doubting his notability: he was notable enough that the news takes over pretty much the entire site of the national news (www.deredactie.be), as well as receiving his own news section. Nychus (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for starting the article, User:Nychus, you did a good work. Unfortunately, as you can see in the comments of others, Luc De Vos doesn't seem to meet our criteria for posting the news about his death on the main page. That section is usually reserved for individuals well known internationally, and it looks that it's not the case here. Even the www.deredactie.be website which you cite here says that his band ... enjoyed cult status in Flanders (and to a lesser extent, the Netherlands). I hope you are not discouraged. Thank you for your improvements of this project :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification Vejvančický. I guess the fact that this is pretty much the only item in the news in Belgium right now, which considering our currently turbulent times is saying something, blinded me towards the more limited international impact. To me De Vos' death doesn't seem to be less relevant than Phil Hughes' death for instance (with all due respect, but I had never heard of the guy before), though I guess his death will have some impact on regulations. I am not discouraged, maybe shocked by the fact that this news didn't touch the people in the heart the way it touched most of the country here, even leaving news anchors with a look of flabbergastedness, from here it appears cold but I guess as a Dutch language singer you are bound to be limited in your public. But I am glad at least here the matter has been brought to the attention of the public, even if some don't care, and that the incredible injustice of his page linking to the band page has been solved Nychus (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting the items in the ITN section is also a matter of consensus judged on a case-by-case basis. There was apparently concensus to post the news about the death of Phil Hughes (of whom I've never heard before), see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Phillip_Hughes. Personally I would oppose as this only cause bad precedents but I have to respect opinions of others. The editors here at ITNC have decided that the unfortunate death of that guy is more interesting (?) than your nomination, also because the unusual circumstances of his death were reported by the media worldwide. Btw, there's no "incredible injustice" in non-existence of a topic on Wikipedia, which is still a work in progress. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose how does this individual meet the RD criteria? I can't see it at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this person meets the criteria for RD; not a widely enough covered story to merit a blurb. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a tough one. On the one hand, his death has created a massive amount of press in Flanders (e.g. the newspaper "De Morgen" devoted it's full 24-page cultural supplement to Luc De Vos, Gazet van Antwerpen devoted half the fron page plus the full pages 2-5 of the paper to him, De Standard is similar, with their website noting that De Vos now has the two top spots of the iTunes album charts, and the #1 spot of the song chart[1] (Flanders charts, not worldwide of course). After the game between Anderlecht and Club Brugge (the most important football clash in Belgium), thousands of fans spontaneously sang De Vos' biggest hit[2]. It dominates all newspapers and other media here. In the Netherlands, it is the most read article on the VPRO site[3].
He is much more than just a cult artist here. One of his songs has been voted "best Belgian song ever" on Radio 1, and "Best song ever" three years running on Studio Brussel (the only Belgian song ever to achieve the #1 spot). That song gave its name to the MIAs, the most important music awards in Flanders, and to the VRT TV show "Alleen Elvis blijft bestaan". Luc De Vos, through his band Gorky / Gorki and his song Mia, is part of the collective memory of Flanders, and virtually unknown outside of it...
Basically, this is a recent death of huge importance in Flanders (much more than the deaths of many other artists), minor importance in the Netherlands and Wallonia, and no importance in the rest of the world. Normally, arguments like "I haven't heard of him" or "not important in my country" are rejected at ITN (and those rejections are or were used to include e.g. some Hurling championship or similar "local" importance news articles). On the other hand, if we allow this, then we will post many RDs for smaller regions / countries, in addition to the truly globally known figures (or at least people who get attention in a lot of countries). So, honestly, I don't know what to do with this one. I would weak support posting it, because of the (unexpectedly big) impact his death has in Flanders, but I can understand the opposes. Fram (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I haven't compared this to other nominations, but the number of page views is, for someone virtually unknown in the English language world, quite impressive[4], with even before this nomianation and before the article was created more than 600 pageviews, and more than 1500 yesterday. And @Nychus:, we can always nominate the article for WP:DYK instead: it will only be on the main page for some 12 hours, but it will be listed with a full line, not just a name, like on RD. Fram (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD only, someone whose death is nationally mourned in a particular country and non-stop coverage meets RD criteria. Secret account 16:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see how he meets the DC. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    • "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region." As can be seen from the reactions to his death, he "had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region". Perhaps not significant enough to meet the DC, that's up to your own judgment, but that's basically the reason he is being nominated. Fram (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I find Fram's argument convincing. I think being arguable the most notable contemporary musician from a country and being such a touchstone one is significant, even it he's notable in such a small region. Most of the opposes mainly cite the lack of an article and there is an adequate article now. The previous lack of an article should not indicate a lack of notability in the case of a non English-speaking musician.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, and the article is indeed now in good shape. GoldenRing (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is good - Secret and Fram present a compelling case. He is being mourned by his homeland, and he appears to have been significant in that context. Challenger l (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hosni MubarakEdit

Article: Hosni Mubarak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Egyptian court dismisses murder charges brought against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak pertaining to the Egyptian Revolution of 2011.
News source(s): USA Today

Nominator's comments: This seems significant because it pertains to the deaths of hundreds of protesters. --Everymorning talk to me 14:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support — Political significance. Leads NYT, BBC. Sca (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — as above. And also the fact that it is proof of the Egyptian court system being weak.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Significant for the people of Egypt but also the world as a whole who have a great stake in the outcome of the Arab Spring. I've added a bit of extra information explaining why the charges were dismissed, when he is likely to be released and finally another reference, this time to CNN. --Nyctimene (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is this a final, supreme court decision, or a lower court ruling that might be overturned? Wait if the latter is the case. Also unsure how the post-Mubarak Jihad against Coptic Christians and liberal Egyptians amounts to a "Spring". Strongly support if Mubarak is cleared and freed. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The USA Today article states that prosecutors will be appealing, so it is not final. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, very significant event. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin note Article still requires significant updates for this to be posted. m.o.p 01:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose since ruling is not final per 331Dot. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wait for the final ruling. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's getting old now. Also, the whole thing is just an attempt by press to make profits. He has been serving a three-year term for embezzlement, but the crowd made a big deal for justice of protesters. As said, prosecutors appealed, so the situation is pending. Re-nominate when the news develops. --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

November 28Edit


[Posted] RD: ChespiritoEdit

Article: Chespirito (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [5] [6] [7]

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Chespirito is regarded as one of the greatest Spanish-language comedians of the 20th century. His show, El Chavo del Ocho, was aired over forty years ago and is still watched across Latin America and Spain. It tunes in 111 million views on a daily basis. The article needs a lot of citations. ComputerJA () 22:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ComputerJA () 22:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Very notable figure. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's the show, not the producer which supposedly has notability. Has the show been cancelled given his death? μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The show and the producer are very notable. And no, the show has not been cancelled. ComputerJA () 03:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is like saying that Mick Jagger is not notable, because only the Rolling Stones are notable. Of course that the man is notable! --Cambalachero (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "Es que no le tienen paciencia"
  • Support Given Chesperito's popularity in Latin America and other Spanish-speaking communities worldwide. Erick (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, notable figure, very popular in Latin America, apparently. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, he was hugely popular for decades across Latin America. --Soman (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable figure.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support The guy is notable, but the article needs more references. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious support but only once the later stages of the article are improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. ¡Ay, ay, ay, no es bueno! Gran notabilidad en todo el mundo latino. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Am I wrong that this is Bumblebee Guy from the Simpsons? μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
unnecessary comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That is quite possibly the saddest of US attitudes I've ever seen on here. Here we have a person who clearly had a massive following in Mexico and the wider Latin American world (I quote "He is widely regarded as one of the most important Spanish-language comedians of the 20th century"). Nah, we don't need to post that. Oh wait, a bit-part in a US cartoon show was based on him? Hold the presses! Post it now! Sad..... 82.21.7.184 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready — I think many sources have been added now. ComputerJA () 22:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Secret account 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I do have to wonder why this was posted before the actual unique Shakespeare folio below was posted? 01:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

November 27Edit


RD: Said AklEdit

Article: Said Akl (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC Naharnet Al-Akhbar

Both articles need updating

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

Nominator's comments: Very distinguished Lebanese poet and helped create the "Lebanese alphabet". Very important figure in my perspective. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Support - a significant personality (poet) in the Arabic world, from what I've seen in necrologues written in multiple languages at G-News. The article is in decent shape. Support. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 in his field. If possible some more information about his death would be helpful for the article(if there is anything beyond the fact he was over 100) but otherwise article seems OK. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ABC source describes him quite differently from the rationale the nominator gives. Certainly not a poet of world renown. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The ABC article, originally published by the Associated Press, starts with: Saeed Akl, Lebanon's leading poet whose fame spread throughout the Arab world, has died ... The nominator doesn't say he was "a poet of world renown". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and Needs Attention. Seems to me he meets the DC2 criteria, but the article is in need of more referencing. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: P. D. JamesEdit

Article: P. D. James (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support once article references are improved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as she seems to meet DC2; refs need improvement per TRM. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Widely known and appreciated. Sca (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, well known writer. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per The Rambling Man. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There is one quote that I saw lacking a cite (I tagged it) ,but it should be relatively easy to fix as the sentence it is in narrows down the likely source very well. Rest of article in shape. DC2 seems appropriate for posting. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, got 400 page views a day before her death. Wrote The Children of Men. Abductive (reasoning) 15:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD promptly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Jehochman Talk 17:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment a pity it was posted before the orange maintenance tag was addressed. But hey, there are forces much greater than following the guidelines here. I think we should remove that requirement, as it's often ignored by certain posting and voting admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
What orange maintenance tag? I removed it myself and replace it with a couple {{fact}} tags where needed. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good, another maintenance tag "resolved" then. GoldenRing (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

November 26Edit


[Posted] Shakespeare First Folio discoveredEdit

Article: First Folio (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A previously unknown Shakespeare First Folio, dated to 1623, has been discovered in a library in Saint-Omer, near Calais.
News source(s): The Telegraph, BBC, CNN. Washington Post

Article updated

Nominator's comments: You don't often come across these. Has a transatlantic, as well as a European, angle. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. A decently-covered story of a type that we don't usually see, involving arguably one of the best writers in the English language. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unopposed with Support (given reported quality of copy and presence of notes) only if this folio differs in content from other early folios. Do we have such a source? μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it does and of course it would not be expected to. But it has pencil annotations with stage directions! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I suppose this is a wait for better sources. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
        • All c.800 had the same 36 plays, 18 for the first time? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is clear of maintenance tags. He's "one the best", he's a "bloody hero", he invented part of the Englizh languish. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Just one section needs additional sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - interesting story. and covered by media.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose although rare, there still are over 200 copies i believe in existence. That makes it much less exciting... if it was 1 of 2 then i would be all up for it. -- Ashish-g55 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Ashish. Another identical copy of a relatively common book (by early modern standards), even one as important or interesting, is not world news. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. While I realize there are more than 200 known copies, I still feel this is certainly significant enough that it can be posted; it is in the news, after all. Also, we don't post a lot of cultural items. -- Calidum 03:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. An event of huge cultural significance regardless of the number of extant copies. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Huge cultural significance? Why? Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • One, it's Shakespeare. Two, per [8], its provenance and the handwritten notes it contains have the potential to give us new insight into point one. If that's not huge culturally, then the bar is set so high for cultural stories here that none of them can get into ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I support all sorts of scholarly ITN nominations, but I haven't seen many for cultural ones. Which cultural stories have been nominated but failed to be posted? Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I would compare this to the relatively recent Action Comics #1 auction; there might be dozens of copies remaining in existence, and thus finding any copy in good condition of such a critical cultural work is important. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. We have a shortage of news items, so although this isn't the most prominent story, it is interesting and different. We ought to post it. Jehochman Talk 05:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is one out of 800 printed and brings the survivors up to 224 or so. I cannot see how a damaged copy of something already well-known to scholars is in any way important. This is a minor, minor story. As for the Action Comics #1 auction, that was for an actual sale. This book is not going to be sold anytime soon, and as it missing 30 pages from the front, is not going to sell for as much as previous copies. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, guess you're right. I'm certainly not gonna buy it. Saving up for that new RSC production of Lex Luthor's Lost! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC) (... alternatively, we could wait another 391 years and see if it doubles in price?)
  • Weak Support per Ashish and Jehochman. I'm not an expert on the subject, but this doesn't seem like a big deal. But if we have nothing else. Busy Moose (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if there are still 200+ copies extant, I don't see how this is such a big deal. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've removed the "[Ready]" label from the section heading as there is no consensus to post this at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There's still 2-1 support, even if we ignore BM's weak support and my unopposed. Why would this not be consensus to post? μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Because consensus is not just counting noses but actually evaluating the arguments made. There was a leaning towards support, but not enough to call a consensus at the time I evaluated the discussion (I haven't evaluated points made since my comment). Note that I did not close the discussion as I do not think consensus is impossible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. interesting --Johnsemlak (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. - The handwritten notes, though not by Shakespeare himself, are likely to be useful to scholars, and the Washington Post even suggests this find may be used as (further) evidence that Shakespeare was secretly Catholic. Very interesting little rabbit hole to go down. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose with reluctance. This is a field which we under-represent, but unfortunately there is nothing particularly exciting about this book. As noted by others, there are over 200 extant copies of the First Folio, many of which are in better condition an/or have other unique features. This is certainly very exciting for the people who found it, but is will not make any difference to the literary world or scholars of Shakespeare. Modest Genius talk 23:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "Prof Rasmussen took the Eurostar to France last Saturday and authenticated the Folio within five minutes."This is huge," he told the New York Times. "First folios don't turn up very often, and when they do, it's usually a really chewed up, uninteresting copy. But this one is magnificent." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Albeit not strongly. First Folio isn't the greatest article, but not bad, and it links off in only the way that Wikipedia can to "..do you want to find out more?". Newsworthy(ish) and more importantly serves part of our mission - which is to help learning. Pedro :  Chat  23:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant and newsworthy development in a field which, by its nature, has limited representation in ITN. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sure this looks significant within its field, but the field seems to be basically "Shakespeare first folio discovery". Of very limited consequence unless you happen to be an auction house. Formerip (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Important enough in a field not given much coverage on Wikipedia, and covered well internationally. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Although lot of people are using the term "field", i am unsure about what this field actually is... rare books? First Folios? Auctionable material being found? -- Ashish-g55 21:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
How about "Shakespearean scholarship"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What would be the contribution? It's a book identical to 232 known copies of the same book, but apparently with some pages missing. Formerip (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
One might as well oppose, and then argue against a unique, annotated copy of the Magna Carta with a few percent of the text missing. But hey, at least we've posted Bumblebee Man. μηδείς (talk)
It's a little unclear to me what you are talking about. If you have a unique annotated copy of the Magna Carta, announce it to the press and I'll consider it on its merits. If you have a bumblebee man, ditto. Formerip (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Phillip HughesEdit

Article: Phillip Hughes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Australian test cricketer Phil Hughes dies following a blow to the head from a bouncer.
News source(s): BBC Sydney Morning Herald India Today New Zealand Herald NBC News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It was suggested that this was nominated by User:Jehochman, so here we go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait - IMHO, this should not be posted unless he dies. Obviously that is not a scenario I would wish for. Injuries in cricket are fairly common, albeit that this is one of the more serious. Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • R.I.P., Phillip.
  • Strong oppose, like the Michael Schumacher nomination at the very end of last year, we don't give ITN to people getting injured. Donnie Park (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • We can give ITN coverage to any exceptional, unusual and widely reported story. I have no opinion on whether the Schumacher nomination was decided appropriately or not, but one distinction is that he was injured while skiing recreationally, not while driving F1 race cars, what he is notable for. Hughes, a cricketer, was injured playing cricket, one of the worst cricket injuries ever. (Has anybody ever died playing cricket?) Sadly, many people are killed or paralyzed while skiing recreationally. That injury wasn't so unusual.) Jehochman Talk 20:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Has anybody ever died playing cricket?, Has anybody died being hit by a ball? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Donnie Park (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
      • ...and what about Jules Bianchi, he was driving and that ITN/C was refused, so until something bad happens I still stand by my nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait - until he dies (hope not ofcourse). --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick disclaimer it was suggested that this would be an appropriate ITN candidate by User:Jehochman, in response to the flack over the posting of the Ferguson kerfuffles. I'm sorry if I'm wasting community time with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: - any nomination made in good faith is not a waste of the community's time, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think this injury is rather rare and whether he dies (I hope not) or survives, the issue is how much news coverage this story is generating. I've added links to answer that question. I believe this story is getting more news coverage than our minimum requirement, and the event is exceptionally rare. "Phillip Hughes remains in a critical condition in a Sydney hospital following scans after one of the most sickening blows in cricket history left him fighting for his life." [9] Jehochman Talk 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting whenever it is deemed proper. Reading the linked stories, I read that this sort of accident is extremely rare- and unlike the aforementioned race car driver this occurred while Hughes was playing. Further, many cricket matches were apparently abandoned after this news was made public, affecting many people. As such it seems to be getting a great deal of coverage in many nations(NZ, Aust., India, UK) and readers might want to read his article to learn about him and what happened(as I did just now). I understand both the desire to post it now due to the news coverage and to not do so unless (hopefully not) he does not survive- but I think it merits posting in some form. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question On the assumption that he will live the injury, I can understand the logic of posting about a mid-career-ending significant injury, but iff this is a leading player in the field, eg the likes of a LeBron James. I don't understand enough about cricket to be able to judge that from the article, so it would be helpful for someone to give a rough assessment towards that. (If he does die, hopefully not, I could see that this certainly qualifying under unusual death). --MASEM (t) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Who is LeBron James? HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I think LeBron is that dude who has slightly more page views than Neymar in the English Wikipedia. –HTD 20:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not that difficult to go to the top of the webpage and type in "LeBron James" into the search bar. Frankly, HiLo, your attempt at feigning ignorance is starting to become puerile and irritating.--WaltCip (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • He's a Test and ODi cricketer for Aus but a young 'un. The injury has been reported in major press all around the world, along with a staggeringly upsetting video of him collapsing some ten seconds post-impact. There seems to be an inclination at this point to post items which have large news recognition (which this certainly does) and it was suggested to me, in light of the ongoing scuffles in Ferguson, America, that this item should be considered too. The irony being this story is more likely to have a longer term and more significant impact than a bunch of looters going wild in the aisles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait At this moment this looks more like news for a cricket-specialized magazine. I doubt we'd even post Ronaldo if he falls into a critical condition on the pitch, but ultimately survives. In the worst scenario this may pass solely due to the oddity of the event, not because of Hughes persona - obviously, he's not the same scale as Mandela or Ray Bradbury. Brandmeistertalk 21:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's nominated because of the oddity, and if you check the mainstream news sources in India, Pakistan, Australian and other countries that love cricket, you will see that this story is getting very prominent coverage. People are very interested in this news. Jehochman Talk 21:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Then why hasn't U2's lead singer been posted given his humerus was shattered into seven pieces, his scapula into three, and his collar bone and a metacarpal been broken in half? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Bono is fine the Pope will take care of him... [10]. He's certainly not in a life-threatening position where a cricket ball struck his skull at around 90 mph. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If a famous musician suffered a serious injury during a concert, was in a deep coma, unable to breathe on his own, and in grave danger of dying (90% according to Subarachnoid hemorrhage), and the story was all over the news, we would probably feature it, because that would be just as unusual as this story. Jehochman Talk 04:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Due to the fact that it has received significant coverage in nations where cricket is popular (i.e. Australia, the UK, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, etc.), and because a whole round of fixtures were cancelled due to his injury, with the possibility of the upcoming India-Australia Test match also being called off. 124.185.77.1 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sports deaths? Sporting events? Sure. Sports injuries? I'm not sure this rises to the level of significance needed for ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand that this nomination is debatable. We have 4 solid supports including the nominator, 3 waits who would support if (unfortunately) he dies, 2 solid opposes and maybe some neutrals. I suggest we post this because the target article is strong, and Wikipedia will be better for featuring something a bit unusual that has a strong human interest. This will also help diversify our coverage. Sadly, it looks like he is very sick and there is a real chance that he will die. [11] If we post it and then he dies, we will of course update the blurb immediately. Jehochman Talk 04:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think the status of Hughes as a player and the unusual nature of the death means that a blurb is appropriate. The last comparable death was that of Raman Lamba in 1998, but Lamba was fielding rather batting, and was not wearing a helmet. The fact that Hughes was wearing a helmet makes his death all the more freakish, and significant in the long term as practice and possibly laws will change in response (though admittedly the last bit is crystal-balling). StAnselm (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd go further and say this appears to be the first top level (First-class cricket or List A cricket) fatal injury of a player wearing a helmet. (Darryn Randall was probably wearing a helmet, but suffered his fatal injury in a lower grade game). Adpete (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, with the unfortunate word of his death. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support were this a professional baseball batter in the US I'd expect it to be posted, why not this? Or is Cricket regularly fatal? μηδείς (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support sadly, there is now little doubt that this is ITN worthy. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I found an interesting page, Category:Deaths_in_sport. We have 379 pages about racing drivers killed while racing, and 6 pages about Cricket deaths. Cricket deaths are very rare. Jehochman Talk 06:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree. And a small note of pedantry, Test should be with a capital T in the blurb. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Could we perhaps have a less ambiguous hook? When I read "dies following a blow to the head from a bouncer" I imagined him getting into some kind of altercation with nightclub security staff. Would it be too simplistic to say "from a blow to the head from a ball?" – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please check the blurb for consistency, the article says he was struck to the neck, not head (which rather makes sense, otherwise the injury wouldn't have been so bad due to his helmet, I think). Also, the link to cricket should be extended to Test (Test cricket). Brandmeistertalk 10:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've extended the link. Might it make sense to simply drop "Test" from the blurb, given that Hughes also was a One Day International cricketer? Or did his fatal injury occur in a circumstance unique to Test cricket? (Please forgive my ignorance of the sport.) —David Levy 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    "Test cricketer" is appropriate, and the best description for a player of his status. Test cricket is the highest level of competition in the sport - the fact that he also played ODIs does not diminish this career achievement. -dmmaus (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Such a context didn't even cross my mind. My logic is simply that "Test cricket" seems excessively specific. If others feel that it's important to include, I'm not here to argue. —David Levy 22:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For completeness, adding US source(where it was on the top page), where cricket is not popular; clearly significant news. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with filelakeshoe because I too was misled - is there a real need to write "bouncer"? Can't we just write "ball"? Also, RIP. starship.paint ~ regal 14:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please edit blurb per comments above. Its too much of a cricket talk to say blow from a bouncer and will be confusing for most readers. getting struck/hit by the ball or something similar might be better. -- Ashish-g55 14:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Done. (Note that this issue also was raised at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors.) —David Levy 14:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull This is not news. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Of course it is news. Would be absurd to think it isn't. But I would disagree with your implied argument that it isn't ITN worthy. A top athlete in a major world sport dying as a result of an on-field incident; a sport that isn't particularly known for such risk? That's an ITN for me. Resolute 18:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure which particular point is trying to be made here, but at least we now have a baseline from which we can gauge any further "comments" from Maunus. Tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    Of course it's news. There isn't even an argument that it is news. That's not even what this discussion is about. Every single discussion that hits ITN is generally "news". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.125.85 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose pull. There is ample evidence above that this is worldwide news. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting and oppose pull. I'm not a cricket fan (it's only marginally less boring than golf), but cricket is the sport that's played throughout the Commonwealth on summer Sunday afternoons. It's supposed to be a gentle sport. It's not like contact sports or motor racing, where the greater risk of injury is accepted, so a death as a result of a cricket match is extraordinary. Add to that the particular injury he suffered appears to be extraordinarily rare, and this is more than significant enough and interesting (albeit heart-breakingly tragic) enough for ITN. And yes, the same would be true, imho, of baseball or any other comparable major sport. Perhaps not of motor racing or contact sports, but given that these events are (thankfully) very rare, we can easily assess them on a case-by-case basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per Harry Mitchell. (Some people unfamiliar with cricket might think that a blow from a bouncer is something that happens to a cricketer at a night club, but they do have a link.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

November 25Edit


[Attention needed] Solomon Islands general election, 2014Edit

Article: Solomon Islands general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Solomon Islands Prime Minister Gordon Darcy Lilo loses his seat in the country's general elections
Alternative blurb: ​Negotiations begin to form a new Government of the Solomon Islands after Prime Minister Gordon Darcy Lilo loses his seat in the country's general elections.
News source(s): ABC, Solomon Star, Radio New Zealand

