:::Whereas, at risk of being accused of pointiness yet again, I can only observe that Maeve Binchy won what amounts to at least three or four equivalent lifetime achievement awards in Ireland ''and'' the UK. If national-level lifetime achievements awards do not improve a writer's chances when won more than once, they can hardly do so when won only once surely? --[[Special:Contributions/86.40.106.208|86.40.106.208]] ([[User talk:86.40.106.208|talk]]) 23:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Whereas, at risk of being accused of pointiness yet again, I can only observe that Maeve Binchy won what amounts to at least three or four equivalent lifetime achievement awards in Ireland ''and'' the UK. If national-level lifetime achievements awards do not improve a writer's chances when won more than once, they can hardly do so when won only once surely? --[[Special:Contributions/86.40.106.208|86.40.106.208]] ([[User talk:86.40.106.208|talk]]) 23:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::The thread about Maeve Binchy is down there somewhere. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 23:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::The thread about Maeve Binchy is down there somewhere. [[User:FormerIP|Formerip]] ([[User talk:FormerIP|talk]]) 23:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::It is. But the two died at more or less the same time and the comparison offered above is relevant to any consideration that Gore Vidal may be more notable on the basis of lifetime achievement awards accumulated. --[[Special:Contributions/86.40.106.208|86.40.106.208]] ([[User talk:86.40.106.208|talk]]) 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Somali security forces kill two suicide bombers trying to infiltrate a meeting of 825 Somali elders discussing the country's new constitution in Mogadishu. (AP via Chron.com)
Nominator's comments: Other than the annual ITN/R film awards this is the major poll of interest to cineastes. Of note this year is that this is the first time since 1952 when Citizen Kane hasn't won this poll. --yorkshiresky (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose That's interesting about Citizen Kane being unseated, but it seems UNDUE for the Vertigo article to get a major update as a result of this vote. Vertigo is commonly named as one of the ten best films of all time, so to move briefly to the top seems comparatively minor. I do agree that this is considered the top of the top in terms of "greatest films of all time" polls though, so if others disagree with my oppose, I won't complain. Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interesting. Notable. And the poll actually is relevant or significant, Sight and Sound's decade poll is a big deal. However, this particular items doesn't really seem like news though. 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Police in Norway evacuate the area surrounding the U.S. embassy in the capital Oslo after a suspicious package was discovered. It is later confirmed as a false alarm. (Reuters)
At least 21 people are killed in two car bomb blasts in Baghdad, Iraq. (BBC)
Advertiser accuses Facebook of fraud after discovering that 80% of the clicks they're paying for are from bots, and not actual potential customers. (Business Insider)
Following the @ reply and # hashtag, social media service Twitter introduces the $ symbol, a way for users to click on stock symbols and see related tweets. (CNN Money)
German global financial services company Deutsche Bank announces plans to cut 1,900 jobs. (Reuters)
In artistic gymnastics, the United States of America's women's team known as the Fierce Five (composed of members Aly Raisman, Gabby Douglas, Jordyn Wieber, McKayla Maroney, and Kyla Ross) wins the Olympic gold medal in the artistic team final, the second ever women's team gold medal for the United States, and the first to be won at an Olympics held outside the USA.
Support Top headline on both sides of the pond: high on NYT and CNN, 2nd highest on BBC, 3rd highest on Guardian, etc. Bestselling author, major cultural critic, and groundbreaking figure in gay literature. Khazar2 (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am in complete shock and saddened about his death, and that I first heard about his death it here of all places instead of my email. I knew Vidal personally and I was in constant contact with him for several years, seeking his advice regarding my history major. I first met Vidal back in 2009 through one of my journalism professors at Florida International University. She managed to get him to speak for one of the main events in the Miami International Book Fair. I volunteered to help organize the event which was a semi-private audience, and I managed to get a ticket despite being sold out within hours. Vidal came to discuss his career what was televised live on CSPAN. During a Q&A section, I asked a question about having a successful career with a journalism major in which he replied that reading books everyday is the only way to succeed in the field. After the event finished, I spoke to this girl handled the front gate and I went to high school. She got me backstage, and I saw Vidal on his wheelchair signing autographs and speaking to some of the organizers. I bought a couple of his books prior to the event to get autographed, but I decided wanted to get his advise further about the history field, and to my surprise he was willing to talk. We spoke about a hour about current journalism standards as Fox News and comparing politics from the 19th century to now. He gave his email and we kept in occasional contact until last July, when I had to stop school just short of completing it to recover from illness, and soon he got ill himself. Earlier tonight received a few text messages and a facebook message that he passed away but I was so occupied tonight so I didn't know until I decided to check my watchlist :( . Anyways, one of the biggest authors of the 21st century. Notability is unquestionable here. Will expand and work with the article if needed. It was a great honor of meeting him was probably the wisest human being I ever met, and one of my biggest influences ever. Secretaccount10:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the greatest respect and regards for the loss you feel (and thank you for sharing these interesting memories), I doubt if emotional attachment should be relied upon when accessing this (or, indeed, just about any other) nomination. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well known writer and a major influence on American culture. However, the update is still only one sentence. Someone should find some quotes and reaction to include (I don't have time right now). Modest Geniustalk11:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is US domestic news and a prime example of the main page's US centrism if it's added. Very few people other than heads of state and people in that league get it to the main page when they die. Vidal was merely an author, who didn't even win a Nobel Prize. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yes Vidal was an American writer