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: Fairly unusual for the Prime Minister to lose their seat in a national election. Never nominated anything for ITN before, so apologies if this sort of thing is unwarranted. --Number 57 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment The election returned so many parties (the largest has only 7 of 50 seats!) that it would silly to say "Democratic Alliance Party wins the plurality of seats" - especially since last time, it was the 3rd largest party that eventually gave the island its Prime Minister. If we do post this, I think this "decapitation" is the angle to go for. ABC does call Lilo's unseating "a shock". Smurrayinchester 15:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, political parties are fairly insignificant in the Solomon Islands compared to most other countries – 32 of the 50 MPs are independents. Number 57 15:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - a general election is a general election. doesnt matter if it is on the solomon islands or in the uk or whatever.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's still a general election for a national legislature. Canuck89 (talk to me) 21:34, November 25, 2014 (UTC)
  • Not adequately updated - Supporting at ITN/R item on merits (as the above 2 comments seem to be) is rather pointless. The merits are assumed; the only factor that determines posting is the quality of the update. At current, the article has one sentence on the results and very little text in general. We can do better than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Could you help with the updating or perhaps provide some questions that you'd like to see answered? Questions can be useful as writing prompts. I wouldn't promote this until this concern is addressed. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the jurisdiction is the size of a third-class world city, not notable, and no RfC established this as ITN/R. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • According to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items elections in all sovereign states (of which the Solomon Islands is one) "are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur". The fact that it's a small country shouldn't count against it. Number 57 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • This oppose as it stands now isn't going to carry much weight. A valid reason to oppose might be if the news is not actually being reported. From the looks of the links above, there's a prima facia case that it is "in the news" but you are welcome to provide reasons why you think otherwise. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. Busy Moose (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, although I think the article could benefit from more detail. What is the implication of independents winning a majority of seats? Will there be coalition negotiations? On what date were the results announced? Formerip (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral article needs work but it's also worth noting that we do not need an RfC to add an item to ITNR. That has never, and is not a requirement. Claiming otherwise is bogus. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd support this being posted (the election received a bit of mainstream news coverage in Australia and NZ, and is a significant element of the Solomon Islands rebuilding itself from near failed state status in the mid-2000s), but I'd suggest that the blurb be on the results of the election, and not just the PM losing his seat - according to the Australian ABC News [12] independents won two-thirds of the seats, and will now negotiate to form a coalition government. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've updated the article to some degree; however, it seems that the process of forming a government and selecting a Prime Minister will not be quick. It seems certain that it's not going to happen before this nomination goes stale. I've marked this 'attention needed' because I'd value others' input on whether the update is now sufficient to post. I've also suggested an altblurb which gives a little more detail. GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a notable election.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Maunus: The guidance at WP:ITN/R states that elections in all sovereign states meet the criteria. Number 57 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Common sense says otherwise. Does it also say that all events that meet the criteria must be posted?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
What it doesn't say is irrelevant to the discussion, when what it does say is that this election meets the "importance' criterion", and therefore "not notable" is an invalid rationale for opposing its inclusion. But more importantly, why is an election in which the country's head of government loses his seat not notable? Is this not just WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS? Number 57 20:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. Suggested blurb: The Democratic Alliance Party wins the plurality of seats in the Solomon Islands general election, while the majority of seats are won by independent candidates. --LukeSurl t c 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @LukeSurl: I don't think mentioning a specific party in the blurb is a good idea. Parties are relatively unimportant in Solomon politics - the DAP won fewer than 15% of the total seats. Your proposed blurb also omits the most notable aspect of the result, i.e. the PM losing his seat. Number 57 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 24Edit


[Posted] Shooting of Michael BrownEdit

Article: Shooting of Michael Brown (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Officer Darren Wilson is not indicted for the Shooting of Michael Brown.
Alternative blurb: ​Rioting breaks out in Ferguson, Missouri, and protests occur across the United States, after a grand jury declines to indict a police officer for the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.
alt2: Rioting breaks out in Ferguson, Missouri following a grand jury decision on the shooting of Michael Brown.

alt3: Rioting breaks out in Ferguson, Missouri after a grand jury declines to indict the police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown.
News source(s): BBC Al Jazeera Le Monde CNN El Pais

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This shooting and the subsequent trial have garnered a large amount of press. Whether this is notable enough for Wikipedia is something to discuss below. Andise1 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Possibly wait to see if resulting protests are noteworthy? SpencerT♦C 02:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We did wait after this comment for some time. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously? We've been lectured repeatedly recently that we couldn't post the Ram nom with 6 deaths and 500 arrests or the arrest of the Mayor from Guerrero state and his wife who were on the run for a month (after they ordered the murder of 43 students) as the most wanted in Mexico, or two jihadist assassins shot dead after massacring four foreign rabbis at prayer in jerusalem since in each case we lack as conviction. This is simply absurd, risible, and a farce in that context; no offense to the nominator. That is, no, Opposed. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Opposing an item because some other item wasn't posted is not a convincing reason. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion might be convincing if it had some details. As it is, I can't verify why it doesn't rise to the level. The item is top headline news on many news sites around the world. There needs to be more explanation why an "item in the news" doesn't belong on ITN. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - There are at least a dozen fires on TV right now and one officer shot, protests in Oakland, CA. We expected the worst and we got the worst. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I believe it (I'm going there tomorrow), but Chief Belmar said about 20 mins. ago that he had personally heard about 150 shots fired, none from officers. The National Guard is finally being mobilized as of an announcement a few hours ago. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion caries weight because it has a source to back up the assertion. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait to see how this develops, as Spencer has suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
After seeing this comment the first time I did wait, for additional comments and additional news developments. Jehochman Talk 12:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
But nothing much did happen. A few dozen people were arrested, a few places were looted. Nothing new there. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Did the story get coverage in media outlets around the world? If so, how prominent was the coverage? Personal opinions don't carry much weight compared to an opinion that cites news sources and contains links. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It got plenty of coverage but our role is to assess whether that coverage is actually significant in the long-term. We have a few dozen protestors in a few places hurling bricks. So what? How is this going to change the world? Also across the world news we have an Australian cricketer struck in the head by a bouncer, in a critical condition. The US community would laugh that out of court if it was nominated. Yet it's headlining around the world. Just because it's prominently advertised (and the US press are doing a great job of that), it doesn't mean we should post it against community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw that story about the cricketer and thought it was interesting (shocking and sad), and wish you would nominate it. No I would not laugh it off. That's a very unusual thing and it's getting a lot of press. Jehochman Talk 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Very well, I'll do so, and we can see how that pans out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a top story in the US and European media, from I've seen in the national editions of G-news. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion carries weight because I can verify the assertion by searching G-news. Some URLs would be even better. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
A good suggestion, which was acted upon. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Recent news from Ferguson dominate the CNN, Reuters, BBC or NYT main pages at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Good comment with specific details and policy-based reasoning. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is posted(and I'm not yet saying it should be) the blurb should focus on the riot in Ferguson and protests across the US and not just the lack of an indictment. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This suggestion was eventually implemented. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggested an alt blurb. The police are describing the rioting as worse than what happened in August: [13]. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the alt blurb. It's very helpful to suggest an option if you prefer something besides what's originally posted. Jehochman Talk
Suggestion was implemented, that the blurb should reference the specific article about what's in the news, not just the general article about what happened months ago. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait per Spencer. I think μηδείς makes a compelling point about the sort of double standard we'd be espousing by posting this at this point, but it may yet develop into something more significant. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We did wait, but the argument about double standards carries no weight here. It might carry weight on a discussion at WP:ITN or WP:ITN/R. Perhaps this concern should be addressed there in a more considered way than is possible here on the candidates page. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In late October we posted blurb about the soldier killed at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, on 5 November we featured the news about a suicide attack at Pakistan's Wagah border, on 11 November we posted blurb about protests in Mexico City. The first wave of protests in the US Ferguson was not featured despite really massive coverage in the world media, instead of it we posted blurb about the suicide of a US actor. Now we have similar situation, the protests in the US are everywhere in the media but we are waiting for a "more significant development". So yes, I would agree that our standards are unusual. CNN, Reuters, NYT and the most improtant media reporting in multiple languages over the world apparently show systemic bias on their front pages right now :) I would accept arguments about bad coverage of the recent development of the event here on Wikipedia, but not this. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If someone has not been indicted for something then we shouldn't be splashing their name on our front page as if they ought to have been. See trial by media. Andrew D. (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At the moment, the media discuss consequences (the protests) rather than his guilt or innocence so it could hardly be called "trial by media". Moreover, we can avoid that person's name and focus more on the protests in our blurb. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This opinion was taken into account and acted upon out of an abundance of caution, in the spirit of WP:BLP. Using the officers name added little to nothing and lengthened the blurb. Reading the sources, the issue are widespread concerns about the militarization of the police, use of excessive force, and racial profiling not the behavior of this one officer. Jehochman Talk 13:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt2 the protests are notable (last time such protest were in LA in 1990) not the decision itself. I proposed a shorted more neutral blurb. Nergaal (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting I see various reasons for some of the opposes and comments and have tried to accommodate them with version 3, focusing on the riots, not naming the police officer, and bold linking to the riots article. I believe with these concerns addressed, the balance is now in favor of posting. The argument that this is in the news is strong. The home page of the BBC features riots and flames, as does NYT and ABC (Australia). Jehochman Talk 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Er what? Three opposes, four waits/comments, and three supports is now a consensus to post? Interesting.... EDIT: Also adding my post-posting Oppose for now/Pull for the time being as nothing much has actually happened yet. 131.251.254.81 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is not determined by numbers. In particular, consensus means taking into account all view points as reasonably well as possible, which is exactly what alt3 seeks to do. Good, bold post IMO (based only on the conversation, not my personal feeling of merit.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Now (about 12 hr after the verdict and thus seeing the scale of the riots) it is clear there was something significant, but this is a badly rushed post. We've had problems with things being posted <12 hr since the nomination in the past when the consensus was clear, but absolutely in this case, there was no clear consensus at the time to post. This needed some more time to let the impact of the verdict and the resulting riots settle in. We would have still likely posted sometime within the first 24hrs given the way events actually did turn, but we have to stop rushing on these things and wait; we are not a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to wait until the item is out of the news before posting it. Our users will be looking for information about this topic; we should make it easy to find as soon as we (1) have a reasonable quality article, (2) events are "gelled" that we can form a blurb. Even if things change, we can always update the blurb. All around the world these riots are being reported. I see no argument to embargo our articles. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
We're not a news ticker, so we can wait even if the story falls out of the news cycle. The argument readers will be looking for this info applies to tons of stories that we have not posted in the past or in a rapid timely manner (see for example Mike Nichols below), we are making sure we are not flooding WP's with poor quality articles or with topics that have (potentially) limited interest. I've said before, unless it's flat out obvious on the consensus and importance (neither the case here), ITNC show have a minimum 12hr "stew time" to get an initial rough opinion before posting. Given the !votes here and the actual news, after 12hr we likely would have still had consensus to post, definitely within 24hr. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support post-Posting. A few hours ago I was strongly opposed, but mass arson and open gunfire aren't everyday occurances in the US.128.214.185.162 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support due to the national scale of the protesting. Resolute 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rioting in Ferguson was very much expected given its been happening for a while. I agree posting seems a bit rushed and the blurb does not seem to correlate with the supports... If it is on ITN due to national protests then thats what should be mentioned. The current blurb is borderline breaking news. Also the update in the article kinda sucks -- Ashish-g55 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The story is big headlines but if you cut through the hype, you get a pretty small scale disruption, not a great deal of damage, no serious injuries, and we've had all this before (the blurb should reflect that the riots are happening again). Really, this utterly US-centric. We totally ignored a doctor in India who killed fifteen women in a day and put dozens of others in intensive care, yet we're suddenly a news ticker to post these scuffles which don't amount to anything in the big scheme of things. Wait was ideal, if it escalated to something truly significant we could post it. And note, over 75% of the arrests are for trespass and looting, nothing to do with the "cause".... Pathetic. Never mind, the posting is not surprising. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • U.S.-centric? Sure. But I disagree with the idea that this doesn't "amount to anything in the big scheme of things". The issue is Racism in the United States. (Not that I expect this is actually going to advance anything to counter it.) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      As I said, over 75% of the arrests were people looting, taking advantage of the righteous actions of a tiny minority of people in a tiny place in the US who feel aggrieved. Advertising this as all about the racial element is disingenuous and will serve only to encourage it to take place more in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was all about racism. Rioting and looting certainly doesn't help that cause. But then again, nobody said an unorganized mob would ever be rational. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      • "Protests also were staged on Monday night in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Oakland, California, and Washington, D.C., over a case that has highlighted long-standing racial tensions not just in predominantly black Ferguson but across the United States." (Reuters) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's interesting, but to what degree did these "protests" extend? Were they just banner wavers? Were they notable in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
          • For example 40 people in Oakland were arrested, according to SF Chronicle [14]. Rioting and looting say something about the society as well and I would let our readers to interpret the situation on their own. We document and provide information, we are not here to tell them what is right or wrong. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Yep, a truly minor event, 40 people get arrested at feisty football matches in the UK every Saturday. This isn't a newsworthy event, it's hype, hype which Wikipedia is now stirring up. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
              • (cough) This line of opposition is starting to sound as though this kind of thing is considered business as usual in the U.S. (and maybe the UK). - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per TRM. Minor scuffles that have no relevance on the world stage. I quite like his comparison example. Significance of this "event" in context is pretty much nil, and hence it does not warrant a posting. We're not a news ticker. RGloucester 18:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Support - This is a story very much in the news, world wide and hugely in the USA. The news is important, not tabloid sensationalism (though in some venues being played that way) and I support the early posting as well. Very much disagree with the rationale offered by TRM and others objecting. This is a watershed moment in America, which is according to some a post-racial society, but clearly is not seen that way by protesters and those taking advantage of the situation to act out. Not to include the item in ITN would make us a laughingstock, as I see it. I salute Jehochman for making a gutsy call in the face of the usual tired objections, and the post-posting support clearly backs him up. Jusdafax 18:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Who has decided that this is a "watershed moment", dear fellow? I hope you're not standing on a soapbox. I believe that there hasn't been enough time for scholarly sources to be written about this event, and come to a consensus about whether it has had a historical impact. I believe that what you propose is that we endorse crystal-balling, which is antithetical to the encyclopaedia. RGloucester 18:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, sadly the concept that this is a "watershed moment" is simply not true. What happened in the last set of Ferguson riots? Nothing. What changed? Nothing. Minor scuffles, but no long-term impact whatsoever. Unless I missed it, this set of looting and burglary is no different. Just opportunists out to make a quick buck and applaud Wikipedia for celebrating it on its main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
How about these comments by the Los Angeles Police Chief which compare this to the 1992 riots? If you two don't agree with that, we have very different standards of what constitutes notability for ITN, that's all. Jusdafax 18:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that bluster is one thing, but that historical significance can only be determined if one has temporal distance from the event. I also believe that historical significance can usually only be determined by scholarly sources. There are some exceptions, when it may be readily apparent that an event has historical significance, as with the 11th September attacks, however, these are few and far between. It certainly isn't the case here. Your own personal advocacy for viewing this event as "watershed" moment has no bearing on the encyclopaedia. RGloucester 18:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep, that's right. Everyone was worked up over the initial riots, but yet nothing has changed. These riots are a little more excited than the last lot, but again, they appear to be nothing substantive. If something changes because of them or if they escalate beyond a few tiny corners of America with minuscule arrests then we should consider it for the main page. Otherwise this is just an example of "it's happening in America so it must be important." We should be more analytical when before we post this tabloid stuff to the main page. We are not a news ticker. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The BBC, Le Monde, Times of India, and the Irish Times are posting "tabloid stuff"? That is an issue to take up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I forgot we simply mirror the press regardless of the value of the story. The fact that a few dozen people have decided to go on a looting spree has become headline news, just as it did the first time round. Waiting to see if this ever has any impact was essential, right now we're just news tickering. A handful of folks are upset, again, and nothing else will happen. Great work Wikipedia on promoting burglars and looters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess we just have very different ideas of "value". 331dot (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. You believe that value lies in a few burglars and robbers, I believe it lies in human life, and appalling care conditions, and individuals responsible for multiple deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe when 2200 National Guard troops(essentially the military) are called out due to civil disorder, and there are nationwide protests about an issue, yes, it has value. Is the British Army(or National Guard equivalent there) called out due to 40 unruly football fans there? I don't remember if I commented on the Indian doctor posting or not- if there was a deliberate effort to murder women by a doctor or some other systemic issue, maybe it should have been posted. I don't remember the whole situation as well as you seem to. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Troops deployed does not equate to value, it equates to reaction to not being able to control looting individuals with guns that are freely available. This has no merit, no "value" in reality. And in actuality, nothing substantive has happened at all. If you can't be bothered to look at the deaths of a score of Indian women then that's your choice. Of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Troops being deployed due to civil disorder is a very rare event in the US. Could be wrong but I think the last time on this scale was the 1992 Los Angeles riots. It clearly is more than "looting individuals with guns" if you need two thousand troops to control them in a usually stable nation. Looking at any story is not a matter of "bother". There is only so much time in the day. If you don't wish to even tell me if I am correct in saying that it was a deliberate action, that's your choice too. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. US politicians never over-react to situations like this, do they? There have been no serious injuries, nothing, just a bunch of broken stuff and angry people and stolen things. Just like the last time. And "there is only so much time in the day" is terribly lame. If you don't think that the deaths of over a dozen women due to malpractice is of value, more value than a bunch of looters, then I'll re-assess your comments hereafter since, as you say, we clearly have very different ideas of values. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you consider the fact that I have a life away from here "lame"; I'm sure you have other things to do every day as well. I don't recall the level of news coverage of this Indian medical malpractice issue so I can't really comment on that, and I think you would agree this isn't the proper forum for us to continue to debate something that wasn't done, rightfully or wrongly. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of odd that you comment on every ITN candidate but somehow missed the murder of a dozen or so Indian women. Perhaps it wasn't important enough for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Murder is not the same as malpractice, which is what my admittedly small understanding of the situation was. If you wish to debate what I do and do not comment on, you know where my talk page is. I don't think we should do so here. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support after posting - definitely notable and needed at itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support post-posting. The blurb does a good job of balancing the many issues; this event is being covered around the world. This isn't just being covered in US media(or even just English media). Posting this isn't being a "news ticker", it reflects that this is "in the news", regardless of why. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    "...this is "in the news", regardless of why" is one of the more obtuse things I've ever read here. There are all manner of junk news stories "in the news, regardless of why". Posting items "regardless of why" is precisely what a news ticker is all about. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. The sooner folks remember that, the better. (P.S. interesting to note the fascination with this scuffle in the US while dozens of Indian women die at the hands of a single doctor. I'm beginning to see what HiLo48 is banging on about when he continually calls systemic bias...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Haven't played here for a while now, but I do watch from time to time, and I just knew that this bit of highly predictable American tabloid fodder would be pushed very hard by some. Oh for a truly global perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't deny systemic bias issues exist, but this story is the only American one currently on the ITN box. We're not exactly flooded with them at the moment. This story is also news in Australia in at least two outlets. Are they tabloids too? If you don't like what is posted, let's see some nominations(but you decline to do so). The answer to systemic bias is not to turn it around so anything American is not discussed. Somehow I think if a nuclear bomb went off in America you would be opposed. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
And it's bullshit like that that encourages me to leave discussion here again. Oh for mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Leaving a discussion you don't like is hardly a mark of maturity. Explain to me why it is bullshit. That's the honest sense I get from you. Prove me wrong. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You dug your hole with that nuclear bomb. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Many stories are reported in BBC, Le Monde, &c. that we do not include at ITN. ITN is not a news ticker because we use editorial discretion to decide what stories have significance to the degree that they should be placed on our front page. This is an encyclopaedia front page, not a newspaper front page. We do not try to encompass every story published by BBC &c., only those with real significance in encyclopaedic terms. RGloucester 21:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say that a news story that has been covered by all world media is news for ITN. TRM is comparing apples and oranges claiming that they both should taste the same because they are both fruits... but that is not the reality.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec)No one is proposing posting every story from any particular news outlet- this was about one story posted in many news outlets around the world about an event affecting a large nation and one of its constant issues (racism). It isn't being a tabloid or a news ticker to "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news"; it is, in fact, one of our stated purposes. If that is not desired, feel free to propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    As you know, this will never be pulled, it's got far too much US-based traction, despite the fact that no-one is really thinking about the whole picture. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
In your opinion. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Well obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not opinion, fact. This sorry affair shows perfectly what's wrong with ITN at the moment. Fgf10 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You are not in my or anyone else's head to know if that is a "fact" or not. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
But Fgf10 is just saying what most of the non-US contributors are thinking, whether you like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Still an opinion, not a fact. If Fgf10 or you don't like one of the stated purposes of ITN, you know where the talk page is. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
What stated purpose is that? The posting of minor news items for which there is no consensus to post, solely based on a certain geographical origin, and the upholding of double standards? Might as well put it in the rules. Fgf10 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The stated purpose at WP:ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". Do you deny that this is in the news around the world? The answer to work on correcting systemic bias is to post more stories, not restrict stories. 331dot (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
One way to fix this is to stop posting stories which have no consensus and which have no real long term impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This will have effects on race relations in the United States, among other things. The posting admin explained how he arrived at his decision; if you disagree, take it up with him. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL. It won't make a shred of difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Any "long term impact" is WP:CRYSTAL. None of us have been to the future to know what will happen. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delayed Weak Oppose I've been watching the discussion here, and I agree with the opposition for the most part. At the moment, it doesn't seem as though there's anything especially notable about the riots or protests. The media has decided to make this their 'Civil Unrest Story of the Week,' but what makes it notable? Fires being set? As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes it notable is the fact that it's notable, via media outlets. That said, if the protests and riots continue or spread to other cities in a significant way (which I doubt is going to happen), then it might become worthy of the ITN mention. It seems to me that some of the strong opinions expressed in this discussion are politically-influenced.-RHM22 (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they aren't widespread, but how notable are they? If 100 people in 20 cities decide to protest something, does that make it notable? What I meant earlier was that if it continues in a significant way for a prolonged period of time, then it may be truly notable. Something like Occupy Wall Street, for example, is more along the lines of what I'm talking about.-RHM22 (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull Blurb the grand jury did not "decline" to press charges. (The posting itself, with 4 supports and 7-non supports wqas a farce.) They have to act on the evidence, and they found insufficient evidence to press charges based on the evidence presented them. Not on the media hype, or the activist tripe, but on the testimony. The blurb implies they had a choice. The law does not. μηδείς (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's is a good point. At minimum, the blurb needs rewording. The way it's written now is pretty clearly an intentional use of suggestive language.-RHM22 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please suggest better wording. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting suggestion: I would really prefer the first alternate blurb up above, which mentions protests happening across the United States. This is far from limited to Ferguson. The Moose is loose! 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If anything, it should have been "grand jury clears" since they had the option of four charges, and not indicting, and the law is pretty clear. That's not to mention the fact that the Democratic DA could have brought charges himself, but felt uncomfortable enough about doing so that he sought a grand jury's ruling. As of now, the criminal rioting and the incitement to riot is what's notable. not that a robbery suspect charging an officer he'd already injured might be shot. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please suggest a better blurb. I will gladly edit the blurb if there are suggestions to make it better. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull - This is insane. The mere fact we have three alternate blurbs to juggle is proof enough this was not ready to be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You lost me at "this is insane". If you want to make a reasoned argument, please do so, preferably with facts, diffs, links or references to policy. Polemic arguments don't carry much if any weight. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We should not let perfect be the enemy of good. This story is widely in the news, per the links in the nomination, and per the multiple comments above, and many (but not all) concerns have been addressed. We could include something about the protests if somebody wants to put forth wording. Bear in mind that remarks not based on facts or reasonable arguments don't carry much weight when assessing consensus. Let's please raise the level of discourse to avoid insulting the work of those who update articles about current news events. Instead of arguing so much, why not update an article and nominate it? We need more nominations. Jehochman Talk 06:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Undoubtedly true, but that should never force us to post items with no conensus with biased blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And you won't get new nominations from me until the systemic bias problem is fixed. I won't encourage others from minority cultures to waste their time here either. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
....both of which only guarantee nothing will change. As Jehochman said, the best way to fix it (or at least work on fixing it) is to make nominations, not complaining and doing nothing. You want changes, you need to see them through. It's really that simple. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, they don't guarantee nothing will change. I have made massive efforts to get things to change here. I have run out of energy watching extremely newsworthy nominations from minority cultures fail and disappear without enough attention. I dream of the day those asking for more nominations realise that THEY are the problem because they allow non-mainstream nominations to die. Part of this will be the recognition by many here that they are part of the systemic bias, and deciding they must do something about it. Don't blame me. Blame yourself and the rest of the site owners. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That must have been(and I take your word on it) before my time here, because I don't recall even one proposal from you (except for the 'don't post most anything from the US' sense I get from you). I am not assigning blame to you for the situation, but we are all responsible for working on it; you can't just sit back and expect everyone else to work for you. You say you have run out of energy to work for changes, but you apparently haven't run out of energy to complain. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And there you've made it about me again, when you say "sit back and expect everyone else to work for you". It not about making it work for me. I want it to work for everybody, for all of Wikipedia. It doesn't now. The systemic bias dominates. Those who are part of that bias choose what things from those weird foreign parts of they world they will care about, and ignore the genuine good stuff. Some bloody good nominations just die, because not enough of those who are part of the systemic bias care. This is not an objective place. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't about you personally. But you don't want to do any of the necessary work to address the problems. I don't care if you've tried and failed before. It takes constant effort. You have to make people care or bring other people here who care. Is that unfortunate and unfair? Possibly. But change must start somewhere; it doesn't start with someone complaining and then sitting on their hands. Don't complain about problems and then complain more when nothing is done. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, the above convo is why having a stewing period for a story that doesn't have clear consensus to post is probably a good thing -we would have been able to tune the blurb best for this story with all the details we now know 12-16 hr later from posting. --MASEM (t) 07:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Arbitrary minimum times (which will invariably have exceptions anyway, as the last proposed one did) won't help. Blurbs can always be changed or fixed if needed. The blurb we started with reflected what was publicly known at the time. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We'ver reached that point of 12-16 hours later. If you want to suggest a better blurb, please do! Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull as posted against consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As the posting admin stated, they considered the support and addressed many of the concerns given by those who did not express outright support. This story is at top level news around the world; posting it fulfills one of the stated purposes of ITN, as I state above. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
At the time of posting, the majority of the opposition was on grounds of notability. The posting admin did not engage with that opposition at all, merely contradicted it. If you're going to post against the numerical consensus, then you need to actually explain how you see the numerical consensus being wrong, not just say, "You're all wrong so I'm going to do what I want to do" - which is essentially what the closing admin did here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you have a reason to pull on the merits of the content, or lack thereof, you are welcome to put that reason forward. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull for now - while I think there is a strong case to post this, and I would support posting it, a consensus on what to post needs to be reached before posting it. In some cases where breaking news has massive worldwide significance it would be appropriate to fast-track a nomination, however this story has nowhere near that level of significance, the initial posting was rushed and inappropriate and should be taken down until a consensus forms on how it should be presented. Given that this has now spread across the United States I would support reposting once a consensus emerges. --W. D. Graham 11:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This vote is actually a support on the merits. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; we do things on the merits. A defect in process isn't a reason to undo something if the result is proper. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The result isn't though. You haven't read my comment, you've just skimmed through so you can find something to use to dismiss it. It wasn't ready when it was posted, it still wasn't ready when I made that comment and I'm not convinced that it's even ready now. Everybody seems to have a different idea of what the blurb should say which is why a discussion should have taken place rather than you making the decision unilaterally. This wasn't something that needed to be posted as soon as it happened so there would have been plenty of time for that discussion to take place. Pulling in this case would have been the right thing to do since it is essentially a case of WP:BRD; returning to the status quo after a disputed bold edit until a consensus emerges. --W. D. Graham 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that I did read your comment, but maybe I didn't understand it correctly, which is my fault, not yours. ITN functions at a faster pace than many Wikipedia discussions, in my experience. We have a time that suggests when a new update is needed. Our ITN section is currently woefully out of date with several items that are two weeks old. Usually we want to run items for about 7 days from when they happen. We obviously can't take too many days to discuss an item or else it will be stale. I really hope you (and others) will post more nominations. The only reason I pushed this one through quickly is that there were no other ones available. If there are plenty of nominations, we can be more selective, and perhaps a bit more patient. Do you think my points are valid, or am I blathering? Jehochman Talk 18:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Today's BBC headline: http://www.bbc.com/. ...protests spread across US. This is headline news around the world. When judging consensus I don't give weight to opinions that defy reality. Nobody has presented evidence that the item isn't in the news or that the article isn't good quality. Look at the news items about Asian earthquakes and Solomon Islands elections. With more comments we might be able to post those. We need more items not fewer. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As i stated in my comment somewhere above the supports were more about national protests and thats the news around the world too but that does not get reflected in blurb at all. It says riots broke out in a town thats 6 sq km. People above have said it multiple times that consensus on the blurb is clearly not there and needs to be established. I have no problem posting this but the current blurb is stemmed out of systemic bias and does makes ITN look like a news ticker and also does not support the consensus at all. Should be fixed even if its not pulled (However i do see a note in the blurb about protests across US now). -- Ashish-g55 14:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please provide links and specifics. Opinions with specific details are more helpful. Can you show links to news site that show the protests get coverage, and the riots are not prominent? From the evidence that's been presented in the discussion so far, the riots appear to be mentioned as prominently or more prominently than the protests, but perhaps you can show otherwise. Jehochman Talk 14:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say that the riots are not getting coverage... Im saying reading this discussion the consensus supported national protests rather than the riots in Ferguson alone so the blurb should have been changed. Look i have no problem with admins posting stuff boldly to get things moving fast but when there is an active discussion you gotta go with consensus otherwise there is no point in people coming here and giving their views. Either way the blurb at least mentions the protests now so im ok -- Ashish-g55 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment despite the admirable rationales provided by User:Jehochman, it is clear that the item has no consensus and indeed has a consensus to now be pulled. Please ensure the community wishes are respected. It is worth taking a moment to reflect on the significance. We didn't post the original riots, rightly so, and these are no different. A bunch of people, most of whom are looting and burglarising in the name of racial equality is hardly the sort of thing an intelligent encyclopedia should be promoting. We are not a news ticker, there has been no substantive change to anything following these looters going on a rampage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Admin attention needed: I'd like a second admin to read through this conversation and determine what should be done. Please discuss this with me before reversing the prior closing, should that be your recommendation. I will respond timely and we'll get things taken care of promptly. I'll post to WP:AN and we'll see who shows up. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Question What should happen for the opposers to reconsider? Let's compare to Hong Kong: What did the Hong Kongers do to merit their ITN appearance? Would the Mizzou governor having a dialogue with them be enough? –HTD 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ironic you mention the Hong Kongers, they're being arrested in dozens, as are the police who beat them up. This US story is nothing compared to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I was asking? In context, if this happened in the UK, it would be like protests in a town the size of Gatling Gatley, with probably very small protests in cities such as London and Birmingham. Hong Kong is a big city and a financial center, so that's one of its points that makes is bigger than Ferguson.
So yeah, apparently both the cops and protesters being arrested by the dozens is a good "floor". –HTD 19:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
What you've said makes no sense at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I was saying that if this happened at UK, the best comparison would be protests in Gatley, a place as large as Ferguson, on the Greater Manchester Built-up Area, which is almost as big as Greater St. Louis. Looking at the stats:
2014 Hong Kong protests: 319 arrested and 298 injured protestors, ~38 arrested and 65 injured cops.
2014 Ferguson unrest: 205 arrested and 2 injured protestors, 0 arrested and 4 injured cops.
You have a long way to go, Ferguson. –HTD 20:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well in that case I once again support pulling this sensationalist and biased story from ITN. It's utterly beyond belief that intelligent admins are foregoing their duty to assess items objectively and just posting them like tabloid trash. While this may be in the news, we're an encyclopedia and we should and must do better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please set aside your original research and analysis. Instead, please provide links to any major news outlet anywhere in the world that haven't covered the Ferguson story. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please also consider that "global minority" protests (ie. those that happen outside the good old USA) will have less global press coverage than the looting and burglary by a few dozen idiots in America. Still you are adamant that this story is newsworthy, has longevity and will be something we will all remember in a month/year/decade... Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
He's evidence that contradicts what you just said: Thousands Protesting Ferguson Decision Block Traffic in New York City. Similar things are happening in other cities around the US. Jehochman Talk 21:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how that contradicts the fact this isn't having a global impact, how this won't be important in a month's time. What's difference between this and the original protests? It's no big deal, and has been hijacked by the mob of looters and burglars. And Wikipedia is helping to promote that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Post-posting support I never weighed in with an actual support, so I'm doing it now. I don't see any problem with the blurb as posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless one considers Michael Brown a victim (in which case he should not be named) he is a thief with a criminal record (fact) who charged a policeman (official testimony) whom he had already assaulted (photographs) and was again charging, head down, according to all sources on the grand jury decision. The homicide has been found by an official body to have been justified. That there have been protests, and that the store Brown robbed was burnt to the ground, and that his pastor set fire to his church and blamed it on white supremecists might be notable, but certainly is not ITN worthy. Encyclopediacally, this will probably land somewhere well under the Tawana Brawley case and the Freddy's in Harlem arson incited by Al Sharpton. If we are going to talk about incited riots, let's mention incited riots. This does not compare in any way to protests against mainland China abrogating its promise to respect Hong Kong autonomy. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support — This is a top-rank story not because of rioting and protests, which were predictable, or even because of the specific case and its legal aftermath, but because of the lingering racial polarization of U.S. society half a century after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was indeed a watershed event). It's a globally significant story because the U.S., due to its oft-proclaimed espousal of human rights and equality, is (and should be) measured against a higher standard than some other countries — a standard which in the eyes of many it fails to meet. Sca (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    And all of that is your own opinion. There is no neutrality in this opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the combative interlocutor sounds off again.
As it happens, I don't have a personal opinion on the specifics of the Michael Brown case. I wasn't there. My point concerns the significance of the whole episode against the backdrop of U.S. legal norms. Sca (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, the hapless edits of a stirrer. Brilliantly put, but ultimately ineffective and typically pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Typical, all too typical. Sca (talk)
That's right, try to come up with something useful or original. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Try to express your opinions in a manner that does not disparage or insult others. Sca (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Just as it is your opinion that this is just some 'mob of looters and burglars'. Sca can base their opinion on whatever they want, just as you can base yours on what you want. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Not really, it's been reliably reported that a significant portion of those "rioting" are just there for the goods. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    That's what a riot is, typically. "Significant" portion is relative. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment the posting admin has now advised that we should "please provide links to any major news outlet anywhere in the world that haven't covered the Ferguson story". So are those of us who object to this tabloid posting (and any others) now required to find "major news outlet(s)" that don't post ITN nominations in an attempt to prove they shouldn't be included at ITN? Surely we should be doing more than that, considering the significance, the impact etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That is an absurd rationale for posting! There are dozens of stories that are covered by most or all major news outlets on a daily basis that never even make it here for discussion, and others that are featured here whilst receiving little or no coverage in popular media. There are reasonable arguments for inclusion, but that's not one of them.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for reposting original blurb The current blurb is a lot worse than the original one. The jury did not "clear" anyone it just decided not to indict, which simply means that they were convinced there was little chance of him being convicted. The most egregious change however is the deletion of Michael Brown's name which is dehumanizing in the extreme and a clearly political act. As for the idea of pulling, that is not even an option, this is front page news all over the world and the main topic of news discussion in the US for the past two days. Ignoring it would be a political act in itself.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Maunus re "clears." Incorrect. Suggest change to "decides not to indict." Sca (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the current wording is much better than either. "[D]ecides not to indict" implies that they decided on a whim not to indict Wilson, when in fact they did so based on a review of the evidence and relevant laws. It's a bit like saying "the jury refused to convict him" rather than "he was acquitted." I agree that Brown's name should be included, however, as well as Wilson's. That is not for reasons of "dehumanization" (which is not something that we should concern ourselves with anyway), but simply because they are very relevant to the story and would also help to shorten the rather lengthy blurb a bit.-RHM22 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please cite a policy to the effect that we should notbe concerned with dehumanizing biographical subjects. Or that we should not reflect about the ethics of representation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't be concerned with humanizing or dehumanizing anyone by the use of facts. The wording is objective, and any inference to the contrary represents an imbuement of personal feelings. It's clear that no attempt is being made to misrepresent or smear anyone by the person who wrote the updated blurb. The way it's written now presents no discernible bias (to me), although I do think that the name of Brown at least should probably be added, to reduce the wordiness if for no other reason. I do understand why it was removed, though. It's hard to present the headline without appearing biased in one way or the other.-RHM22 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. Whatever the merits of Michael Brown's case are, the story has become a major issue in the race relations in the U.S., and nationwide the protests are only growing. Nsk92 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support keeping with minor rewording. Although the issue is not free from doubt, on balance I believe those supporting posting have the better weight of the arguments, and also that there are diminishing returns to continuing to discuss it at this point. As a quibble, "takes no action against" would probably be a better verb choice than "clears". Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The news here isn't the lack of an indictment. The story is the widespread protests across the country. We posted a similar story from England a few years back [15]. That didn't seem to generate any controversy at ITNC [16]. (I was the only one who opposed, ironically.) -- Calidum 03:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment When I suggested several months ago that a minimum period be allowed for consensus to form, we were assured that if an item was passed too quickly and it became clear there was no consensus for the posting, it could be easily un-posted. That is the situation here; there is clearly no consensus for the posting. The concern was expressed that pulling often required a consensus to pull, rather than an emerging no-consensus-to-post, but we were assured that this was not the case. So why hasn't this been pulled yet? GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
...or it hasn't been pulled yet because there was consensus to post it. More support also has come in since the posting. Consensus is not a vote count; it is weighing of arguments. You can disagree with how the decision was arrived at, but it was validly made. Take it up with the posting admin, if his posts on this page do not satisfy you. Still awaiting nominations from HiLo.....(did they see my support of the story above?). 331dot (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but it bothered me that you felt a US source was needed for a sport that Americans have no connection with. THAT'S systemic bias on your part. The posting doesn't need American support, and realistically, most Americans wouldn't have a clue about how it happened. That's not a negative about Americans. American sports are a mystery to most non-Americans. Just keep the USA out of a non-American item. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't feel it was "needed", I thought it would be helpful as it demonstrated that the story is news beyond the world of cricket. Trying to help. Working to reduce systemic bias does not mean everything American is excluded from consideration or irrelevant, especially in deciding when to post non-American stories, which we need more of. There is no policy or guideline saying that Americans or any nationality are to be excluded from posting on ITN nominations. Everything posted here is valid for posting by anyone. I'm sorry Australia is not a country of 300 million people- but all views are relevant. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Silly. Silly. This is about cricket. Not Australia. Haven't looked, but I am certain that a huge proportion of the 1.2 billion people in India would be aware of and distressed by this news. The American connection stood out like someone trying to prove something. It wasn't needed. Most people who are part of the systemic bias don't recognise it, and I think you just proved it. Well-intentioned, but inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to prove anything, nor was I making "an American connection", I was showing that this news was widespread. Whether HiLo48 considers it appropriate or not does not enter into my calculus. There is no policy or guideline preventing Americans from expressing their views on any story. My views are as valid as yours. I believe you don't want to work to reduce systemic bias, you want to turn it around. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support The news are circulating on every major news channel I watch - CNN, BBC, France24 and RT. The protests have spread to LA and London now. We aren't here to assess the merits of protests and shooting, blaming the crowd or someone else (especially when another 12-year old black guy with a toy gun was shot dead by police in the US recently). Brandmeistertalk 11:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is not a point pro or con. I simply mention that continuity of a constant level of activity should not be a factor in whether an event is considered ITN-worthy. Extremely few crowd-scale events in history kept up the same level of activity for days or weeks on end with no breaks whatsoever. This was true even for the world wars. - Tenebris 198.91.170.20 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    In other words, it's been even less notable than the original "riots" which we didn't post either. It's all over already, the mobs aren't keen on the cold weather. Until there's any evidence that this is somehow different from the original minor scuffles (and in no way whatsoever comparable to the 1992 LA riots, whatever you or the press say), this is nothing significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support - This is, and remains, in the news worldwide, and has obvious relevance for the continuing scandal of racialised police violence in the USA. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Pat QuinnEdit

Article: Pat Quinn (ice hockey) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TSN, CBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: I was going to nominate this before I realized Tikhonov was up. Quinn wasn't to Canada what Tikhonov was to Russia, but he was still one of the top coaches in the NHL with 1400 games and 2 coach of the year awards to his name. In the NHL, he's fifth all-time in both games and wins, fourth in playoff games and sixth in wins (and #1 in both among coaches without a cup). And he spent a good chunk of his career with the Toronto Maple Leafs, so he had a lot more visibility and notoriety than most of his contemporaries. Internationally, he coached teams to gold at four major tournaments (including the 2002 Olympics and 2004 World Cup), so he's a pretty well-known coach across Canada. I can see this going either way, it depends on how you view coaches, but he's certainly worth considering and I think being one of the greatest NHL coaches qualifies him for RD. -- Scorpion0422 20:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It is well worth noting that Quinn's article is more complete and of higher quality than Tikhonov's article was even after it was cleaned up and posted. I'd support this as Quinn was certainly one of the best coaches of his generation, and for anyone arguing that he's not Tikhonov, ITN has always had the principle that both article quality and significance matter, and that it is the sum of the two factors that matter; less significant subjects with superior articles should be considered alongside more significant subjects with lower quality articles. The fact that two legendary hockey coaches died on the same day will strike people as "systemic bias" I am sure, but random coincidences do happen, and I have no qualms of posting the two names along side of each other. Quinn is significant enough within hockey to post, and the article is solid. I say post it. --Jayron32 21:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Being a Leafs fan especially during the time Pat Quinn coached the team my support is more or less biased. But ill just say he coached the winning 2002 Olympic team, which was one of the biggest wins for Canada in 50 years. In the Ice Hockey world he is definitely noteworthy, but ya sucky co-incidence of having two coaches pass away the same day. -- Ashish-g55 21:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I was on the fence about this, but the article, of decent quality, does a pretty good job of describing Quinn's life and importance. SpencerT♦C 03:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not nearly as notable as Tikhonov, who also should not have been posted. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - top of his field during the period he was active. 2 time coach of the year, and Olympic Gold in 2002. Connormah (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support clearly meets RD criteria and article is in good shape. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Such an unfortunate coincidence that we had two of hockey's greatest coaches die so close to each other. Canuck89 (talk to me) 08:22, November 25, 2014 (UTC)
Posted. m.o.p 10:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Viktor TikhonovEdit

Article: Viktor Tikhonov (ice hockey, born 1930) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): TSN, NBC Sports

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: One of the most successful coaches in the ice hockey history, a legend of the sport. 8 gold medals from world championships, 3 gold medals from Olympic games. The article is updated with the news about his death. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Meets DC2; numerous championships, awards, and in a hall of fame. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Truly a legendary hockey coach. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As nominator notes, this guy was one of the most decorated hockey coaches of all time. Canuck89 (have words with me) 11:41, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • Note I would have posted this if there weren't an orange tag and other referencing issues. If anyone fixes these problems, we can go ahead and post it immediately. But the orange tag will have to be resolved, per ITN rules. --Jayron32 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements - Clearly meets conditions of RD, but the main prose of the article has exactly one inline cite - that won't cut it - and that's above and beyond the tagged section. Additionally, that title ... understanding that his grandson, with the exact same name and in the field is creating the disambig hit, is there a better solution here for that? --MASEM (t) 15:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Teemu08's additions fix up the major article quality problems I spotted. Should be fine now. (The naming thing is something that might need larger discussion and should not be a ITN posting issue). --MASEM (t) 16:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I added several citations and clarifications. Clearly among the all-time coaching greats. Teemu08 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as article has been improved. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted per recent improvements. --Jayron32 17:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

November 23Edit


Davis CupEdit

Article: 2014 Davis Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Switzerland wins the 2014 Davis Cup.
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, the Davis Cup concludes with Switzerland as the winners.
News source(s): BBC Bleacher report

Nominator's comments: Major international tennis competition, first victory for Switzerland, another major achievement for Federer Hektor (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Would support on significance, but oppose based on overall article quality. There's very little prose in the article at all; it's just a bunch of charts and flags and numbers. There's nothing to read here. --Jayron32 10:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt blurb added to name the sport and to try and avoid the "win/wins" issue - not quite sure if I've got the standard wording, though. BencherliteTalk 18:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Marion BarryEdit

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 18:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Marion Barry (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC CNN

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: He was a highly influential politician in Washington DC, so much so that they even elected him to his second mayoralty after his conviction on drug charges. He was a crack smoking mayor before it was cool --– Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and the wording of the rationale should make it clear why. We are not National Lampoon or the KKK. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    The KKK? Are you calling Muboshgu a racist? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think he did. My rationale was not the most serious, but he was an influential figure in Washington DC. That's why I nominated him. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I respect Muboshgu. I just expect this will be lowbrow latenight fodder we don't need to reflect. Nihil nisi bonum. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, a person of local importance. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing how he was top of his field. Barely in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't meet any of the RD criteria. Doesn't meet DC1 as local government in DC only exists at the pleasure of Congress(thus his office isn't that powerful really) and doesn't meet DC2 as a local mayor. If Thomas Menino didn't meet it(which I agreed with), Barry doesn't either. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppse. Mayor of DC is not a significant position of leadership (nothing in the federal line at all), and given his reputation, definitely not a level of importance to be RD. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] World Chess ChampionshipEdit

Article: World Chess Championship 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Magnus Carlsen (pictured) successfully defends his World Chess Championship title against the challenger Viswanathan Anand.
News source(s): Sochi G11: In dramatic finale, Carlsen retains title (Chessbase.com)

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.

 --Carcharoth (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Interesting and ITN news.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - minor correction: against the challenger Viswanathan Anand.--LoveToLondon (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • image is there good precedent for posting the same portrait of an ITN listing? μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    No idea. Other images available if you want to post them. BTW, if this one seems a bit soon after the previous one (November 2013 last time, and November 2014 this time), the schedule is reverting to every two years now, so the next one won't be before 2016 at the earliest. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
My point was more that I can't remember the same person being pictured twice so quickly, and this time it was a retention of the title, not a new winner. Iprefer having an image and am not particularly against this. But I think we made a mistake in not blurbing Mike Nichols, and posting his image if we had one. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Sebastian Vettel was pictured after his win 2010, and then again after each of his 2011, 2012 and 2013 title retentions.[17][18][19][20]--LoveToLondon (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
So, if I want my kids pictured on ITN multiple times... hehe. Thanks for the info. I won't express an opinion, not being an expert. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per inclusion on ITN/R. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support it's notable yes, but other trivialities aside, the article is a bit of an enthusiast minefield, could use a non-chess expert's lead to help set the scene a little better. The article also contains a few cosmetic issues (bare URLs for instance) which could be improved upon. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. World Chess Championship matches have always received much attention in the media and present a very nice material for inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable world championship per ITN/R. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support very notable. --Bruzaholm (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready the article is untagged, and has had 14kB worth of updating over the last week, and meets untagged and size requirements. If no one objects, this should go up ASAP. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, post it already. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, will need @David Levy: or other similarly knowledgeable person to post the picture. --Jayron32 12:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Done. —David Levy 15:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

November 22Edit


2014 Kangding earthquakeEdit

Article: 2014 Kangding earthquake (talk, history)
Blurb: An earthquake in the Chinese county of Kangding kills at least 5 people.
News source(s): Wall Street Journal

Nominator's comments: In addition to the deaths, according to the WSJ, 54 people were injured. Not sure if that makes it more significant (given the relatively low death toll). --Everymorning talk to me 13:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait as right now this seems like a reasonably common occurrence and this instance appears relatively mild. Should things develop further we could reconsider. Article itself is a little weak and needs a copyedit to remove the poor grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Combined blurb that mentions Japanese earthquake as well, not huge quakes for the area, but people will come looking and our articles on quakes are usually quickly brought up to snuff. μηδείς (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We need more comments here. Can the nominator or somebody else provide links to additional news stories? Jehochman Talk 15:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, here's a few: [21] [22] Everymorning talk to me 00:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] F1 titleEdit

Article: 2014 Formula One season (talk, history)
Blurb: Lewis Hamilton wins the Formula One championship.
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: Top motorsports event. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose no point in this at all until the race/season has concluded and we know the winner. Then we can update all pertinent articles accordingly. What is the purpose of such a premature suggestion? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, so much venom over a non-issue. Nergaal (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Just don't understand why anyone would nominate an ITNR item which simply cannot be ready. What's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If you didn't notice, ITNC has been incredibly slow lately, and especially over the weekend. If for nothing else, putting this up for ITNC encourages people over here to give the articles a final look at the relevant articles. Also, in about 30 mins, likely Hamilton will get the trophy. Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to rush, yet even now, hours after the race end, the race update is incomplete. Oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Support now, that we actually have something to post. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - that the nom was a day premature.. who cares. Today is the day. It is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting. I'll add some more text to the blurb. --Tone 21:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Would be good to replace the image if possible User:David Levy? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. —David Levy 22:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Phew. One doesn't often see a tie in Formula 1. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 21Edit


Madagascar plagueEdit

Article: 2014 Madagascar plague outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An outbreak of plague in Madagascar kills forty people.
News source(s): WHO, BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The number of deaths looks significant, with at least 119 confirmed cases, and the disease itself is notorious. --Brandmeistertalk 00:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A significant outbreak. Neljack (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As shown by the map of worldwide plague outbreaks between 2000 and 2009 on this page from the CDC, outbreaks of plague are fairly common in Madagascar and nearby parts of Africa. While tragic, there is unfortunately nothing unusual about this event and it currently appears to be on the small side when compared to regional norms. --Allen3 talk 01:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Allen3's source. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per Neljack reasoning. significant outbreak.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is a stub, it would need to be about twice the size it is to fit the expected requirements. If you follow the link Allen3 has given, you'll see there have been between 1,001 and 10,000 cases of the plague over the last measured decade. If we take the geometrical mean of 3,333 deaths, that means 333 are expected per year on average, and this outbreak consists of 40. However unfortunate it's just a blip on the normal scale. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait I believe there's no need to synthesise/extrapolate/compare data here, we simply need to assess the newsworthiness and quality of the article, neither of which hit the bar, yet. Should the outbreak reach significant levels (e.g. the current Ebola outbreak), then we can consider listing at "Ongoing". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 20Edit


[Posted] RD: Mike NicholsEdit

Article: Mike Nichols (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: Oscar winning director. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose unless and until the article is updated with information about his death. We currently only have a death date in the parenthetical after his name at the start, and zero words of prose about the death itself (as of when I am writing this). Otherwise, the article, while it could use a few more refs here and there, is of acceptable quality for the main page, and Nichols is certainly a significant figure. If there is appropriate prose added at any time, disregard this oppose and consider it a support. --Jayron32 12:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Amending my vote to support based on the excellent work done by @Medeis: in cleaning up the article. --Jayron32 14:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • There is (and was) a sentence in #Personal life. —Cryptic 13:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, once again you clearly didn't look. It wasn't perfect, but it was there. Perhaps you should take a break from ITN Jayron? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when updated "Nichols was one of a small group of people who have won an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony Award. His other honors included the Lincoln Center Gala Tribute in 1999, the National Medal of Arts in 2001,[1] the Kennedy Center Honors in 2003 and the AFI Life Achievement Award in 2010." That's RD#2 to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending Article Improvement - Needs many more inline cites, and some of the mid-sections could use some de-proseline improvement. Definitely qualifies as RD for importance. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Adding that I believe the referencing and improvements in the decades section is now sufficient for posting. It could use more in time, but no reason to hold up ITN RD posting. --MASEM (t) 01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support highly influential and top of his field in standup, comedy writing, and as a movie director. A shoe in. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "God bless you, please Mr. Nichols." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting to RD immediately. Deceased was highly notable and article is in acceptable condition for RD. As a sidenote, the personal comments on this page have to cease. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    I assume you're talking about me? Well in that case do something about it, stop using your "position" as a weapon. Pathetic. (And what a surprise, NYB turns up to post yet another dead American...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    My observation that you should stop sullying this page with gratuitous personal comments is independent of any other position that I might happen to hold on the project for another few weeks. Other than again asking you to restrain yourself, I'm not sure what else you suggest that I do? With RfC/U being abolished, my theoretical next steps would be to open either an ANI thread or a request for arbitration, and you would certainly assert that my doing either of those things is a "misuse of [my] position" as well. As for your criticism of the merits of the posting—I am supporting your nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    My observation is that you need to stop popping by to ensure your pet subjects get the main page treatment you want. You can do any of the things you threaten me with, and it's so telling that you want to resort to this to silence someone who has the balls to stand up to your ownership of Wikipedia. Get over yourself. It may be my nomination but your lack of integrity with your "posting ... immediately" undermines the process, undermines quality control, undermines the consensus. Take a look at yourself before you start telling me what your theoretical moves are next. You're the pest here, not me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    If he isn't the one going to post it, I don't see a problem. He can say what he likes. Doesn't mean you have to listen. Admins don't get a special vote here...--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Oh yeah! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    The article needs some more inline cites. The proseline stuff, I can accept for posting, but there's paragraphs that lack any citation and that's an issue.--MASEM (t) 18:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, Brad has said post it immediately. Do not disobey. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    You do realize that Brad's vote counts as much as anyone elses. His does not get more weight. And he's never claimed that it did either. He's quite allowed to express an opinion about the article, and you are also allowed to express an opinion about the article. His does not have to match yours to be valid. --Jayron32 19:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    You do realise that Brad pops up here with his Arbcom flag and his insistence and his headmaster attitude whenever he wants his own pet items posted? Of course, he's entitled to register an opinion, but he would be well advised to stop caveating it with a bollocking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    So, you're saying that because he's on arbcom, he doesn't get to express his opinion? Because that's all he's done here. He's expressed what he believes should be done, nothing more than you've done. --Jayron32 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Perhaps once you've read what I've actually said, you can formulate a more coherent comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There's only one quote that I see in there that isn't cited: "a leap into extremes of behavior and last resorts. It's about people so innocent that they don't know when you kill someone she dies. It's like kids playing bang-bang". And it can just be removed. It's not crucial at all. EChastain (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Once the orange tag issue is cleaned up. Definitely meets the bar for notability. Seeing reverberations from most of the English-speaking world. Challenger l (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Either we can live with posting it with one tag, or we can just delete the tag (more citations are always nice, but there is no requirement of a cite for every sentence in an uncontroversial section). Delaying this posting is unjustified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It would seem that there is, considering I had to reference almost every sentence of the Alexander Grothendieck article. (A few paragraphs and sentences have been added since then.) Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Incentivizing people to improve articles is nice (although it's never helpful to have an article read like footnote salad), but it's counterproductive if it consistently delays posting recent deaths until they are no longer recent any more. I strongly urge an uninvolved admin to post this immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not ready. As an uninvolved admin I've taken a look at this as requested, and the article still contains an orange tag. The tag is still relevant - particularly most of the 1970s and 1980s sub-sections remain unreferenced and there are gaps in referencing through the rest. I would not personally have put the tag on the article in its current state (I'd have used inline tags in a few places) but as the improvements the tag notes as needed are still needed, removing it would be inappropriate. My current status as an arbcom candidate is entirely irrelevant this decision. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I respect your opinion but continue to disagree and would invite further views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • As noted above, there have been further references added, so this needs to be looked at again. If this hasn't been posted in the morning I am considering IAR here. RD is one of the few places on Wikipedia where timing matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Ready I have referenced all the plays in the 70's and 80's section that weren't already sourced. The movies, as primary sources, stand as their own sources for credited roles, and don't need separate references. Hence I have removed the orange tag and marked the nom ready — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs)
        • I'm starting the think TRM has a point, here. IAR is not Ignore All Consensus. So far, there are seven supports - two on notability only, one on notability and article quality, and three on notability but contingent on resolving the article quality problems. Then an uninvolved admin has reviewed the item and also concluded that it's not ready for posting. That looks a lot like a consensus against posting until the maintenance tag is sorted out. But you're ready to ignore all that. Why? Is your opinion special in some way, that it should override a consensus to wait until the article quality is to a certain standard?
Good work by User:Medeis sorting the referencing out. With that done, I'll add my support. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree it's Ready. Nothing in the article that isn't cited is "controversial". EChastain (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — I haven't participated because I don't have a definite opinion on Nichols, though it's evident he was widely (and internationally) respected. However, regarding "popping by" — It's natural for users/eds to follow subjects/persons in which/whom they have a particular interest (and perhaps even expertise). We can't all vote on everything — that would be chaos.
(For what it's worth, Nichols has been on French, German and Dutch Wikis' versions of recent deaths for several days.) Sca (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If he'd only made one film, he'd still get my vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • At this point it appears that the maintenance issue has been resolved. In fact, the overall quality of this article is clearly superior. Is there anything that anyone believes prevents posting at this time? Unwarranted delays in posting "recent deaths" detract from the usefulness of the feature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 19Edit


RampalEdit

Article: Rampal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian religious leader Rampal is arrested after thousands of police clash with his supporters. Six dead bodies were found in his compound.
Alternative blurb: ​Indian religious leader Rampal and at least 492 followers are arrested as a police raid on his ashram leaves 6 people dead.
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times

Article updated

 -gadfium 05:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support References need some tidying up, but the article is well cited. A police action resulting in 492 arrests and 6 deaths is certainly notable, especially if, as The Times of India suggests, 15,000 people were involved. I've suggested an alt-blurb - if it's too long, the number of other arrests can be removed. Smurrayinchester 13:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Just as a note: the way I read the articles, the six deaths were not caused by the police action, but appeared to have been deaths prior to the arrest and the bodies were discovered in the police action; the altblurb would be inappropriate to use due to this. But that might be an issue of news clarity. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We generally do not post arrests, only convictions. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This non-posting of arrests is not policy, nor does NPOV require we not mention arrests in articles, and with an undisputed six deaths and almost 500 arrests with thousands involved the story stands on its own. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It is by no means a policy, I agree, but it is also standard practice that if we are talking about a person(s) charged for a crime, the ITN post is nearly always at sentencing/conviction. Part of this is a very weak BLP argument (but by no means required by BLP policy): they are only a suspect in the crime, they have not yet been convicted so rushing to post the arrest could be seen as prejudging them in WP's voice, which we should avoid. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's no clear indication what any of this is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it's worth noting, for the fiftieth time or so, that we have no "policy" governing ITN, there are very few policies on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per user Smurrayinchester. The article is indeed well cited and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

November 19Edit


RampalEdit

Article: Rampal (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian religious leader Rampal is arrested after thousands of police clash with his supporters. Six dead bodies were found in his compound.
Alternative blurb: ​Indian religious leader Rampal and at least 492 followers are arrested as a police raid on his ashram leaves 6 people dead.
News source(s): The Guardian, New York Times

Article updated

 -gadfium 05:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support References need some tidying up, but the article is well cited. A police action resulting in 492 arrests and 6 deaths is certainly notable, especially if, as The Times of India suggests, 15,000 people were involved. I've suggested an alt-blurb - if it's too long, the number of other arrests can be removed. Smurrayinchester 13:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Just as a note: the way I read the articles, the six deaths were not caused by the police action, but appeared to have been deaths prior to the arrest and the bodies were discovered in the police action; the altblurb would be inappropriate to use due to this. But that might be an issue of news clarity. --MASEM (t) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose We generally do not post arrests, only convictions. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This non-posting of arrests is not policy, nor does NPOV require we not mention arrests in articles, and with an undisputed six deaths and almost 500 arrests with thousands involved the story stands on its own. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It is by no means a policy, I agree, but it is also standard practice that if we are talking about a person(s) charged for a crime, the ITN post is nearly always at sentencing/conviction. Part of this is a very weak BLP argument (but by no means required by BLP policy): they are only a suspect in the crime, they have not yet been convicted so rushing to post the arrest could be seen as prejudging them in WP's voice, which we should avoid. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose there's no clear indication what any of this is about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it's worth noting, for the fiftieth time or so, that we have no "policy" governing ITN, there are very few policies on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per user Smurrayinchester. The article is indeed well cited and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

November 18Edit


[Posted] RD: Ken TakakuraEdit

Article: Ken Takakura (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News, Mainichi Shimbun, Variety, USA Today

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: A titan in Japanese cinema, who was known for his "tough guy" roles usually involving cops or yakuza. Nicknamed the "Japanese Clint Eastwood". --Tocino 10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems to be important to Japanese cinema. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements. Not sure on the "tone" maintenance tag, but it is begging for inline citations, which I believe these obits will help with. RD is appropriate for importance. ("Clint Eastwood of Japanese cinema" from the BBC is pretty telling). --MASEM (t) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not sure if anyone else here knows Japanese, but the Japanese article seems to be quite filled out (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%AB%98%E5%80%89%E5%81%A5), and may offer ideas as to content that could be added. SpencerT♦C 16:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a "titan", the article is woeful, under-referenced and a borderline stub. Will definitely reconsider if the stub is fleshed out and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • For a "Japanese titan", it's understandable that its English article is this bad. At ~2k characters, this is good enough for a DYK, if it was expanded to this state yesterday, so calling it a "stub" is quite stretching it. –HTD 17:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • And excluding the list of "partial filmography"? Not good enough. Badly referenced stub is quite correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
        • FWIW, I only included the "Life and career" section and excluded the lead and lists, and included things such as "[1]". Would you believe that it's longer than Maya Yoshida's "Career" section, which isn't apparently a stub? Badly-referenced, yes; stub, I don't think so. –HTD 18:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, as per normal, you can continue to discuss these things until you get the last word, or you can work on improving them or you can do nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Gah. I lost on the over/under on when you'd bring up "improving them or you can do nothing" line. –HTD 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
              • I'll take that as you attempt at the last word followed by a "do nothing" approach, like normal then. Bravo! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
                • Seriously, now. This guy's an admin? Really? Hey at least I'm 1/1 (100%!) 1/2 (50%) this year in ITN/C nominations and updated both myself lol. But that's ITNR so I dunno if that counts. –HTD 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
                  • Seriously, now. This guy's an "editor"? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
                    • Hey, if ITN posts is the sole metric of being an editor, then I'm not one. Too bad I'm not into cricket/spacecraft/elections in Europe/Lionel Messi/dead white dudes. –HTD 18:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article needs a fuller lead, a better update, many citations (I labelled them individually, and removed the page tag, but it should still be considered as if page tagged) and I wonder, would anyone ever call Clint Eastwood, also a director and producer, the Ken Takakura of America? μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The article still has a totally unreferenced awards section, and two redlink appearances without citations crediting him. I had placed tags yesterday, but someone simply removed them. In any case, the article is not ready as is. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the refs have been quite significantly improved. I'd still like a bigger lead, but it's suitable. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - article is rather short, but adequate. Thanks to all who worked on improving it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Jerusalem synagogue attackEdit

Article: 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Four rabbis, three American and one British, are murdered by two Palestinian men with meat cleavers, in the deadliest attack in Jerusalem since 2008.
Alternative blurb: ​Four rabbis, three American and one British, are killed by two Palestinian men, who were shot dead by police, in Jerusalem.
News source(s): The Guardian CNN NBC News Le Monde

Nominator's comments: Dominating news cycles today worldwide. This particularly gruesome attack is the deadliest to happen in Jerusalem for a while, and getting a lot of international response. --→CrunchySkies« talk ± gawk » 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not yet sure if I support this, but I've suggested an altblurb to remove the reference to the weapons(irrelevant to the blurb) and the date of the previous attack(not really that long a time, especially in the middle east). Also added that the suspects were shot dead. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Horrific, and likely to spawn more violent actions from both sides, one expects. Most major news sites lead with this story on Nov. 18. Sca (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - not surprising that this kind of activity is taking place in the Middle East, we haven't posted the multiple beheadings of Westerners (and Syrians) and this, while depressing, is just more of the same. Plus, the article, once the hysterical "reaction" section is removed, is nothing but a couple of sentences of fact. It's also telling that I can guarantee we'll post this, but when 15 Indian women are killed in a day by a negligent doctor with dozens more critically ill, we just let it slide. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I have to come down on the oppose side for now; I think if this didn't involve foreigners(to Israel) it wouldn't be getting as much attention. Maybe if this has staying power as a story, or develops into a larger one(military response, etc.) it might be worth posting then. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I have to agree with TRM that there's a lot of rhetoric in the reporting here, and when you get to the basic situation, two men killed 4 others and wounded several in an area of the world already strife with violence. If this leads to something larger, that might be newsworthy but this seems more sensationalism. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unfortunately the level of inter-religious violence in the Middle East has risen so dramatically that the attempted genocide of the Yazidis was not posted to ITN. This event is about 1/100 or 1/1000 times less important. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Massacre" is a loaded term and generally not NPOV. I have restored the article to its original title: "2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack". Neutral on posting the attack at this time, but certainly opposed to any use of the term massacre to describe it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    The article has inappropriately been moved back. I have tagged it is being in a neutrality dispute and oppose its posting at this time as a result. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    Incidentally, neutral input on the title would be greatly appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Horrifying attack making headlines in international newspapers. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support assuming article is improved. Perpetrators were cousins of noted militant recently released from jail, attack was within place of worship, has garnered reactions from many world leaders. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we should resist posting sensationalistic news, especially when the purpose of the attack is to generate news coverage. Worse things happen frequently as others have noted and Middle Eastern violence is common, regretfully. Jehochman Talk 22:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with TRM and Masem. Neljack (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It is clear from the Israeli and the international reaction that the synagogue attack is a game-changer for the situation in Jerusalem and Israel, and a significant escalation of the conflict will follow. In fact, it may be appropriate to create a special sticky for the ongoing events there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definite game changer. and it should be posted based on the fact that it is international news and is important both for the region and other countries.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is more likely to have an effect on international relations than all the bus and train crashes that are featured in ITN. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a gruesome terrorist attack in religious site on religious leaders. Victims from different nations, making it a news of international concern --Numancia (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready? Is the orange title dispute tag a hindrance to posting this story? If so, an admin could close the RfC, given the current lopsided majority of opinion. If not, this should be posted immediately, since it is still a subject of international comment and interest. μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the "support" comes from the idea that this is somehow more significant than all the other atrocities currently circulating around the Middle East. There's not a sniff of the beheading of Kassig, for example (nor the other Westerners or Syrians). This minor blip is nothing more than that. Some of the commentators have claimed this to be a "game changer". Where is the evidence of this? What has "changed"? Minor attacks on minority believers occur every single day. In Israel or Gaza, this happens a LOT. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose -- With the ongoing RfC [23] due to its neutrality violating title [24] the article should not be posted anywhere in the mainspace. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The RfC can be closed any time now, and if the community decides that massacre is the right name (I'd prefer murders) that's that. Do you have any other complaint besides the name? μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you know that "murder" is a legal term? -- And no, the RfC is far from being ready for closure. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No way we can post an article with so many glaring neutrality problems, least of all the present title. RGloucester 21:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note I have removed the "[Attention needed]" from the header of this nomination. There is presently no consensus to post (or not post) this item, but at this point I do not feel that consensus is impossible so I am leaving the discussion open for now but I do recommend that people keep calm. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I put the tag because this does need attention, but of a different sort. I actually think some heavy handed action by an admin would be preferable to the almost entirely POV-based nonsense on that article. That being said, I certainly do not mind you having removed that tag. I think this whole affair is an embarrassment for the project. μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yet when Israel daily commits crimes against Palestinians, both the illegal settlers and the IDF , it doesn't even warrant an article, let alone a blurb. JDiala (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — In the large scheme of things, one must consider the relative significance of events in various locales. Jerusalem, due to the Arab-Israeli conflict, remains a focal point in world affairs. (Would that some resolution could be found! Sadly, it's been going on all my life....) Sca (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: This is unusual "even for the Middle East." JDiala's comment is really trite; we do post Palestinian stories, and "Israel's daily crimes" do not generally involve cutting up Imams in Mosques... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clearly, the current article title is contentious and there is an ongoing RfC. We can't consider linking to the mainpage until that is resolved. Formerip (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean you support, F/IP, except for the title issue? μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Title issue aside, I don't have a very strong view, and I haven't given any thought to the other neutrality issues that have been raised. But it looks unlikely to me that the title issue will be resolved before this is stale in any case. Formerip (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 17Edit


Update Philae BlurbEdit

close, since this is going nowhere, and is stale μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2014 (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: Philae (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: European Space Agency's Philae lander, loses all communication after landing in a shaded area unable to recharge its batteries
Nominator's comments: Posted this in talk but creating a new section here (instead of using discussion below... since its too far below). Philae blurb needs an update as current one doesn't do justice to all that has happened since the landing. i.e Landing issues and the fact its already dead. I suggest updating the blurb with something semi close to the suggested blurb but its hard to word it within a sentence. so please go ahead and edit the blurb as you please ---- Ashish-g55 18:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the blurb necessarily "wrong"? It reached the surface, and recorded data for a few days. It wasn't probably as successful as they had hoped, but the major goal - to land a probe on a comet - was completed. --MASEM (t) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Its not wrong but since blurb is still up and probably will stay up for a bit, it just looks old. obviously a lot more has taken place, the mission ending in 2 days is significant in itself. -- Ashish-g55 20:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps change to "completes its mission to reach P67..." instead of just "lands"? The reader can clickthrough to figure out how it was completed (perhaps earlier than expected), but the news was the "oh s*** we landed a probe on a fast moving comet!" moment, so changing it to "Completed" doesn't affect that aspect but does address your concern. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd support a change to "completes". Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Or else move to RD. (sob) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC) ... or we may need a new ITN section.
The most technically correct formulation is that it entered hibernation mode, methinks. Still a solid chance that it could wake up again in some months or weeks time.
Stephan Ulamec believes it is probable that in the spring of 2015, the DLR LCC will once again communicate with Philae and receive data about how the lander is faring on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. DLR
--Njardarlogar (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that's more a matter of hope than expectation, but it is certainly possible. --W. D. Graham 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not the impression I get (I should have quoted this: "I'm very confident that Philae will resume contact with us and that we will be able to operate the instruments again," says DLR Lander Project Manager Stephan Ulamec.). Nobody really knows, that is for sure. But nobody seems particularly worried that Philae will freeze to death, so all that is required then, is that the insolation will improve adequately; which is not at all unlikely (not the least because the comet is currently moving closer to the sun). --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose using "completes" because whether or not the mission was completed is at the moment something of a matter of opinion. It could well be argued that the mission was completed because it landed, operated its instruments and collected data, but it could also be argued that it was not completed but failed because part of the probe's mission was to operate on the surface for several weeks (or one at minimum). This isn't the place to discuss this, however the main page, above all pages, should adhere to WP:NPOV. --W. D. Graham 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to oppose posting an update. I don't think the likely (not certain) end of the lander's mission is as significant as the landing itself. It is also worth noting that Rosetta is still operating so the mission as a whole is ongoing. --W. D. Graham 21:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes the landing was significant.. 5 days ago. Updating blurb can only keep it relevant to current status of lander. Doesnt change the fact that it landed. I dont think it lowers significance in any way -- Ashish-g55 22:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If this happened a week later, when the original blurb had been removed, it wouldn't stand a chance of being posted. --W. D. Graham 22:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the updated blurb as the relevant issue at this time, but not moved to the top of the queue, and without the !??! at the end. μηδείς (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I oppose changing the blurb. First, it is not certain the lander is dead. Second, the landing was/is the historic part of Philae's mission. Failures are pretty much expected. Abductive (reasoning) 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I'll note that the original mission plan called for 3 day to 6 months of measurements. That it ended at the early part of that range is unfortunate, but forseen.128.214.53.18 (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The story is that humans have managed to land a battery powered washing machine on a comet, not that it did one load and conked out after the final spin. In any-case it appears to have been sold with a warranty and may come back to life in 9 months or so. --wintonian talk 16:38, 18 November 2014 (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.

November 16Edit


[Posted] Romanian presidential election, 2014Edit

Article: Romanian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Opposition candidate Klaus Iohannis is elected President of Romania.
Alternative blurb: German ethnic Klaus Iohannis is elected President of Romania.

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.

-EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 07:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Please fix the bare URLs on the page - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 07:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the other candidate congratulated Iohannis. I think it is really noteworthy that this president is from a minority. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once article is fully updated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It is a recent notable event, though some issues like outdated info need to be fixed. Also, Iohannis is descended from a Romanian minority, so this is more noteworthy. Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note I've updated the article and greatly improved the grammar. Nergaal (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the main blurb (but not the alt blurb). Nsk92 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting I'm adding "Opposition candidate" because that's what makes this especially newsworthy. Jehochman Talk 14:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Bill Clinton is moonlighting, I see. GoldenRing (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Ian CraigEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:54, 22 November 2014 (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: Ian Craig (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Hindu, Cricket World

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Youngest Test captain in history. Article is FA. --NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 07:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can you provide sources indicating that this is in the news? Could you also explain what about him being the youngest captain makes him important to cricket? 331dot (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Notable cricketer, also the article is a FA, we need to show more of that in the main page. Secret account 16:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Once the article has been updated beyond just adding the date he died. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a cricket person but reading the article, this seems to suggest that he didn't have much of a career (having to retire at 26), thus not really being a leader in his field. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a cricket person, I have to agree with Masem. By no stretch of the imagination is Craig a very important figure in cricket. He was captain of Australia for one year, played in only 11 tests in his whole career, and had a test batting average of below 20 - absolutely terrible for a specialist batsman. As the article itself says, "Craig's career did not fulfil its early promise." I would also point out that he's not the youngest test captain ever - he is Australia's youngest, but he's only the sixth-youngest overall.[25] South Africa, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh have all had younger test captains. Neljack (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Putting a link to an FA-quality article on the main page is hard to object to. --Jayron32 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • .....except when the person the article is about does not meet the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; doesn't seem to meet the RD criteria. Like Masem I don't know much about cricket, but reading his page he didn't seem to have a particularly notable career, and I'm not clear on how is being the youngest captain makes him 'very important' to cricket. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose FA or not, the subject wass clearly not highly notable in his field. The lead pretty much explains why that is...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2014 (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.

November 15Edit


[Closed] Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014Edit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:43, 18 November 2014 (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: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Vincenzo Cantiello representing Italy with the song Tu primo grande amore wins the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014.
News source(s): [26], [27]
 --BabbaQ (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- We always post the Eurovision Song Contest and never the Junior. It just doesn't get the same attention and isn't as meaningful. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, actually an Oppose should not be automatic. Especially considering the fact that it was an historic win for Italy. On its first attempt it won, Junior Eurovision is also not just a minor event anymore. It gets press in Europe these days and is a large event.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Agree with Bzweebl. It may be 'historic' for Italy, but countless things may win on their first attempt, it certainly is not to the same scale as the main Eurovision. -- [[ axg //  ]] 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
With your reasoning we should not post next years winner of ESC as countless acts have won it :) And I have never claimed that JESC is as big as ESC but it is not a small event anymore aither. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. People would've tripped over each other in nominating this if instead of Italy, this was the UK or Ireland. –HTD 01:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Though nominated before(I think), I don't recall this being posted before, regardless of the nationality of the winner. It doesn't really seem relevant- and I would oppose it regardless. 331dot (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • inquiry can someone equally familiar with American and British/European culture give an analogy for what the adult Eurovision song contest is comparable to in American culture? E.g., is this like the World Series, the New Year's eve ball dropping, or the Miss USA contest? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems like the comp would be American Idol. Which is crap. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I disagree with this statement (as an American); there is really nothing comparable in the States or Canada to something that sees the individual states or provincences coming together to support a single group. Arguably there is Miss USA, but that is such a low impact event in that nature. American Idol, while in terms of function, is similar, it lacks the "national" connection that Eurovision has. (I do agree the youth version of EV is not ITN) --MASEM (t) 05:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Miss America is more prestigious, but still there's no inter-state rivalry or really any consciousness of the contest by the general pubic until the night it is aired, and even then it's a curiosity, and no one I know would be upset their state didn't win. A few winners of the Miss America pageant have had notable careers, Bess Myerson, Lee Meriwether, Mary Ann Mobley, Phyllis George, Vanessa Williams, but these seem to have been otherwise talented people for whom the Miss America pageant was a feather in their bonnet, not a big break. μηδείς (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's sorta what I mean. There is the local to state to national level of competition there, but the awareness is only at the final show, and it's not like people get very charged up to see their personal "Miss State" win the Miss America pageant as there is for the people of a given European country to see their selected song/group get top honors at EV. And the fact that the EV contest doesn't have an elimination format means everyone is invested to the end, unlike sports here in the states that, if certain teams make it to the final championship, viewership will drop off badly. It's very difficult to compare EV to anything American. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • In terms of viewership, the Super Bowl is probably the nearest comparison. Eurovision gets over 170 million viewers across Europe, whereas the Super Bowl gets about 110 million in the US. By comparison, Game 7 of the World Series got 24m viewers. In terms of cultural impact, people are aware and it gets a lot of viewers (9m in the UK) but people don't take it especially seriously. -86.161.67.105 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      ~170 million out of ~750 million people in Europe= 4%
      ~110 million out of ~318 million people in the US= 34%
      Also, I heard that the actual votes in American Idol dwarf those of the adult Eurovision contest. (Actual number of votes aren't used to determine the winner on the latter.) –HTD 12:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted a general idea, so no need to get too detailish. BTW, 170/750 is 23%, not 4%. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Ooops. I dunno where 4% came from. I was right on the other lol. So Eurovision is like the twice the appeal of the World Series, but not quite Super Bowl level. –HTD 20:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, regarding the World Series, my father won't watch it and many people don't if his home town team is not in it, but he watches all regular-season Phillies games religiously. The Superbowl, however is much more of an event in itself, with a huge audience, close to a national holiday. He's never missed one regardless of whether the Eagles were in it. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't understand why any of these competitions exist, let alone why Eurovision gets posted. Beyond that, I see no reason to ever post a "junior" competition for anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not really a major event. Most countries don't even participate (16 participants in 2014 versus 37 in the adult version, and EBU has members in 56 countries). 3 of 16 made their debut and one of them winning doesn't seem special. It's not like team sports where you need time to build a high-level team. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a 'junior' contest. The adult one is much more covered and relevant to music in general. 331dot (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose if we were going to start posting "junior" competitions, I doubt we'd start with "Junior Eurovision". BencherliteTalk 21:42, 17 November 2014 (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] G-20 summitEdit

Article: 2014 G-20 Brisbane summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 9th G-20 summit begins in Brisbane.
Alternative blurb: ​The 9th G-20 summit ends in Brisbane, after discussions including global economic growth, international taxation arrangements, infrastructure investment, corruption and climate change.
News source(s): BBC, SMH, Al Jazeera, CNN

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.

 --Fuebaey (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment While ITNR, it's not clear which side of the summit the ITN should be posted. I would think for article quality it should be on the back end (completion) so that the article can reflect any major agreements that came out of it. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait per Masem. The article can only improve if we have information about the events of the summit, so if we're going to post an article about it, let's at least have something worthwhile to write about. --Jayron32 02:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait until it concludes, we might have a more interesting headline, like Putin too sleepy to attend conference. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support now the summit is over. I've suggested an altblurb, but it might be considered WP:OVERLINKed. I've also added a bit on the outcomes of the summit to the article, but it's just sourced directly to the leaders' communique, so if anyone feels like expanding it and improving the sources then it'd help the article. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I corrected the link in the altblurb. Linking to tax avoidance instead of linking to Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) should also be considered. -- Neudabei (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted a shorter version of the altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

November 14Edit


[Posted to RD] Alexander GrothendieckEdit

Article: Alexander Grothendieck (talk, history)
Blurb: Alexander Grothendieck, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, dies at the age of 86.

Article updated
  • Support RD only. He was a significant figure in his field (mathematics) but he's been a recluse since retirement in the late 1980s. "Old man dies of natural causes" is not a blurb-worthy event, but exactly what RD was intended for. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. The article is full of dense jargon: "Within algebraic geometry itself, his theory of schemes is used in technical work. His generalization of the classical Riemann-Roch theorem started the study of algebraic and topological K-theory. His construction of new cohomology theories has left consequences for algebraic number theory, algebraic topology, and representation theory. His creation of topos theory has appeared in set theory and logic" and largely unreferenced. Nor are we given a rationale or sources in the nomination template. I don't see any awards, although this may be a result of his asociality and life as a recluse, rather than lack of merit. So work would need to be done give WP:ATTRIBUTE attributed sources saying how influential he was. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The infobox states he won the Fields Medal (the most prestigious award in mathematics) and declined the Crafoord Prize (roughly equivalent to a Nobel prize), so I think it is clear he meets the RD criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, but is this not a section in the text? a sentence or two about the awards, explaining their significance and his reaction belongs in the influence section, does it not? μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Definite support for RD once the article has been tidied up and the maintenance tag addressed. You're pretty much not gonna getta more prominent mathmo than a Fields medallist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb, pending article cleanup ("Mathematical work" and down need more in-lines, and there's a few broken refs). No question on RD posting but not seeing, given death by old age, a significantly important figure equivalent to Thatcher or Mandela. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb pending article improvements. Clearly notable in his field, which meets the RD criteria, but this doesn't warrant a blurb. If a blurb is supported, it should not include the unquantifiable "greatest mathematician" statement. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly on article quality grounds, would support for RD if it were fixed up. Most of the important text is entirely unreferenced; entire sections are either unreferenced, or very poorly so. Needs a major overhaul with someone putting a whole lot of work into referencing it before I could support highlighting this on the main page. --Jayron32 01:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, and possibly for a stand-alone blurb. A major figure in 20-th century mathematics, much bigger than a run-of-the-mill Fields medalist. Nsk92 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Jargon and Citation the article has large swathes of unsourced material, including entire sections. Worse for the reader, unless you've got a BA in mathematics you've probably never heard of many of the terms and none of them are defined in the text, so there are literally dozens of technical phrases you'd have to open the link for and read, rather than just being given a basic in-article definition that allows continuous reading by the layman. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "rather than just being given a basic in-article definition that allows continuous reading by the layman" — you seem very certain that the mathematics can be summarized in a "basic" way that allows a layman to understand it. The mathematics that Grothendieck worked on was very deep and very hard, even for experts with PhDs in mathematics. If you have some concrete way of making this accessible to someone with no knowledge of mathematics, I would love to hear it. But just observing that it's too technical for laymen to grasp is not terribly constructive. This is, after all, a mathematician whose life work was among some of the most technical and hard-to-understand in history, not some footballer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Your comments are getting personal, emotional, and on the article talk page, contrary, Sławomir. According to MOS:JARGON an article at a graduate level of expertise should be written down one level so a reader at undergraduate level can get the gist of it. Brief explanations and definitions as well as examples should be given in lieu of bare links where complex ideas are discussed, I've already show how that can be done on the article's talk page, and you've ignored it. There's also the issue of references. No one is attacking your idol personally, just suggesting the article has problems that someone with the proper understanding can address. μηδείς (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The assertion that Grothendieck is my "idol" is not true, and I suggest that it is you that are here becoming personal. What I do take issue with is your apparently arrogant attitude that, by adding a few words here or there, the ideas of the Langlands program, Scheme (mathematics), or Weil cohomology can be made accessible to someone with zero mathematical knowledge. That's simply not true. For instance, the Langlands program itself is a sort of glue that holds together many very difficult branches of mathematics, such as representation theory, local field theory, and automorphic forms. And that's kind of the "point" of Grothendieck's whole perspective, to weave this sort of glue. There's just no sound-bite for that, no matter how hard you try. Even the concept of "cohomology", which is "elementary mathematics" from the Grothendieck point of view, would be nearly impossible to explain in a brief inline form. (And then, is it topology? is it algebra? is it geometry? Not easy questions to answer.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
At this point you are just outright lying, no one has said anything about making the article "accessible to someone with zero mathematical knowledge", I have mentioned a familiarity with calculus on the article's talk page and the MOS again says, write one level down. I suggest you stop addressing me (especially here), and do what you can, if you are interested, in making the article more accessible to those like hard science majors who might actually be interested in this article. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Frankly, your assumption that there can be nothing in mathematics that is deep enough to be difficult to explain to non-mathematicians comes across as anti-intellectualism. Is that an appropriate attitude for a Wikipedian? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, major figure in the world of mathematics.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A towering figure in 20th century mathematics. And despite the seeming mundanity of "old man does of old age" as a headline, this is actually an important development for mathematics and not just a human interest story, because it could lead to a resolution of the embargo he made on translating and re-releasing his publications, which are still valuable today. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    Cool. When do you plan to clean up the article so it can be placed on the main page? --Jayron32 02:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
David, I do see User:Cenarium has been adding references, but I do not see you on the edit history. I have quoted from write one level down in bold on the article's talk page, and given an example of how I would do that with the concept pleiotropy, which is undergrad level biology at best, but can be explained to any secondary schooler who knows what a gene is. I'd be adding references myself, but it's our mathematics wizards who should be doing this, in order to get it right. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, do we need credentials to post here? Or is that only a requirement of supporters? I have not done much editing on the main Grothendieck article, but I wrote most of dessin d'enfant, one of Grothendieck's contributions (but far from the biggest of those). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Grothendieck's work is notoriously abstract and hard to grasp, even among professional mathematicians. I doubt that there are any comparable examples in biology; can you think of any idea in biology which is so difficult to understand that it intimidates even professionals? But Grothendieck's major work does, and he didn't introduce just one intimidating idea, he introduced several (nuclear spaces, stacks, topoi, motives, and others). Not because he was intentionally obscure (he took pains to write carefully, building up his foundations slowly and methodically), but because the ideas are so different than anything you've ever encountered before.
At one point I wrote one of his ideas one level down. This became the article Grothendieck topology. It's appropriate for a mathematics graduate student. Quite frankly, I don't know how to express it more simply without betraying the technical content. I invite you to look at it, but you won't understand it. Without knowing what a category and a topological space are, it will be incomprehensible, and without some understanding of algebraic number theory it will be appear to be abstract for abstraction's sake rather than the profound advance that it was. These prerequisite subjects are beyond the scope of most undergraduate mathematics studies; they're usually studied in graduate school.
I don't mean to say that the article Alexander Grothendieck is perfect (it's not). But I do feel that your specific complaint about his mathematical work being made too difficult to understand is unjustified. It just is difficult to understand. Ozob (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Repeated claims of I can't explain it don't help, I see no attempt at clarification of any terms on the page. Frankly, it's a plea of incompetence. Apparently a topological space is a set of points and an area in which they can move while still following certain rules. Those might not be the technical words, but are they wrong or misleading? μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This is wrong and misleading. There's no concept of area, or of movement. Cenarium (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for a RD tag, but no on blurb --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. The article has been improved. --Tone 05:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Belated support/concurrence for posting to RD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Good job to whoever did the referencing work. It's nice, for once, to see the article quality take precedence over other concerns. Thanks to whoever took care of it. --Jayron32 02:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Highest ever ODI cricket scoreEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 06:47, 18 November 2014 (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: Sri Lankan cricket team in India in 2014–15#4th ODI (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian Rohit Sharma scores 264 runs which is the highest One Day International score.
 --NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 04:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. How does this relate to the same statistic for Cricket World Cup, which is more than double at 673? Is runs the critical metric for Cricket? Why would any of the other records on this list page not be the critical metric? Is this event/league the defining one for Cricket, and not Twenty20 or Cricket World Cup or any of the others? I remember that a certain American football record did not get posted because it wasn't clear that the record being set was the critical metric of the sport. I think that same principle applies here.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The 673 figure is an aggregate for the entire tournament, while this one is for a single innings. And, yes 'run' is by far the most crucial metric in cricket. Event/league doesn't matter here because this is a world record set for one particular format of the game. Vensatry (ping) 08:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Highest Individual ODI score is by far most prestigious and arguably hardest record to beat (apart from the total career runs that's not going down any time soon). 264 wow and wth -- Ashish-g55 05:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose now I like this kind of "good news" story but sadly this record has been broken five times in the last five years, so it's not uncommon. Nor is it inconceivable that it could be broken tomorrow (or whenever the next ODI is played) so we'd have to post it again and again and again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The record may have been broken 5 times in 5 years, but this time it has been broken by 45 runs, and it seems highly unlikely that anyone will better it, for quite some time. It is also the 2nd highest List A score in history - the highest, Ali Brown's 268, has stood for over 10 years - so we're nearly entering the 'it may not be possible to score any higher' range. 101.162.201.229 (talk) 09:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    "... it seems highly unlikely that anyone will better it ..." what evidence do you have to support this claim? Why couldn't Rohit beat it in his next innings? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    To use an analogy, suppose a golfer broke the record for the lowest 4 round score by a significant margin - the score was 20% lower than the previous record - would it be logical to believe the same record could be beaten again anytime soon, seeing as the old record was bested by an unusually large margin. In other words, Rohit's record is an outlier (just as the golf record would be), as it is 20% larger than the previous record; his 264 is not a normal record progression - it would be akin to the 100m world record dropping from 9.7 seconds to 9.5.101.162.201.229 (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    The golf record is a bad analogy, because golf is limited in its scoring by the number of holes. You cannot score an infinitely lower score; you literally cannot score lower than 18. In cricket, there is no practical limit to how high the score can rise. A sufficiently skilled batsman playing against a sufficiently bad, uninterested, or demoralized team could score forever. --Jayron32 12:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    So basically this also eliminates from comparison sports that are timed (basketball and any code of football), while only allowing sports that could literally go on forever like baseball, tennis and volleyball? –HTD 13:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    I haven't eliminated anything, with regards to posting, nor have I opposed this posting. I've merely pointed out the inappropriateness of an analogy. I'm officially undecided on this one. I just don't like letting bad logic go without correction. --Jayron32 13:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    What I meant was you can't compare this "record" to anything from those sports. –HTD 13:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Probably not. It's also difficult to compare to baseball, as a single batter in baseball doesn't face consecutive pitches once they have hit the ball, the way that it happens in cricket. FWIW, if I recall correctly, we did post an ITN item for that ridiculously long tennis match a few years back. Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships confirms that. --Jayron32 13:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    A baseball batter can still face the same pitcher if the pitcher is not replaced after the entire order was finished in one inning... that's not very common. So basically, this can't be compared to anything, which means we'd rely on cricket people to assess how important this is. This is a single match record, right? ITN doesn't usually post single-match records in team sports, preferring career records in a very select sports. –HTD 13:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Cricket matches cannot go on for ever. In this case it was a ODI where each team is limited to 50 overs, so the theoretical maximum score for a single batsman would be 50 (overs) × 6 (balls per over) × 6 (runs per ball) = 1800 (extras don't get added to the batsman's score). However the batsman would need to change ends on the last ball of the over to retain the strike (which doesn't happen when a boundary is scored) they would have to run an odd number of runs (running more than 3 is uncommon, so we'll say 5 for practical purposes) which means 50 x 5 x 6 + 50 x 1 x 5 = 1750. Scoring 6 sixes in an over has only been achieved 7 times in professional cricket (Boundary (cricket)#6 Sixes in an over) and never more than once by any one player. No player has ever (afaict) faced every ball of an innings (201/300 is the record [28]), and the highest ever team score in an ODI innings is 443 [29]. Test matches are also time limited (5 days), but there are restrictions on the number of overs in each session and at least three innings (usually 4) need to have been completed to get a result (and once you've won you stop playing) so for practical purposes the number of runs scoreable is finite. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, 1800 is theoretically possible, but it would require the batsman's team mate to score an odd number of runs off a no ball bowled as the first ball of every over (except the first over) - this would basically require the cooperation of the opposition to achieve. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Actually, isn't infinity theoretically possible if bowlers continue to bowl no balls which are struck for ones/two/threes/fours/*fives!*/sixes etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
    Very theoretically but only if the bowlers weren't suspended for dangerous bowling or time wasting (see Fair and unfair play). Thryduulf (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, of course, my "infinite" score is about as likely as your 1800 though. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    Being extremely pedantic I'd say 1800 is more likely than your scenario as it doesn't require the non-applying of rules. In any other scenario than extreme pedantry though they are as equally far fetched as each other! Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I like cricket, but this record doesn't really seem that significant. Our readers are likely to be underwhelmed by the story, which just isn't that interesting. If this was a Test record then I would support, but ODIs aren't even the top form of the game. Modest Genius talk 11:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose An astonishing innings, but while this is a important record it is by no means the most significant one in cricket. Test cricket remains the most prestigious form of the game - and, if anything, one-day cricket is losing ground to 20/20. Records such as the highest test innings, most career test runs, or most wickets in a career or a test are all more significant. Neljack (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because we forgot Peyton Manning ... In all seriousness, while this is by all accounts an impressive record, ITN has historically been loathe to post individual sports records, with very few exceptions.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's been broken five times in five years. We don't usually post sports records that get broken with such frequency. -- Calidum 17:01, 14 November 2014 (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.

November 13Edit


Luxembourg LeaksEdit

Article: Luxembourg Leaks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Luxembourg Leaks make 28,000 pages that document tax avoidance schemes negotiated between Luxembourg and more than 340 corporations available to the public.
Alternative blurb: ​Luxembourg Leaks: Tax Avoidance of Global Companies Exposed
News source(s): ICIJ partners from around the world, Guardian,Le Monde, Tagesanzeiger,

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The Luxembourg Leaks continue to be on the news globally for several days now --Neudabei (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Why do you wish to post it under a different date? 331dot (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I might have confused date of suggestion with date of publication. It's a strange technical environment to me here! Sorry -- Neudabei (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but need a much better blurb because the original blurb is terrible. Tax avoidance article very interesting should find a way to link that in an alt blurb. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no rationale is given, but the article consists of a large list of red links that seems to be an unreferenced attack page disguised as a description of web shaming. There's a POV that businesses should pay as much tax as possible. The article should probably be afd'ed and this certainly doesn't belong on ITN. Neu dabei shouldn't be discouraged from future nominations, but we don't even have an event or a blurb in sentence form. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - but better blurb is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • AfD the article consists of vague syntheses accusing a former PM of having been "in office" and naming a non-notable individual and dozens of corporations, most of which are redlinks, implying some sort of misdealing while an explicit source says that none of the countries violated the laws of Luxembourg. Without specific sources saying the specific companies have actually been charged with criminal activity, the whole exercise amounts to defaming private persons and businesses that would have every right to sue for the implications as the article is written. I have deleted the list of companies, since the website itself is the source, and deleted the non-notable private individual, we shouldn't be using WP to encourage personal attacks against him. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Please do not oppose and nominate an AfD at the same time as that's a conflict of interest. Now you have effectively blocked this item from going up till Afd has been taken care of. this is more of an unwritten rule as we specifically created a rule to avoid this happening once item is on main page. I guess we should have done that for ITN/C as well. -- Ashish-g55 04:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • support – smaller luxLeaks are four years old, but four years ago the released documents were few, and the term luxembourg leaks didn't exist. now all luxLeak papers have been published by several media, and the scandal is putting a shock wave through the european parliament. the article has a few issues but is pretty solid for a current affairs topic. i recommend a bit of copy editing to streamline the sentences. the deletion request looks a bit odd to me and might irritate visitors/readers. [ntw: what does AfD mean, dear friend?] Maximilian (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note. I have closed the AfD as a Snow keep. No reason for deletion was actually given, and no support for the deletion was forthcoming (naturally, as this is a huge story in Europe). Fram (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not only a huge story in Europe: Global enterprises and global media organizations are involved. (E.g. Amazon, Caterpillar are headquartered in the US.) Plus money travells fast with very little travel expenses. -- Neudabei (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support just because Junker is in the discussion and the position he occupies. Nergaal (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • proposal for blurb: The Luxembourg Leaks make 28,000 pages that document tax avoidance schemes negotiated between Luxembourg and more than 340 corporations available to the public. -- Neudabei (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This certainly seems important enough to post. I'm not a fan of the proposed blurb, though. I'd rather we use the one proposed by Neudabei above. -- Calidum 17:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This edit is a great improvement compared to the previous outright defamation and implications of negligence. But the whole issue still amounts to soapboxing and the shaming of companies against which no criminal or civil charges have been filed. (If I am wrong, let's have the refs and nominate the individual stories when we have a verdict.) So we would basically be promoting a stub on the assumption that companies should want to pay more taxes than they have to when loopholes exist. We are not a mirror site for wikileaks and nor should we be a portal for this POV-based stub. Until there's a verdict and a good, neutral article, this belongs nowhere near the front page. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed, from neutral pov: "soapboxing... promoting on the assumption that companies should want to pay more taxes than they have to...not a mirror site for wikileaks and nor should we be a portal for this POV-based stub." Noted that stub now improved by removal of unsuitable content. [30] --Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentThe article is an article now - no stub. The pov issues have been solved. -- Neudabei (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bidEdit

snow close as disinterested editor; obviously no support μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2014 (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: Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup bid (talk, history)
Blurb: Qatar's bid for the 2022 FIFA World Cup is cleared of bribery allegations by FIFA.
News source(s): United Kingdom, Australia, Qatar

Article needs updating
 --NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 09:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The only person in the world who believes that no bribery occurred is the FIFA mouthpiece, and that's only because he's paid to. The WP front page is not FIFA's mouthpiece. WinterWall (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the status quo did not change(they still have the Cup). 331dot (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Headlines that read "People who were bribed to say they weren't bribed do what they were bribed to do" aren't news. They're the expected course of business. --Jayron32 11:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - and I would oppose even if this was an independent inquiry. As 331dot says, it's not a change to the status quo. Smurrayinchester 16:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jayron32 says it very well. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per just about every reason above. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Corrupt organization remains corrupt, and yet people will still tune in and the corrupt organization will make more money." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2014 (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.

November 12Edit


[Posted] U.S. / China greenhouse gas agreementEdit

Article: APEC China 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At APEC China 2014, Chinese President Xi Jinping and President of the United States Barack Obama reach a deal to reduce greenhouse gases.
Alternative blurb: ​With world leaders from 21 Pacific Rim countries attending, the 2014 Asian-Pacific Economic Conference concludes in Beijing.
News source(s): WaPo CNN Xinhuanet

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: Seems like big news, considering that the U.S. and China combine to create 45% of the world's greenhouse gases, and the first time China agrees to peak its carbon emissions. This could be a game changer. --– Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support - Considering that, at least from the US side, this requires Obama to convince Congress (now of the opposite party) to enact laws to support that, it's unlikely this will actually lead to anything of value - but the intention is well-meaning and strong evidence of global agreement to cut carbon emissions. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Change to support given ITN/R (eg even if congress fails to act, the event is notable). Would like to see maybe a bit more in the article, but it is not unpostable in the present state. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • According to the NY Times, Congress doesn't need to approve this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The accord, yes - there's no Congressial requirements there - but to actually put in legislation to meet that, with the current party alignments, that's different. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I just noticed APEC is listed at WP:ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose agreement has no power of law unless approved by Senate, which ain't gonna happen. See Kyoto Treaty. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a treaty, so the Senate doesn't need to approve it(though they can attempt to deny funding for initiatives related to it). But I agree its effects are limited if any. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Not even a law will be passed, given it would need 60 votes in the Senate for cloture, and the Republicans have a better than four to three majority in the House. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support taking into account the issue Medeis has raised, this "treaty" is still notable in its own right. Also ITN/R so... --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Very little will change as a result of this, as the new GOP Senate majority(and the existing House one) will not support it. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support weren't China and US the only important non-signatories of the Kyoto protocol. Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that was China and India, Nergaal. Clinton did sign Kyoto, but treaties need a two/thirds vote (67 yeas) in the Senate to become law. Even with control of the Senate, Clinton was not able to get Kyoto ratified. With what looks like a 55 or 54 GOP to a 45 or 46 Democrat Senate, the issue will likely never even come up for a vote, and certainly won't pass. If it did pass it would make total sense to post then. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The summit is ITN/R, and the agreement is certainly the most significant and high-profile news to come out of it, so it should be included in the blurb. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but I agree there may be limited or no effects on actual policy considering the U.S. republicans will probably block it. Brian Everlasting (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We cannot allow American interests to dominate this institution. If the item is going to be posted according to ITN/R (which it shouldn't be, such summits being entirely inconsequential), it should not focus on one futile act by a lame duck American president. It should reflect the score of other attending countries, something like, "With 21 countries attending, the 2014 Asian-Pacific Economic Conference concludes in Beijing." μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support because it's actually in international news, but it's weak because its relevance is limited to 2 countries, albeit very populous ones. Epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with the summit as the main focus and this mentioned at the end. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major deal reached between leaders of the world's two largest economies. The agreement is the big story, not the summit itself. -- Calidum 03:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and with a nod to Medias' arguments above. The agreement is tissue thin, with Obama pledging to take the matter to Congress (which won't pass it) and Xi pledging that emissions will fall after 2030ish (which they may or may not). If this gets posted, it should instead focus on the gathering of dignitaries, instead.128.214.53.18 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support posting a blurb about the conference(if updated and other needs met) but I don't think the blurb should include this agreement. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb I've added an altblurb with the addition of world leaders per the above suggestions. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb as broader and as representing a developing consensus here. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb.128.214.53.18 (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support proposed blurb, and oppose alt blurb for not covering the most widely reported and largely deemed most significant aspect of the story. Like it or not, the globally covered event was not simply the conclusion of the conference, and this is "in the news", not "the part of the news that wasn't emphasized but we feel is more deserving or mention".--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready- ITN/R and only three opposes anyway, article updated with no serious problems. Posting admin can decide on the blurb. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted the altblurb --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Philae landerEdit

Article: Philae (spacecraft) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Philae lander, launched from the European Space Agency's Rosetta probe, reaches/fails to reach the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
Alternative blurb: ​The Philae lander, dropped from the European Space Agency's Rosetta probe, {lands on / fails to land on} the surface of Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko.
News source(s): CNN NBC News

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: This lander is expected to reach the surface(or not) today. It's already on its way. Reviewing the discussion of when the entire probe reached the comet it seems that there was at least some support for posting when this lander reached the surface. --331dot (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I came to nom this myself. Nergaal (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. If it succeeds this will be the first ever landing on a comet, if it fails it will be a very newsworthy failure - especially in the wake of the rocket explosion and Virgin crash (I know these are entirely unrelated, but to your average journalist they will be seen as absolutely linked). Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support either way. Space exploration history (first attempt even if it fails) and already big in the news, certain to be much bigger in a few hours. An entry right away saying it has detached from the Rosetta probe (happened earlier today) for an attempted landing would also be fine by me. I'm sure lots of people already come here looking for info. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Came here to nominate this also... went to the main page to find the article and was surprised to see it isn't listed yet. It lands in about two hours. :) →CrunchySkies« talk ± gawk » 13:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Definitely newsworthy. Going by the timetable, we'll know soon enough if it was a success or not! -- Teh Cheezor Speak 15:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - newsworthy and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Looks like it landed, but the major news agencies haven't posted a story yet.--WaltCip (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Landing appears confirmed but I would just suggest waiting at least 35 minutes (the transmission time) to make sure that the unit reports itself all okay. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support communications have been confirmed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is a BFD. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting, all the sources say it's there. --Tone 16:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait 15 min for briefing. Most likely the first image from the surface will be revealed!! -- Ashish-g55 18:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I was in the process of updating ITN's image when you posted the message above. We can, of course, switch to a surface image when one becomes available. —David Levy 18:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The one I found that's in use now was from [31]. Keep in mind that ESA normally doesn't publish photos under a CC license (eg unlike NASA where virtually all works are free); the ones currently here are. For example, here is the "most recent" photo that is from a few hours ago as the lander descended [32] and it is tagged with copyright. So while they might release a "as landed" shot, I have a feeling it won't be immediately free. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • IAR question most of the images are just OUT OF THIS WORLD. Would it be possible to feature some of the free pictures here more prominently on the front page? Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Only way i can think of is a direct link to the external page at ITN with the news. So in the bracket where it says (pictured pre-landing) add a "more images" link that takes you to ESA or anywhere credible. That way we can avoid the whole copyright issue as well with ESA -- Ashish-g55 20:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately the quick tool to upload all CC-licnesed images from a Flickr photo stream to commons is broken for me today (there's something on the auth tools side), but with all those uploaded to commons, in a common category, that category should be featured on our WP article, and could possibly be a link from ITN (to the Commons cat, so they are all free images). --MASEM (t) 21:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

November 11Edit


[Closed] RD: Carol Ann SusiEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2014 (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: Carol Ann Susi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [33]

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 --Palmtree5551 (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not even close. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Who? (Oppose for failing any lack of being a leader in their field). --MASEM (t) 07:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Famous among the people who followed the show, but she was not at the top of her field. I think this nomination is better at "Did You Know" if it is expanded. ComputerJA () 07:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet any of the recent deaths criteria. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not significant enough for RD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Someone who's on a hit TV show doesn't automatically meet the death criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please provide a rationale in the nom cmt section of the template next time. Also, be aware, unless she's got a huge career (Doris Roberts) been the lead of multiple shows (Bill Cosby) or won lots of awards, she's not going to be posted, unless she's Corey Monteith. Also, the article doesn't meet minimum size and quality requirements. Ror instance, her role/episodes in the shows mention would have to be given, or a ref provided. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Monteith was much younger than this person(he was 31) and died unexpectedly. This person was much older and died of cancer, which is not entirely unexpected. Monteith's death also got much more news coverage. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on the amount of coverage I am seeing. Other deaths of actors were posted commensurate with the amount of news coverage those deaths received. The Monteith example is a good one. His death was covered in some depth by news sources, and was covered for some time. As with anything else, what we as individuals feel about someone's merit, based on our own desire to be gatekeepers of elitist culture, is irrelevent. We go with the sources. Monteith got news, this one gets less news. --Jayron32 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I didn't support the Monteith nomination, but mentioned it since I knew it would be raised as an exception if I didn't point it out. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2014 (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] Valerie Hernandez crowned Miss InternationalEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2014 (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: Miss International 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Valerie Hernandez representing Puerto Rico is crowned Miss International 2014 in Tokyo, Japan.
News source(s): [34], [35], [36]
Nominator's comments: I know this is probably not going to be featured at ITN. But sometimes a entertainment story can be interesting. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think beauty pageants are sufficiently important to be featured on ITN. And Miss International isn't the biggest of them, is it? I'd note that the prose in the lede seems rather promotional. Neljack (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack. Beauty pageants in general are too subjective IMO. As Neljack points out this isn't even one of the more notable ones. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Beauty pageants are not ITN material. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose For those who think beauty pageants are unimportant to be included, it was a big deal upto the 1980s but still is in some countries. Now for my rationale for oppose, if I had to allow just one beauty pageant into ITN, it would have to be Miss World as it is far more prestigious to Miss International and winners of national pageants go there. Donnie Park (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Gasp Is ITN getting multiple pages already? A very strong, if politically incorrect, "image opportunity", I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2014 (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.

2014 sterilization deaths in IndiaEdit

Article: 2014 sterilization deaths in India (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Indian state of Chhattisgarh, at least 15 women die after undergoing sterilization surgery.
News source(s): Bloomberg

 --Jinkinson talk to me 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now; a rationale would be helpful here, was it deliberate, part of a larger scheme? Unfortunately mutiple deaths at clinics and hospitals are not that uncommon, and unless there's some reason they'll be talking about this 25 years from now it's probably not notable enough. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support - the story is appalling, and while we aren't here to right great wrongs, it's significant enough to be considered. Volunteering to be paid for female sterilisation for cash is newsworthy by any right-minded person. I would, however, urge caution - the article currently names an individual as responsible for the deaths, not sure that's the best idea: remember we shouldn't be posting allegations here. Plus the article needs expansion and conversion into Indian English. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. Neljack (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- ITN should not be used to make a political or humanitarian point. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    It isn't. If an American doctor was responsible for killing 15 American women in a day, with dozens more still in critical condition, it'd be a shoo in for ITN. (Here's one for your systemic bias folder User:HiLo48...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment if we are going to post this (assuming there's consensus to do so), we only have a few more days before it falls off this page. Everymorning talk to me 15:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
    Well I see no merit in some of the opposition, but as a supporter, I can't post. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Khairpur bus crashEdit

Article: 2014 Khairpur bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 58 people are killed in a bus crash near Khairpur, Pakistan.
News source(s): BBC Yahoo News The Express Tribune New York Daily News

Nominator's comments: Bus crash with many deaths. Andise1 (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now - Article is a stub. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 07:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose however horrible. Unless it's otherwise notable (sabotage, notable deaths) it a bus crash. μηδείς (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An unfortunate thing indeed, but such accidents are very common these days (these apparently happened in the last 48 hours → [37] [38] [39]). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support subject to article quality. I don't see why the deaths of 58 people on a bus are any less notable than the same number on an aeroplane. The main difference is that buses tend to be used by poorer people. Neljack (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with user Neljack.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Neljack. GoldenRing (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality grounds. Most of the article is just "A thought B was the cause". "C thought D was the cause". "E thinks F will be found to be the cause." There is no depth in the article beyond what could be found by reading the headlines in the various sources. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - Has potential to be notable enough but for now, the article needs more improvement on quality per Thryduulf. The aftermath section isn't even cited. ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

November 10Edit


2014 Yobe State attacksEdit

Article: 2014 Yobe State attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide bomber kills at least 47 students in an attack on a school in Potiskum, Nigeria.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • support - Second deadly attack in less than 10 daysCatlemur (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose based solely on article quality. Currently (as I am writing this) the article is a stub which is barely longer than the blurb itself. As the purpose of ITN is the highlighting of quality WP articles, until we have an article which is worth putting on the main page, we shouldn't post this. I'd support it if the article was good enough. --Jayron32 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    Minor correction: "As one of the purposes of ITN is the highlighting of quality WP articles...." Perhaps some of our regular contributors could actually follow that up though, to actively improve articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality and notability. At this point we might as well just have an "ongoing" pointing to islamist atrocities. To paraphrase someone below, we have a duty to make sure terrorist interests don't dominate this page. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support subject to article quality. A major attack. Neljack (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - when article quality has been improved. major attack.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- Political interests should have no bearing on what is posted to ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
What political interests are you referring to? 331dot (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the political interests that say that tiny little stubs of articles consisting of two sentences and an infobox aren't good enough for the main page. --Jayron32 01:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No, actually I was referring to what Medeis mentioned about making sure "terrorist interests don't dominate this page." Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The comment was an allusion in form to Richard of Gloucesters' Nov 5th soliloquy on the American general election beginning "We cannot allow American interests to dominate this institution". I agree, and nor should this be a terrorist ticker or a bombing board. I continue my oppose and suggest an ongoing Islamist jihad section to cover such things as the next beheading, and the planned stabbing of the queen. Either that or we need to raise the bar on terrorist attacks or we'll just be drowning in them. μηδείς (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Wind it in Jayron, you're not doing yourself any favours here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

November 9Edit


November 8Edit


[Closed] DPRK releases American prisonersEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 21:47, 11 November 2014 (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: Kenneth Bae (talk, history) and Matthew Todd Miller (talk, history)
Blurb: North Korea releases American prisoners Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller from captivity.
News source(s): CNN Times of India The Guardian BBC ABC (Australia) CBC Le Monde Irish Times

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: This seems to be a widely covered story in outlets around the world. I think this helps meet the first purpose of ITN, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". I'm not going to push for this hard but I felt it was worth discussing given the lack of nominations in the last day or so. --331dot (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reason from when Miller was arrested - neither person seemed to be arrested out of NK spite but because they were purposely in NK to be disruptive. If they were POWs or something of a longer-standing issue, perhaps, but these two don't need the additional media attention for being wreckless to start. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Not to dissuade you, but don't we only have NK's word on that? We have yet to get Bae's and Miller's sides freely, AFAIK.331dot (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is in the news, and we have a paucity of nominations at the moment. This could run, if nothing more significant turns up. Jehochman Talk 01:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • support - seems significant enough. has recieved worldwide attention. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a nice story, but it raises the question, what were Americans thinking going into this hostile nation that regularly kidnaps foreigners, and what bribes were paid for their release? Without those answers in our own articles we're basically a news aggregator if we post this. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just business as usual in the DPRK. No indication that this is the result of some big change in the regime, nor is it particularly scandalous - these idiots had it coming to them.--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Bae is freed. That's important! #runs –HTD 12:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, routine. No lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 14:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no requirement that something have a "lasting impact" to be posted; we post many one-time events. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I suspect he means lasting notability. Will this be discussed 100 years from now? μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I respect those who might use that as their personal criteria but I don't think it always relevant to every story nominated. We don't mention that on the ITN criteria and purpose while it does mention things like what I say above in the nomination. Not trying to change any minds on that, just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This is borderline, but I come down on the side of oppose because it is routine, as in, it is the modus operandi of this self-starving state. Madeline Albright, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Rodman all went there bearing gifts fit for a Ming and returned with promises or hostages or naught. Something about Danegeld? μηδείς (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment re "routine"; North Korea "routinely" releases American prisoners who have been held for extended periods of time? 331dot (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't describe something that last occurred five years ago as "routine". "Routine" suggest something that occurs often and on a regular basis, at least to me. 331dot (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Every time they capture an American, they hold them for a long time, until some big muck-de-muck comes on bended knee and asks for them back, this has happened numerous times. I just gave an example that has an article. Abductive (reasoning) 16:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That's "muckety muck" for future reference. μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support IMO, this is a significant story, regardless of whether anyone thinks Bae and Miller are 'idiots'. Also, I agree with 331dot as far as this being 'routine'. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Tourists who get arrested in DPRK are generally crazy or are only there to stir up trouble in some way, non-story as this doesn't have a lot of diplomatic or political implications. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 06:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose just really not seeing why this is even newsworthy, unless it's because it's been super-hyped by US press. Seems to be a standard North Korean action, even a less-than-interesting one. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2014 (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] Mexican Ayotzinapa protestsEdit

Article: 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Civil unrest continues throughout Mexico in the wake of the discovery of a mass grave believed to contain the remains of 43 college students abducted by municipal police in Iguala, Guerrero, on september 26th.
Alternative blurb: ​Civil unrest in Mexico intensifies in the wake of the disappearance of 43 college students, with protesters attacking the presidential palace, and burning government buildings in Guerrero. altblurb2 = In the midst of civil unrest, Mexican government announces the arrest of 74 suspects in relation to the disappearance of 43 college students, and the discovery of a mass grave in Cocula, Guerrero, believed to contain their bodies.

altblurb3 = Civil unrest in response to the alleged government involvement in the disappearance of 43 college students leads to the resignation of the Governor of Guerrero, and 74 arrests.
News source(s): [40][41][42][43][44]

Article updated

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

 User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Isn't this already being discussed below? 331dot (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Maunus has apparently posted this due to an update in the story, note he tries to give me nominato co-credit, although the template doesn't take that. I am off to Sunday roast chicken, so I won't be able to comment for a few hours. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I was suggested to renominate with a better blurb before it falls of the list, and wanted to credit Medeis whose excellent idea it was to nominate this important news article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but not thrilled being focused on the arrest factor; it's the riots that we would make the story here. And FWIW, we never posted anything about Ferguson, but this is clearly a much larger scale. Article is in good shaper, regardless. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I definitely thought Ferguson had been in ITN. Anyways the first blurb doesnt mention the arrests.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support having a blurb of some sort this kind of story, in a reasonably developed country like Mexico is highly unusual. I believe this story should be featured in some ways, since it is much more shocking than the Pristorius story for example. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per previous nom, and Guardian. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Alt Blurb I would suggest After officials report finding the charred remains 43 students murdered in Iguala, Mexico, and arrests and resignations of various government officials, protestors set fire to the gates of the Mexican Presidential Palace. as economical, and reporting the full scope of the situation. Removing the middle frase on arrests and resignations makes it even more concise. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Notice: The events at Ferguson earlier this year weren't posted at ITN. –HTD 11:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. This is the biggest scandal in the current administration and of the last few as well. ComputerJA () 16:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all blurbs which have phrases such as "believed to be" and those not written in grammatically correct English. The item is significant, but focus on the facts (which drawing out of some editors has been excruciatingly painful...): "In Mexico City, thousands protest in the wake of the disappearance of 43 students and subsequent discovery of a number of mass graves." The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support TRM's blurb. --Jayron32 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want a shorter, current blurb, this "After officials report finding the charred remains 43 students murdered in Iguala, Mexico, protestors in the protestors in Mexico city set fire to the gates of the Mexican Presidential Palace" would be accurate. The victims' charred remains were found in 6 plastic bags on a riverbank, per the guardian source I linked to above. Here's a Spanish-language source that gives a good depiction of the events, although I am not sure the description anarquistas is a neutral one. El Universal. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a trade-off to be made between brevity and detail. The blurb that TRM notes is not inaccurate, and readers are allowed to click the link to read more if it interests them as to what the protesters did in the course of their protesting, and the state of the bodies which have been recovered. --Jayron32 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not inaccurate but it is also not informative or accurate, and borders on the misleading. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt that the students were abducted by Iguala municipal police. All accounts and all eyewitnesses agree on this. Casting doubt on something that all sources agree to be the case is not more responsible or correct. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Making assumptions is not responsible or correct. Once the courts have made their decision, we could post an article stating such, until then we must stick to the known facts, per my suggested alt blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Noone is making any assumptions, we are merely following the facts as they are described in the available sources. As we should. There isnt a single source that doubts whether they were abducted by mnunicipal police. Not an assumption. The identification of the charred bodies as the missing students was published by the Mexican secretary of state. Also not an assumption. You are the one making your personal assumptions about how this event should be covered that are basically original research second guessing all coverage and official statements related to the issue, you are obviously trying to come across as "rational" and "balanced" when in fact you are just ill informed. I am sorry but it cant all be sportevents in the ITN. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope, you are not "following the facts as they are described in the available sources", you are "following the allegations listed in the available sources". I will continue to take your personal attacks, ill-minded assumptions and over-reactions to my statements as I have no desire to see you blocked, but you should do better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - Between the two conversations, there is a pretty clear consensus the story should be posted. Disagreement was over timing and wording, not merits, so I picked TRM's blurb that seemed to address most of the concerns adequately. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 7Edit


November 6Edit


[Posted] Formation of planets observedEdit

Articles: HL Tauri (talk, history) and Protoplanetary disk (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Improved resolution of the ALMA radio telescope array reveals gaps where planets are forming in the protoplanetary disk of HL Tauri.
Alternative blurb: ​The ALMA radio telescope array reveals planets forming around the star HL Tauri
News source(s): NRAO (original reference), BBC

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: We've been seeing artistic illustrations like this for years, but to have a real image of the very center of the protoplanetary disk with 8 neat little gaps so reminiscent of those for the moons in Saturn's rings -- it's absolutely remarkable. This is the very first image produced by the upgraded high-resolution ALMA with telescopes 35 km apart, so we can expect a lot more wonders to come, but this is a first. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC) --Wnt (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Widely covered in many countries and languages. A rare and unusually important scientific accomplishment. We have had theories for a long time about how planets form and now there's a picture of it happening. Jehochman Talk 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Jehochman. Remarkable. Have been seeing illustrations like this most of my life. Photo inclusion with a posting is a must. Jusdafax 00:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the main point here is that ALMA has new capabilities or that planets are forming in HL Tauri, then I don't support inclusion in ITN. I don't think evidence of planet formation or incremental advancements in telescope technology are generally suitable for ITN. However, if this is the first ever or best ever picture of its kind, then inclusion could make sense. Right now, the blurb doesn't effectively make the case that this image is special / unique, so I'd like to see a different blurb suggestion. Also, the image description page (which is overly long) contains both a PD license tag and a CC-BY description (in the text). My initial reading suggests that the PD license is wrong in this case as NRAO is not a US Gov agency, but rather an independent research center funded by federal grants. That said, the CC-BY is probably correct. In any event, the licensing needs to be clarified. Dragons flight (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some feedback on this. Reading National Radio Astronomy Observatory article and the site itself, I certainly had the impression that the entity is more or less a federal agency. The article Federally funded research and development centers lists it with sites like LNBL and JPL that I would also have thought were producing federal government work. I'm rather afraid to give up on it being PD without further data because if all those things aren't PD, what exactly is? I mean, even the White House probably has a private contractor involved in running the website - I feel like you could pooh-pooh any federal work this way. Wnt (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned at Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, most of the national labs, including LBNL, are operated as independent contractors and their work is subject to copyright. Some of the national labs have a blanket copyright release policy but that is separate from PD-USGov. JPL, which is operated by Caltech under contract by NASA, has a similar situation and is described at Wikipedia:Using JPL images. In general, for PD-USGov to apply, the creator of the image in question must qualify as an employee of the US Government. The government clearly delineates between their employees and contractors, though it isn't always obvious unless you look into it. Government agencies like DOE, CDC, NSF, Interior, etc. qualify, but federally funded research and development centers generally don't. Dragons flight (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's worth pointing out that someone went over the file and redid it with an ESO permission which seems standard CC. Wnt (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle if technical needs are met, a hugely dramatic discovery/accomplishment, a leap and a bound, not just an incremental improvement. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting story, but I would like to see the article updated a bit more. Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: HL Tauri is a completely new article. Protoplanetary disk has been updated to include the image, but since the image is very similar to previous theory of how these disks work, it doesn't change much else there. Wnt (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The article is fine. I found it a bit disappointing on fully explaining the importance of the discovery though. Nergaal (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Alright, I've added one excited quote in [45]. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - definitely for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked Ready image is cleared, articles are updated, well supported and listed for comment for almost 24 hrs. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm still not very happy with the blurb. We've seen gaps in protoplanetary disks before [46][47][48]. The current image is spectacular, but simply saying that we saw gaps in a protoplanetary disk isn't that novel. Its a bit like saying, we built a new submarine and captured videos of whales mating. Though rarely seen, it isn't unexpected nor completely novel. Aside from adding detail, do these observations actually reveal anything qualitatively new? Dragons flight (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is the first image where we can actually say, there's a planet here, here, here, here and here.... As for the blurb, what do you suggest? I am fine with it as is, but a shorter The ALMA radio telescope array reveals planets forming around the star HL Tauri should do fine, since people who are interested will read the specific details in the relevant article. 19:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
(The above was Medeis ([49]); while I wouldn't object to running with the above wording, I didn't put that as the article to update, and haven't focused on the technical improvements to the telescopes; the news articles generally talk about the star and the protoplanetary disk so I think that's what we should bold. I agree with Medeis' other comment that it's time for action with this, so I'd rather not go over a reword unless others really want it. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Those are good references - definitely we should get those into protoplanetary disk - though I should point out the first image looks so good because the gap is at twice the distance of Pluto from its red dwarf primary; I've had some confusion trying to place the distance of these gaps but they're not nearly that much, either 10 or 20 AU for the smaller one. [50][51] I suppose what I missed in the news blurbs was that this was the first time that multiple gaps had been imaged. However, I did not write the blurb with any "first"s that I would need to document. I think anyone who looks at the image sees what's awesome about it. Wnt (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If there's further reason to delay this, can an admin point it out so it can be fixed?
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, without the free use of the image I can tell you that I would oppose this being posted. It is sourced to a press release, not a peer-reviewed article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The image has been uploaded to commons, and re-licensed according to the Observatory's own guidelines on free use, see Wnt's comment at the end of the first indented sect at the top of the thread. μηδείς (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware the image was free use. I was saying, if it wasn't for the image.... Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 21:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong pull. This is a PR image which has not even been submitted for publication, let alone appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. Whilst it's certainly very impressive, it's unclear to me what the new scientific discovery is here (and I work in professional astronomy). I've already posted to WP:ERRORS about why the phrase 'planets forming' is inappropriate and misleading. Modest Genius talk 11:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

RD: Manitas de PlataEdit

Article: Manitas de Plata (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC NY Times Washington Post

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

 EdwardLane (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD pending article improvements - The BBC article as source has more details that explain why this should be an RD post (93M lifetime album sales, worldwide fame), but the WP article could really use some of these before posting. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is not clear this individual meets the requirement of being "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". While 93–100M in album sales is impressive, it is hardly record setting (see List of best-selling music artists). Likewise the article and various newspaper obituaries I have scanned fail to mention what, if any, awards de Plata has received. --Allen3 talk 14:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article needs improvement, especially as it is lacking any information about his death. --Jayron32 15:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

November 5Edit


November 4Edit


[Posted] US midterm electionEdit

Posted, and going to remain posted. Move along people, there's nothing more to see here. Stephen 00:37, 6 November 2014 (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: I realize this is early but I didn't see why this couldn't be started now. Blurb might need sorting out given the many possible Senate results. I'm also fairly sure Governor's races don't get mentioned(even just in total). --> --331dot (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (Oppose) since according to Drudge the Senate has changed hands. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the fact this is ITNR(and newsworthy around the world), the Republicans are expected to win the Senate; if the Democrats keep it, it will be just as newsworthy as if they didnt. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest "wins a majority of the seats in the the U.S. Senate" or some variation of that, as "wins the senate" sounds a bit slangy in an encyclopedic context. Regardless, certainly support for the posting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't oppose doing that(thanks for the suggestion), but I am wondering if the blurb would then be too long. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait for results, pending on the change of party control of either House or Senate.Support Now well confirmed that Senate has changed even if a few runs are close calls. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well Chris Christie was not expected to be elected NJ Governor in his first election, nor was NYC mayor Rudolf Giuliani, and the 2008 presediential election was expected to be held between Giuliani and Hillary. I suggest maybe an ongoing link could be posted as results come in, and then a real blurb if one of the Houses switches hands? That would deal with both those seeking specific information (ongoing) and later with any historical changeover. μηδείς (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea in relation to waiting for the results- though I would respectfully submit there is nothing in ITNR which says the results only get posted if there is a change in control. The election is newsworthy regardless. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not really disagreeing with you personally here, 331dot. But what's the point of ITN/R if there's no change? We might as well have"the sun rose at dawn" given its importance under that rationale. Also, we don't post midterms for other countries, so this seems a little Americentric. Being American, I realize that that is how it should be. But objective judgment and American exceptionalism are two different things. So I still say we go with ongoing ASAP and a change of leadership iff it happens. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with ongoing. Once the senate results are in, then the story is "done" for all purposes, and I believe that a relatively recent country-leader election we waited until the official vote re-counted was done to make that news. If for some reason the House change happens and is known tonight, while the Senate happens a few days later due to recounting, either we can split them or do one common nomination, but ongoing is not necessary here particularly for non-country leader elections. (On the other hand, back when it was Bush v Gore, that's was the ideal storm for an ongoing on pending election results). --MASEM (t) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
So, your point is still wait? The Gore fiasco was a supreme court case upholding the pre-existing law, which a nine Democratic judge Florida supreme court attempted to violate in disregard of the US constitution. It has nothing do with a possible current change of leadership in the Senate. Per the nom we may not know the Senate results for a while, while there may be readers interested in our objective take in the meantime. That's the reason for ongoing > full blurb, and it in no way violates the protocol, regardless of whose presidential candidate lost 14 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
First, the only reason that this particular election should be posted is if there is a change in either House; otherwise it is the status quo (again, a reason IAR exception to the ITN/R nature). It likely won't be the case based on projections (we are expected to have one change, and the other too close to call), so we'll still likely have an element. But I can tell you that most of the world is not on the edge of their seat needed to know if the Senate has changed over given we're talking about the lame duck years of an incumbent president (historically where nothing gets done). As such, an ongoing about the pending results after review is not necessary; just post one story when it's all known like we would for anything else. On the other hand, if we had ITN and ongoing during Bush v Gore - for the role of the effective "leader of the free world", the results would be of strong interest worldwide and the process of the counting and the court stuff would have all delayed that, so having that as ongoing would have made sense. (the tl;dr answer is still "wait and see" for this story, but still opposed to ongoing) --MASEM (t) 19:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The House is already controlled by Republicans, and that is unlikely to change given current polling. Only the Senate is subject to significant uncertainty right now. Dragons flight (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
(to Masem) I'm not going to say that an IAR objection is invalid in this case, but I think if in general that is going to be the policy, that should be written down, as the current ITNR listing suggests something very different(that the results will be posted regardless of a change in control of a legislative body).331dot (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is something of only lilliputian interest, and a purely parochial matter. RGloucester 19:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If that is a serious oppose, please note that general elections are on the recurring events list; if you think they shouldn't be, please propose that. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Is that so? If I remember correctly, that guideline means nothing. Or, at least, that's what people said when they refused to post the blurb on elections in St Thomas and Prince. If no one cares about the election in St Thomas and Prince, surely no one cares about the election in America? RGloucester 19:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should compare the news coverage the U.S. receives to St. Thomas and Prince. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless one of the Houses changes hands. This is of no relevance otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    POTUS isn't the only office in the U.S. that matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    There is a high probability that one or more Senate races will require either a recount (if the result is close) or a runoff election (in states that require the winner to get at least 50% of the vote, while having more than two candidates). Because this election appears to be fairly close on the issue of Senate control, there is a significant chance (roughly 50% by one estimate [52]) that we won't have a definitive answer on Senate control until recounts / runoffs have been resolved several weeks from now. Dragons flight (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a good point. Louisiana and Georgia will have runoffs at a later date (I think one in December, the other in January) if no candidate reaches 50%. Alaska takes a long time to count votes as well; they may not know until next week who won. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once it's known who controls what, not before. I objected to an ITN/R election recently because of the total lack of coverage in sources. This election is heavily covered, even though it doesn't involve a head of state. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold your horses until the results come out. Epicgenius (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. POTUS may not be the only office that matters, but we generally only post the result of an election that determines who occupies the highest seat in the government. Not seeing any special reason for American mid-term elections to be posted. My opposition stands even if one of the houses changes hands. Resolute 21:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not ITN/R under any criteria I can see so I've removed that marker. The only criteria I can see is that people are treating it as a general election, but according to our own definition "In presidential systems, the term refers to a regularly scheduled election where both the president, and either "a class" of or all members of the national legislature are elected at the same time." With that gone I see no objective justification for posting this: given the ongoing controversy over elections and the consequent coverage of elections that probably don't have widespread consensus I see no reason to make the problem of undue emphasis even worse by posting second tier elections. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that on ITN/R? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't. It is the third sentence of general election. It goes on to state "In U.S. politics, general elections occur every four years and include the presidential election." That article explains what the term usually means and since there is no expansion of the term on ITN/R that is the interpretation we should adopt. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me but perhaps someone should read up on American politics. Presidential elections are held every 4 years but elections for the national legislature are held every 2 years (because members of the House of Representatives hold 2 year terms and members of the Senate hold 6 year terms) as is clearly stated in Elections in the United States (which is linked from general election and really just points out a conflict in truth of information between the two pages. ITN/R includes the results of general elections in all states in List of sovereign states (which includes the US). Now please, tell us how this is not ITN/R. Palmtree5551 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that the election of the national legislature of the United States should not be posted and is not newsworthy enough to be posted? Your interpretation sounds like wikilawyering to me. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds ironic because claiming this to be ITNR sounds like wikilawyering to me. If Obama is voted out, yes, let's post. Can that happen? Um..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd support that case even if he was re-elected, but of course either case isn't going to happen. Obama being re-elected for a third term would after all represent a constitutional crisis. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
So the US Legislature is excluded from ITNR because it doesn't have a parliamentary system? 331dot (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
No. It gets posted whenever there is a general election. That is the same as every other country. I've just read your comments against treating particular countries specially on WT:ITNR. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere have I asked for special treatment. I will rephrase and ask again: since the United States Congress does not have a parliamentary system, its elections are excluded from ITNR unless the head of state is on the ballot? 331dot (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
That is what ITNR states and I remind you that you have opposed changing it. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I have opposed general changes to the ITNR listing(including specifying that not all elections are posted because that is already general policy); I don't recall specifically opposing a change to permit US Congress elections being posted, because my apparently mistaken common sense told me that most national legislative elections would qualify. I still disagree with the interpretation you have provided, but this exchange has led me to the conclusion that we do indeed need a major overhaul in how elections are treated, when the national legislative elections of a large country apparently don't qualify. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Pure US-Centrism. Any other election from any other country wouldn't even get a look in here. This is not ITN/R to boot. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, Somchai, this is a joke?X-Centrism is never a valid oppose reasons per the guidelines. And give there is no nation more important that the US, what, exactly, be thy point? μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
You have to be careful about that, BBC and many other big sites do tailor their content based on IP geolocation. I look at it and the top story is an employment tribunal ruling. Interesting enough but not ITN worthy. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not US centrism to report on an election reported around the world. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right, it does autodirect me to .com rather than .co.uk. Of course, it looks like their second story is still on the topic, so the point is pretty much the same.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's true that a change in either of the houses would be an ITN/R-worthy event. However, I think a healthy dose of WP:IAR is needed here. This is not notable internationally.--WaltCip (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The Times of India and Le Monde would disagree with you about international notability. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a minor election in a minor part of the world. I don't see why this should be posted if the St Thomas and Prince election was not. We must have uniformity. If we are not going to include events of parochial interest at ITN, then I see no reason why American parochial events are more important than St Thomas and Prince parochial events. RGloucester 00:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The United States is a "minor part" of the world? I supported posting the elections you mention. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
In the grand scheme of things, every part of the world is minor. If we did not post the St Thomas and Prince election, we certainly cannot post this one. Perhaps an executive election might be worth posting, given that America is bound to a presidential system. However, such a minor election as this cannot be granted WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester 00:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
What is St. Thomas and Prince??? I've never heard of such a place! I can't tell if you're serious; of all the good reasons to oppose, this is a very strange one indeed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Unless I am very much mistaken, we have posted both legislative as well as presidential elections in countries with presidential systems, and they have been treated as ITN/R. I'm not impressed by the (uncited) statement in the general election article that a general election in a presidential system only occurs when the presidency as well as some or all of the legislature is being elected. Quite a few presidential systems always have presidential and legislature elections separately, so if the article is correct they never have general elections. So I regard this as ITN/R. In any case, like it or not, the US elections - even midterms - are of international interest and significance because of the US's power. Neljack (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment For whatever small value it may have, I checked and noted that the last two midterms (2006 and 2010) were posted to ITN. In each of those cases, control over at least one half of Congress changed hands. Dragons flight (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Like Dragon's Flight I've just been doing some looking back and yes it was posted on the last two occasions. However 2006 was not directly comparable since it predates the modern ITN/C discussion process. In 2010 it was posted but there was no question of whether this was ITNR, the discussion explicitly acknowledged that it was not, so the argument that denying ITNR status is somehow Wikilawyering doesn't really hold up - that position was universally understood and accepted last time around. And yes, the elections wording on ITNR was identical to now bar for the absence of the EU elections.
What has changed since then is a massively greater dissatisfaction with the current ITN treatment of elections. If we are already posting three or four times the number of elections that there is genuine collective consensus for then the threshold for discretionary postings of anything over and above that should be fairly high.
This doesn't meet that - like it or not this is a routine, scheduled election rather than anything remotely out of the ordinary. It has not been triggered by any form of crisis, nor is it the first of its kind following some form of constitutional change. In that context what country it is is an utter irrelevance, it can never meet that bar. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support whatever the result is. Most of the legislature is elected in a country with the World's third largest population and the strongest in economy, military, political influence, etc. It's less news than when the president is elected but still big news globally, much bigger than the main election in most countries. It's the main foreign story on all five Danish media I checked from a Danish IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We have posted the results of many country's legislative elections in the past, it doesn't somehow become less newsworthy merely because the U.S. is involved in this election. --Jayron32 04:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Those are usually general elections. Can you cite any other similar election that has been posted where the make up of the government is not at stake and that is not "unusual" in any way that has been posted. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that this is not one of the more notable secondary elections: clearly it is. However, it is not the top tier election and not ITNR. The argument is that this is not notable enough to justify posting on top of the coverage the US already receives in what is itself a category that receives far more attention than is justified by prevailing sentiment. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. General election for the national legislature for a major country. Also there was a party change in the US Senate. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarify for our trans-pond friends,the Senate (along with the House) is the strongest branch of the US government. It's mentioned in Article I of the Constitution, and the only branch that can remove siting federal officials either by expulsion or impeachment. Further, no law can be passed without both now soon to be Republican controlled Houses, nor any Supreme Court Justice or Cabinet member seated. This is the equivalent of a change of ruling party in the British Parliament, although we are still stuck with a hugely impopular sovereign, unlike EiiR. μηδείς (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    Obama still has an approval rating in the low to mid 40s, which is bad, but probably doesn't qualify as "hugely" unpopular. For example, it beats several European prime ministers, including David Cameron. Dragons flight (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • For comparison, the previous president had a 25% right before Obama's election and sported sub-33% approval for most of his last half term, including when the economy was "good". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    It also beats Congress itself by a significant margin - which is likely to remain the case now that the Senate will be likewise gridlocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Congress approval rating is 16%, up from 9% last fall, now that's hugely unpopular. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • CNN GOP Seizes Senate: The thumping win upends the balance of power between the White House and Capitol Hill only six years after Obama's Democrats swept to power.... Marked ready with 10-5 support for change of Senate control. μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for immediate posting of alt-blurb. The change of party control has important implications both within the U.S. and abroad and is highly newsworthy, to the point that it would represent a glaringly obvious omission if we were not to post this. Insert "control of" after "wins" in the blurb. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's big news that the senate changed hands. (Whether it will actually matter remains to be seen though.) Dragons flight (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The President was never going to change in this, nor was anyone on the entire executive. I don't see this as a hugely big deal in any event: the way power is subdivided in America lessens the importance of any one branch in particular - you have the three arms of government (courts, executive, legislature) that are by and large independent of each other, and at two distinct levels - federal and state - where at lot of the real power still resides at the lower level. A change in composition of one of those branches and at one level does not amount to earth-shattering significance, especially when the President can veto anything to come out of the Capitol. General election, fine, that results in larger changes. This? Not so much.
Put another way, why is this single election more important than the equivalent in any other country? If it isn't how is posting this remotely justifiable? How does this not show systemic bias if it is posted for no reason other than it is America? 3142 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Russian legislative election, 2011 and Talk:Russian presidential election, 2012 say both were ITN. The Russian President appoints the government. There are many countries where we post both legislature and head of state, for example France 2012 only a month apart. Countries have different election systems and distribution of powers. Opponents are selecting criteria which apply to few countries and have little to do with the significance of the election. We post many ceremonial heads of state with little or no influence. We post many rubber stamp parliaments in dictatorships. We post North Korean show elections with no meaning whatsoever. US midterm elections are a major national election with big global influence and interest. The election is real and determines which party controls the legislature in the World's most powerful country. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Any count of actual votes, paying attention to their wording, gives a 12-6 support to post this change of government. Can an admin please honor this overwhelming support? Am I missing sumfing? μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. Why not try countering some of the arguments raised? 3142 (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Not a top level election, does not change who controls the Congress/Parliament as a whole in the US because of the bicameral legislature. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 05:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Um, have you even read the constitution, Bzeezil? The Senate approves all treaties, Supreme Court nominations, Cabinet positions, and impeaches. Nor does any law pass without its consent. You seemed to have missed sumfin, and it's still two to one above in favor of posting given the change of majority party, μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
We cannot allow American interests to dominate this institution. To post this election, and to not have posted the one that took place in St Thomas and Prince, that's a travesty. I cannot believe that this is being tolerated. If we are in the business of rejecting elections for being parochial matters, we must uniformly apply that principle. This is a purely parochial matter, and should not appear here. The minutiae of some old American rag is hardly of any importance. Instead, we should focus on thinking about the consequences of our actions, and how we shame Wikipedia by giving preference to American postings that are of little interest abroad. RGloucester 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
An absolutely absurd claim. Of little interest abroad? Weird how it's the top article on the BBC, the Guardian (UK edition), the Times of London, and the Financial Times (UK homepage). Or that it's got links on the main pages of news sources in countries from China to Australia to South Africa.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting. The opposes are not based on policy nor rational arguments. Jehochman Talk 06:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I find that comment insulting. And ITNR is not policy, nor avoiding undue emphasis? 3142 (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please revert Jehochman's posting of this ITN? Consensus does not support it. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't be absurd. This isn't April 1. Of course we are posting this news story. Consensus is not determined by counting votes, especially illogical, pointy or trolling ones. Jehochman Talk 07:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments, which you not only have ignored but instead of responding to them directly, you've resorted to attacking two editors who have objected to your close and posting. I've never seen a news item posted to ITN against consensus so fast in my entire life. Clearly, there is something wrong here. At this very moment, many US states are still counting votes at this time, yet the only news outlet claiming victory is Fox News. Jehochman, I think you need to revert your close and have someone else review the consensus in this discussion. Your judgment in this matter is poor and should be reviewed. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You are making false statements. Go check the NY Times, BBC, Reuters and Le Monde. They are all running this as the top story. Jehochman Talk 07:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Or the Guardian , the Times of London, the Economist, the Financial Times, Deutsche Welle, El País...the list goes on and on.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull and support. Never thought I'd do that. I think this should be posted; however, I can't see how the above discussion can be described as consensus; to me, it looks like deeply divided opinion, and I don't think you can classify it as 'irrational' 'not...rational arguments' (and doing so swerves dangerously close to a personal attack, IMO). GoldenRing (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You are misquoting. Please be more accurate. There is a strong consensus to post. Please read all the comments fully. You will see that some of the opposes say things like 'unless control changes' which it did. Jehochman Talk 07:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No, Jehochman. The opposes are based on policy and rational arguments, consensus is determined by the quality of arguments not multiple personal attacks by you, or false statements and misquotes. Every news index reports that votes are still being counted. I don't give a rat's ass about this election. What I care about is your extremely poor judgment in determining consensus and in posting this ITN before the votes had been counted. You can spout off all kinds of excuses, but this discussion shows you're wrong. There's no consensus for this to be added to ITN yet you added it anyway. That's the problem, Jehochman, and the fact that this concerns votes still being counted shows that you don't have the necessary judgment to work on ITN, as this kind of controversial posting requires careful deliberation and weighing of consensus. I've never seen anyone add this kind of controversial item to ITN this fast ever before, and your extreme hurry to do so in the face of no consensus is the issue. Frankly, I think you should be banned from ITN. Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I do apologise for such a horrendous misquote. I feel absolutely awful. I've fixed it now. Still a personal attack, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Your opinion maybe humble, yet it is also sarcastic and mistaken, as I explained on your talk page. Viriditas' comment is so far out, I can hardly respond. There have been no personal attacks on this thread, except the ones leveled by Viriditas. There were 12 supports to 7 opposes, and the supports won by force of logic (and numbers). It is verifiable that the election results were reported by major news outlets around the world, and that this was the top story. We have extensive, thoroughly updates articles about the election, so it is convincing to say that we should post them promptly for the sake of our readers. Thank you for your comments. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support/Keep No offence. Country with largest GDP has an election. Sounds like a good enough reason to post for me. Besides, all news is covering this75.73.114.111 (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support/Keep even if this isn't on ITNR (and I'm not going to try and work that out) this is a big news story. Lack of ITNR != can't post. In fact, this is getting more coverage than many elections that are on ITNR! BencherliteTalk 11:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As someone neutral, reading the discussion above, there is consensus to post given shift in power. However as a suggestion can the posting admin (in this case Jechochman) please do not just discard all opposes by saying they are not based on policy or weren't rational. Its unhelpful as some opposes were very much rational. -- Ashish-g55 15:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull now Even if it gets posted again a minute or two later by an admin who evaluates this properly. Like some of the others I object strongly to having by arguments labeled "not rational" when the reasons for my position were in the very post where I objected. Indeed in seems that even many of the supporters of posting eventually accepted this was not ITNR as I was asserting. That was done by reference to policy considerations which counters the second point used in justification of the post. Not that the arguments matter: "This isn't April 1. Of course we are posting this news story." Presumably therefore, it doesn't matter what gets decided here, Jenochman know best. I'm sorry but that attitude and this line of reasoning are not acceptable regardless of the outcome, and s/he needs to be admonished for it. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There are forums for you to formally do so if that's what you want. I concede that there are people who believe this not to be ITNR but I don't believe that; we have also posted many elections where the (elected) head of state is not on the ballot. Either way, pulling this only to repost it is just wrapping this situation up in bureaucracy. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The item should remain posted. Under all the circumstances, the objections are entirely unpersuasive, although I grant that some are more sensible than others. There was consensus in support of posting when the item was posted and there is still consensus now (and frankly, if there weren't such consensus something would be seriously wrong). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I am willing to construe that as a reasoned and balanced evaluation of the discussion so I withdraw my request. A lot of aggro could have been avoided if it had been decided like that rather that in the derogatory terms used by Jenochman. And yes, there is something seriously wrong - current ITNR elections policy which is far too unselective, and whose reform has been repeatedly blocked by a few editors who refuse to accept that they need to show consensus for their arguments for continuing inclusion. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you claiming that there is not consensus for national elections on ITNR? 331dot (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I would regard it as self-evident that consensus does not exist for the current formulation, you only need to read through the current WT:ITNR and virtually every page of the archives to see that this is hotly contested and only a small minority are happy with the anything goes mentality for this one subject area above all others. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Just because there is disagreement on how to implement posting elections doesn't mean there is no consensus for posting them in general. If you wish to begin a discussion to remove or alter the listing, you are free to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • support alt blurb There is no question now that this gain in house and switch in the senate is the case, the only question is how far the gains/switch go. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2014 (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] Arrest in 43-student Iguala, Mexico suspected mass kidnapping/murderEdit

Posted, in a different and more relevant guise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (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: 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The fugitive ex-mayor of Iguala, Mexico, and his wife are arrested in the disappearance of 43 college students
Alternative blurb: ​Civil unrest continues across Mexico in the wake of the disappearance of 43 college students.
News source(s): Fox BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Forty-three college students on their way to a protest were abducted in Iguala, Mexico in September. Authorities believe the former Mayor of the town and his wife, who became fugitives after the disappearance, masterminded their murder by the Guerreros Unidos drug syndicate. The couple, among Mexico's most wanted, were arrested Tuesday in Mexico City. Besides the size of the kidnapping (bodies have been found, but not identified) the involvement of a city mayor and his wife in a crime of such magnitude and their capture after a federal manhunt is notable in the extreme. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Additional comments: I would rephrase the line to focus less on the arrest and more on the civil unrest such as tonights assault on the palace of government in Mexico City (also nationwide protests, strikes and the resignation of the Governor of Guerrero). It should also be noted that although Guerreros Unidos have taken responsibility for the murders and disposal of the bodies, the police who abducted the students and gave them to the cartel henchmen were municipal police and presumably acted under direct orders from the mayor. That means that the admissions of direct guilt from the henchmen in no way exonerates Abarca. Nonetheless, just as with the Ferguson case, what is important is the social impact and unrest caused by the event, not questions of individual guilt.This is basically Ferguson X 43. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a major event in the Iguala incident. The mayor and her wife became Mexico's most-wanted overnight, and their arrest is vital in the location of the students. I believe that only this and the eventual location and identification of the bodies are fit for ITN. ComputerJA () 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article is very good and it is certainly newsworthy. Let's hope for the best. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per the rationale given. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose arrested? So what? Charged with something? So what? Guilty of mass murder? Now you're talking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    Not really what you meant, but I am reminded that Mexico's legal system usually assumes guilt and requires the accused to prove otherwise [53]. Judicial reforms, which are supposed to become effective in a few years, are supposed to change that, but we'll have to see what effect it has in practice. In the mean time, the word you are actually looking for is "convicted". As in they haven't been convicted yet. Dragons flight (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    No, I'm still not getting it. Is the mayor guilty of their murders? Is this just a "charge"? It's still entirely unclear to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    Essentially, in Mexico, you are presumed guilty as soon as you are charged. You are entitled (though not required) to try and use the legal system to prove otherwise. There hasn't been a court proceeding yet, but they would still be considered "guilty" because of the way the Mexican legal system is framed, with no presumption of innocence. Essentially, they were found "guilty" by the prosecutor who charged them with a crime, and now they would have to establish otherwise. There certainly hasn't been a final outcome by any means, which is presumably what you are asking about, but the concept of "guilty" / "not guilty" as practiced by much of the world doesn't map very well onto the Mexican legal structure. Dragons flight (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, one last attempt. What are they guilty of? What crime? Are we trying to post something about somebody who is actually not convicted of anything? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    No court has convicted them of anything, which is probably the most relevant answer I can give you. The initial detention is pursuant to four other murders, with additional charges regarding the 43 disappeared students and various forms of corruption (e.g. accepting cartel bribes) still pending as far as I can tell. Dragons flight (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks for your patience in explaining this to me. Definitely still an oppose then, this is purely speculative and means nothing whatsoever other than making a few tawdry headlines. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would this be a potential "ongoing" item? Looking at the article, it seems to be well updated with new developments. SpencerT♦C 20:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I support an ongoing item. Authorities are still looking for mass graves and other players involved. Maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg. ComputerJA () 20:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Ongoing would make sense if we knew this were ongoing. (What's ongoing is corruption and the drug war.) What we know is 43 protestors in a bus disappeared at the end of September, 22 arrested policemen have implicated the couple, and that the Mayor and his wife were arrested today. Given they were the top wanted fugitives in Mexico and the number of people presumably murdered, today's developments are blurb-worthy, not ongoing material. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as it is ongoing. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ? Epicgenius are you saying you oppose this as a blurb? If so, what do you nominate as the "ongoing" title? I can't think of anything shorter than Iguala, Mexico massacre, which begs the question. I suggest we vote on the nom as is or propose a fully formatted alternative. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Medeis: No, I do not oppose this. I am supporting because it's an ongoing event, and is notable as well. Sorry for any confusion. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both ITN and Ongoing. This is definitely ITN material when/if a conviction is handed down. But until then saying anything would be just crystal-balling. WinterWall (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think what is being said above is that in Mexico they wouldn't have been arrested unless the government had made a determination that they were guilty; that is why is is being proposed now. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Conviction != charged. If this happened in a common law country and the suspect is both arrested and charged I would still oppose it. The guy's in jail already. He's not getting way. There's no hurry. Let's just wait for the conviction. WinterWall (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Winterwall seems to have missed the fact that these were not just charged defendants, they were federal fugitives on the Most Wanted list. Compare it to the many "drug king pins" we have listed. Given that fact, this is about to be marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Earlier this year, Medeis opposed the ITN posting of Joaquín Guzmán Loera's arrest on BLP grounds. Specifically, she said: "He's not been convicted of current charges." WinterWall (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A central key to this story is that the mayor and his wife were high profile fugitives; while it is not a conviction, their arrest ends that segment of the story, which is worth posting given the considerable effects it has had in Mexico. SpencerT♦C 01:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • marked ready: updated and overwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are good BLP reasons for waiting for convictions, rather than posting arrests. Indeed, as WinterWall notes, this is a point that Medeis has made before. Neljack (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Hold up, this might make for a better and fuller story when we actual have a trial conclusion, this seems premature at the moment.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this stage. As the above have already noted it seems premature prior to a conviction. If the claim is that the arrests are themselves notable the story boils down to "Wanted couple captured". That doesn't sound like ITN material to me. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
This is still 6 to 4 support, and the issue is not the indictment of a non-fleeing person but the capture of fugitives suspected in a single murder of 49 people. Guzman didn't disappear the day after 43 people went missing in the town of which he was mayor. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, 6 to 5, not that it's a huge deal.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This looks like a significant story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't support posting about arrests. Convictions... yes. Arrests... no. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. Since when do we start posting allegations? "The fugitive mayor of Iguala was detained on Tuesday for allegedly giving the order to intercept them". (BBC). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as premature: People can be arrested for a wide variety of reasons and ITN should not be used to needlessly sully a person's reputation. Combining a U.S. Consulate summary report on Mexican criminal law and the report in the FOX News story that the mayor and his wife are "in the custody of the Attorney General's Office" indicates the case is still being investigated and has not yet been turned over to a court to determine “probable responsibility". While it is difficult to make exact comparisons to common law equivalents, it is clear that events have not yet reached the equivalent of an indictment (formal charges). As a result it is far too early to post this item. --Allen3 talk 17:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we shouldn't be posting arrests / allegations (especially in relation to such a sensational crime) on the front page of one of the world's busiest websites, per the above opposes. BencherliteTalk 17:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The news is not the arrest but the social unrest the entire case has caused. teh fact is 43 students kidnapped by police turn up dead. That is news by any measure. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Correction the newsworthiness of the story here is not that a mayor was charged, but that he and his wife were on the run for over a month, and apprehended as the most-wanted fugitives in Mexico. I seriously suggest people actually read the article, especially regarding their flight on Sep 30, before treating this like a usual arrest at the scene or indictment and surrender negotiated by lawyers. The fact a former president was invoved is also interesting. I can't think of a single comparable story. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No, obviously you can't, because the incumbent in the Philippine case turned himself in three days later in a surrender negotiated by lawyers. No trial is needed to show that the couple in this case were month-long fugitives at the top of the nation's most-wanted list. The nomination has nothing to do with them being convicted, but on the run and captured. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, consensus is to post convictions only. Abductive (reasoning) 04:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, which conviction put the Ferguson riots on the mainpage?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall the 2014 Ferguson unrest article being posted. I did not comment in that debate. Also, I have not commented on the Mexican Ayotzinapa protests nomination above yet. Abductive (reasoning) 16:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if not the arrest then the social unrest provoked by the dissappearance. SHould have been on the front page long ago, but is still ongoing so it is not too late.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    Of course you are aware that others have taken responsibility for the murders, this story is a dead duck, and should never have been anywhere near the main page, thank goodness for level-headed thinking where we reflect on genuine crimes rather than pure unadulterated hyperbolic conjecture. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You dont seem to know much about this actually. The killings have been admitted by cartel murderes but the kidnappings and torture and killing of at least one student was carried out by municipal police under the orders of Abarca. This is 43 times Ferguson. Which was on the mainpage. And should be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem to know anything. This is all conjecture. Once we get a conviction, we'll consider posting it. Until then, you have nothing. Alternatively, propose an alt blurb which is worthwhile considering. In the scheme of things, these "protests" are small change. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Ignorance is bliss it seems. And just for the record fuck your "scheme of things", 43 families are missing their loved ones and know that police are to blame, that is not "small change" and claiming so is incredibly offensive. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Given how weak the alt blurb is, and that it's about to drop off the ITNC page, I'd suggest a new nomination with a well thought blurb to reinforce the significance, i.e "tens of thousands protest against..." (or similar) to allow those who "don't know much about this actually" to get a clue. After all this is English Wikipedia, not Mexican Gangland Wikipedia. And I'll let the unnecessary offensive language pass, this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice touch with the gratuitous racism. Classy shit, and all without four letter words.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
No idea what you're saying. This whole nomination failed from the start when it was unclear what we were discussing. It's still unclear. Initially it was the mayor commanding the death of students, then it was police corralling students to their death, then gangland murderers were roped in, now it's about the "mass protests". What on earth is happening? (and leave the emotional outbursts at the door please, this is an encyclopedia, we're not here to do the "right thing"). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2014 (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: Jackie FairweatherEdit

Article: Jackie Fairweather (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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

 --NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 08:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • OpposeSupport Though she was a former world triathlon champion and her death seems to have been very sudden - the article is barely long enough to be called an article. Challenger l (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    The article is of sufficient size to meet the requirements for inclusion at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected :) Challenger l (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 as important to her field. News stories describe her as very influential to her sport in Australia. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose In my mind some combination of the sum "quality article + major news event" is needed from my point of view. Shortcomings in one aspect can be made up for in others (that is, lesser events with outstanding articles; or major events with less quality articles would both be postable) Our article is very minimal, so to counteract that the death would need to be a major, headline event. I don't see that. If we could flesh out the article some (it's BARELY more than a stub) with some significant biography of her life, I'd change this to support. But right now, I can't see either interest OR article quality as being a reason to support this. --Jayron32 13:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, no indication of update or sources given. I have not seen this noted in any of the news aggregators I frequent. Was she a medal winner? μηδείς (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - @Jayron32 and Medeis: See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. There is more but I just listed enough IMO. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 04:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)—
    The basis for my opposition was not the existence of news articles about the person's death, so providing those does not alter anything. --Jayron32 12:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    If your intent is to help, NG39, rather than swamp, put the two or three best references, preferably from different continents, in he nomination template, and give the diff of the update. Throwing stuff to see what sticks doesn't convince me to do the nominators work for him. μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think that by posting those they are asserting that it is a top story that outweighs a short article. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – The article is looking good now. --Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 08:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Subject was not at the top of her field (no Olympic medals), and was not well-known outside of Australia. --Tocino 06:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no requirement that someone be well known worldwide(in fact purely geographic objections are considered invalid as stated on this page), only that they meet one of the 3 RD criteria. In this case, according to news stories about her death, she was very influential to her sport in Australia. While she won no Olympic medals, she won three World Championship Gold medals and other medals. "Very important" to a field doesn't necessarily mean "top of her field". 331dot (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Melbourne CupEdit

Article: 2014 Melbourne Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: Protectionist wins the 2014 Melbourne Cup.
Alternative blurb: ​In horse racing, Protectionist, ridden by Ryan Moore, wins the Melbourne Cup.

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.

 NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 05:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Mild support half-decent article, could the dead link be addressed and the journalistic tone ("fighting for his life...") be addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm Australian, but just for some perspective, the Melbourne Cup has the second-largest purse ($6.2 million) of any horse race, and this year's race was attended by over 100,000 people and had around $800 million gambled on it. IgnorantArmies 10:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@IgnorantArmies: Since this is on the recurring items list, debating the merits of posting it is not necessary; only article quality needs to be evaluated and a blurb agreed to. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but since these things often don't get posted on ITN until days after the event, it doesn't hurt to put something down that will stop other editors/admins from just scrolling past. IgnorantArmies 12:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment this is good to go, marked as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a surprisingly large number of articles about this event. May I suggest changing blurb to accurately capture the theme of the articles? Jehochman Talk 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - after posting. just for the record, its notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

November 3Edit


RD: Tom MagliozziEdit

Article: Tom Magliozzi (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NPR.org CNN BBC Daily Mail The Telegram

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

 --—Akrabbimtalk 20:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • There's a lot of other better sources we could use that aren't from the station that hosted the show to show significance, though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Unsurprisingly, coverage is already a lot fuller (and the story seems to be bouncing between the top 2 and 3 on google news). Also front page of BBC News, which is surprising for a US radio host.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not convinced that he was a very important figure in the field of broadcasting. Neljack (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Well-known, national radio figure. When Car Talk finished its run, it was getting 3.3 million listeners per week, which is pretty big for a radio broadcast. List of most-listened-to radio programs would place the show at 13th on the list; it was also on the air for 25 years on a national level, carried by 660 stations. That's an impressive run for a host. --Jayron32 22:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak weak support I'm conflicted on this because I do think they (as the brothers) are well known in the States, but it's very difficult to qualify his as top of the field for radio broadcasting and considering international reknown. I'd opt on support posting, but I think this is a very middle-of-the-line case. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to meet DC2 in the field of radio broadcasting. Also getting some(if limited) international coverage. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose very minor media figure who meets no ITN criteria. Certainly not an award winner, top of his field, or influential in any way. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
We're talking radio, not all media(which would disqualify many people from RD if that broad a category was required). 3.3 million is nothing to sneeze at for a radio program. The article states he and his brother won a Peabody Award for "distinguished achievement and meritorious public service". 331dot (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, one half of a public radio duo. Show was one of 35 awarded a Peabody that year. And I was a regular listener. Abductive (reasoning) 01:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I feel he was much more notable and certainly more unique than many of the posted RD I've seen, IMO. Zeniff (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Abductive. An award, but nothing special. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man, I agree that the Peabody alone is not enough for this to be a posted recent death. However, I think the rationale of being one of the most recognized figures in both public radio and entertainment radio is what this should be base more on. Cheers, Yaksar (let's chat) 16:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
While the supports are POV-ous? 77 y/o radio host dies? Come on, give us a better rationale than name calling. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Those familiar with Tom Magliozzi's persona on Car Talk will understand that it's a joke. Sca (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
PS: Being 77 does not disqualify one from ITN. Sca (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Minor figure as part of a public radio programme on motorcars in one country. Doesn't meet any of the criteria for RD. I don't see how such a person is "top of his field", or any such similar thing. RGloucester 20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It was (and its reruns still are) one of the top rated and listened to radio programs. This is making some news in the UK and Canada, indicating some level of notability outside the US. Radio broadcasting is still a field. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment He was also a voice on the Pixar film Cars, appeared in an episode of Arthur, and even co-starred on his own PBS animated series Click and Clack's As the Wrench Turns. I think this shows his notability and goes beyond "just radio". Zeniff (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well-known in one particular country because of contributions to one particular field in that country. Does not meet criteria for RD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Demiurge1000: As stated on this page, purely geographical objections are not valid. There is no requirement for worldwide renown or worldwide effects on a field. What matters is if this man meets the recent deaths criteria; the relevant one in this case #2- "very important" to their field. Also note this person has gotten notable coverage in the UK. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
That's the problem - he's not "very important" to the field. Btw, what is "notable coverage"? Coverage that meets WP:GNG in itself? So that we could have an article UK media coverage of Tom Magliozzi, for example? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, but that's not what you said originally(well-known in one country.....). Have you examined the page and reporting on his death? Had the top-rated radio program for many years(even in reruns). I am not proposing a new article; only saying that he clearly was known outside of the US if UK media reported his death. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
He was in the movie Cars and other TV programs, even though he was not an actor. I think this demonstrates his notability as he is so well-known in his field that he is portrayed in other fields/media. Zeniff (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] One World Trade Center opensEdit

Okay, let's expend some of that healthy energy on other candidates now, shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2014 (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: One World Trade Center (talk, history)
Blurb: One World Trade Center (pictured), the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere at 1,776 feet (541 m), opens.
News source(s): WSJ Fox News CSMonitor BBC The Hindu
Nominator's comments: When I nominated 1WTC after it was topped off in May 2013, I was told it might be posted when it opens. Well, Conde Nast moves in today. Also, the article is GA. --– Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We should have posted this when construction started.--WaltCip (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support doesn't matter if it is the tallest in whatever corner of the world, and posting this when construction started is "inappropriate" to put it nicely. What IS important about this is that this is The WTC. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment On Czech wikipedia: ″The tallest building in the Western Hemisphere New York skyscraper, One World Trade Center was open for business, fourteen years after the devastating attack.″ Links to List of tallest buildings in the world, Western Hemisphere, New York City, One World Trade Center and September 11 attacks.--Jenda H. (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    Interesting but irrelevant I'm afraid. Whatever is posted on cz.wiki is up to the editors there. This is a different wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It is just for inspiration what articles can be included. --82.117.137.132 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Nergaal. This has significance far beyond being the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, which would be important enough to post anyway. The opening of the building is the milestone we've been waiting for in previous discussions, and it's here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support An opening is nothing more than a symbolic formal gesture, however this is the tallest building in the Western hemisphere, which is a noteworthy record for the front page. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support -- In part because of the height significance, but mostly because of the more obvious historical context significance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    Request, once again, that User:David Levy, if he has a chance, can add a suitable image here, to replace the rather boring photo of a run-of-the-mill baseball player. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    Done, Stephen 22:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull absolutely arbitrary event, let's just ignore that it took 14 years to build, the top third of the building is an empty shell, meant for show. It's basically a radio tower with a little skyscraper on the bottom. Certainly not influential or award winning or top of its field in any way. μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull per μηδείς. Basically the tallest building in the world if you exclude the bit with all the tall buildings in it, and restrict your definition of 'building' to exclude all the tallest ones. Posted after, oh, five hours of 'discussion'. slow clap GoldenRing (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The completion/occupancy of the primary building at the site of the 9/11 attacks is a notable event and not arbitrary, as it is a sign of recovery and moving forward. The Western Hemisphere is a common way of dividing the Earth and is also not arbitrary. There is no requirement that ITN events be "award winning" or "top of their field"(RD, yes, but not ITN in general) This is news around the world(including India) 331dot (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support A significant event which is being covered by major news sources, a good article (GA level even) to put on the main page. I can find no reason to object to showing off one of the better articles at English Wikipedia to the world on our front page. This is certainly a current event, and we have a great article about it. Why not post it? --Jayron32 01:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support, because the consensus in the previous debate was "wait" until it opens, and those people who commented there but not here deserve to be heard. Abductive (reasoning) 01:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support (possibly a conflict of interest vote; I am the editor who got this to GA status). Many media have been using this as a symbol for 9/11 recovery, etc. Besides, the article had a failed ITN nomination 2 years ago precisely because it didn't open; now it's open, so I think ITN is a good place to showcase the article. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (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.

November 2Edit


[Posted] 2014 Wagah border suicide attackEdit

Article: 2014 Wagah border suicide attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A suicide attack at Wagah, Pakistan, kills more than 60 people, injuring a further 200.
News source(s): BBC

 The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support A major attack. Neljack (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A major attack at a notable location. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a major attack; however, suicide attacks happen often in Pakistan, so this should be posted with caution. Epicgenius (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nik WallendaEdit

Article: Nik Wallenda (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Aerialist Nik Wallenda successfully breaks the world record for the steepest incline for tightrope walking between two buildings, as well as the record for the highest blindfolded high-wire walk.
News source(s): Reuters Time Fox News Today USA Today CNN

Nominator's comments: Two Guinness world records were broken. Andise1 (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article needs a separate updated section like other events listed in the article. SpencerT♦C 04:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nik Wallenda's exploits are visually impressive (I enjoyed watching the Grand Canyon video), but ultimately of no great significance. Personally, I would say that if we are going to post world records, they need to be in areas that are frequently contested so that the achievement is clearly remarkable (e.g. fastest marathon race, greatest weight lifted, etc.). Esoteric world records, such as most consecutive jumps on pogo stick, probably shouldn't be on ITN. For all its pageantry and inherent risk, Wallenda's performances are ultimately more the latter than the former, in my opinion. For what it is worth, Wallenda was nominated twice in the past for walking Niagra Falls and walking the Grand Canyon. He was posted on ITN for the first but not the second. Dragons flight (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose really good material for a DYK, but as for significance and newsworthiness? Not a chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Dragons flight. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose with a heavy heart. Chicago is a city with a special place in my heart, and I really do enjoy stunts like this, but this isn't going to sway me from completely agree with Dragons flight's reasoning. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sadly. This is less suited for news than a Did You Know. Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Great article and interesting feat. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral This did get a decent level of coverage in the British breakfast news yesterday as overnight news but it fizzled out relatively quickly. I also sympathise with Dragon's Flight concerning the sheer number of records diminishing the category as a whole. There's more to records than Olympic style faster, higher, stronger records of athletic achievement but when the record becomes more about inclination and motivation than anything else it is beginning to sink a bit low. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[posted] RD: Acker BilkEdit

Article: Acker Bilk (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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

Nominator's comments: A "legendary" jazz clarinettist and internationally renown for Stranger on the Shore which was in the UK charts for a year. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Per nom. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. But where's your blurb Mr. Rambler? ("The clarion of the Town Hall clock in the Hungarian city of Szeged plays Stranger on the Shore at the top of each hour.")? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    No blurb required for RD, obviously. But nice corollary info. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously. But what a shame. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Of course, you're more than welcome to suggest a blurb if you think one is warranted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD or a blurb (if suggested). Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • SUpport RD. Neutral on blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Bilk had a fine career, but is hardly blurb-worthy, in my view. Jusdafax 03:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD supposing the article update is there but oppose blurb - this is the sort of thing RD is for. GoldenRing (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD I was just coming on here to nominate it! Miyagawa (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Per above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Jayron32 12:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 1Edit


[Closed] RD: Brittany MaynardEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2014 (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: Brittany Maynard (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Was apparently an important figure in the "Death with Dignity" movement--ABC News says she was "the face" of this movement (see above link). --Jinkinson talk to me 17:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an interesting human interest story, but the timing is all wrong for a major development in the Death With Dignity movement. The major news developments in this area came in the late 1990s-early 2000s (see Jack Kevorkian or Terri Schiavo case for examples), we're about a decade too late for this to be a major news story. Oregon's death with dignity law was passed in 1994, and this was hardly the first test thereof. As I said, it's a good story, but this is not a major development in the doctor-assisted-suicide/death-with-dignity etc. storyline anymore. If this had happened 10 years ago, this would have been all in the news. But it isn't a big deal today. --Jayron32 17:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'll concede that she weakly meets DC#2 for her role as a right-to-die advocate, but her "career" in that role was way too short (just a few months, I think), and the article doesn't really convince me that there's any long-term impact or importance to this story. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support we posted Stephen Sutton who created a real wave for the knowingly terminally ill. The fact that we have someone advertising their death date and going through with it is newsworthy, it is' still a big deal for the majority of readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose thousands kill themselves daily, very few have press agents, and this one didn't set any precedent or win any award. μηδείς (talk) 6:02 pm, Today (UTC−5)
  • Weak oppose. If this was the first case under Oregon's law, it might be notable enough- but she wasn't the first case. I would disagree that this doesn't set a precedent, though, as other states are looking at this matter to pass their own laws and Maynard had asked her family to work for that after her death. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have over 30K suicides in the U.S. yearly. According to sources, "Death with Dignity" was used to assist suicide in over 700 people in Oregon. Also, her representation for "Death with Dignity" was very short. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2014 (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.

Breeders' Cup ClassicEdit

Articles: Breeders' Cup Classic (talk, history) and Bayern (horse) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The racehorse Bayern wins the 2014 running of the Breeders' Cup Classic.
Alternative blurb: ​"The racehorse Bayern wins the 2014 Breeders' Cup Classic."
News source(s): http://www.breederscup.com/results/2014/classic

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: Richest horse race in North America, $5 million purse --Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose there are about 3 horceracing items in ITNR already, and this prize pool isn't much larger, and the audience is much, much smaller than some e-ports events (a topic which has yet to be featured on ITN). Nergaal (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Comment it's not really relevant in the slightest that we haven't featured an "e-ports event", nor particularly that there are horse racing items on ITNR. Nominations stand on their own. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Nominator's reply: I agree with TRM, and also this year's Breeders' Cup is interesting and newsworthy because both last year's two-year-old champion AND the Kentucky Derby winner competed and both were defeated by a quirky horse with an inconsistent record. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS- or doesn't - isn't relevant here, nor is ITNR, the race doesn't have to be mentioned every year, and I am NOT arguing for an ITNR listing (at this point in time, anyway). Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Would suggest a blurb more like "The racehorse Bayern wins the Breeders' Cup Classic." It would be great if we could get decent individual articles on these Classic races, like 2014 Grand National, is that possible? The Rambling Man (talk)
    Added alt blurb similar to your porposal. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if Bayern gets an excellent update or 2014 Breeders' Cup becomes a decent article. Unfortunately I don't have time myself to do that. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    Comment: Bayern (horse) was updated. I removed emphasis on the race, though there was some updating of Breeders' Cup Classic to add 2014. If you need more, can you comment on the talk page of the respective articles? I'd be glad to do a bit more, but Bayern is pretty solid B-clas as it sits It was newly-created about a month ago, and was at DYK, so I'm not sure there is a problem here? As for 2014, the Breeders' Cup is a two-day series of 13 races, tough to get a whole article up in time for ITN to be timely; easier when it's just one race, like the Kentucky Derby. Doubt you'll see much more added to the 2014 article, I think all of those are mostly charts. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Melbourne Cup is ITN/R and ready to post. I don't think two horse races in the template at once is a proportionate level of coverage. Justin Urquhart Stewart (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Juncker CommissionEdit

Article: Juncker Commission (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Juncker Commission, the European Commission that is due to serve as the European Union's executive body until 2019, assumes office.
Alternative blurb: ​The Juncker Commission, the European Commission that is due to serve as the European Union's executive body until 2019, takes office after being appointed by the European Council and approved by the European Parliament.
News source(s): http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1237_en.htm?locale=en

Nominator's comments: Important political event --Yakikaki (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe this was news when the Commission was confirmed by the EP, on 22 October. --Tone 19:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have a full understanding of the internal structures of the EU, but typically inaugurations or the assuming of offices are not posted; it should have been posted when this body was chosen(if it was news then). 331dot (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see that it has been in the news before, actually – that was part of the reason why I nominated it. As for the other concern, how about the altblurb? I see the point with focusing on the election of the body, but in this case the election process is so prolonged and involves several different actors (for a summary, see Juncker_Commission#Election, that it may be better to sum it up when all is said and done, perhaps? Yakikaki (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Important body. Necessary to wait for confirmation before posting so this is the right time. Iselilja (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Can you explain why it's important? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I have some keyboard problems right now which makes it hard to type, but I think importance is practically self-evident for those who know European politics. It's simpy an enourmous important institution in laying out politics for practically all European countries. New commission only every five years. We post new WMF leader, new chair of Federal Reserve etc; this commission is at least as important. Iselilja (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I oppose based on very weak article quality and lack of real newsworthiness, I'm not seeing this this being widely discussed anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - important.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    Can you explain why it's important? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Commission has a busy and comprehensive agenda; this is first time the president was appointed by the European Parliament. Fresh blood after ten years of Barroso, and Juncker has already made some waves by reorganizing how the European Commission functions. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - International interest, article appears to be ok, and as pointed out above this is a once in five years event with changes being made as a result. Jusdafax 01:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)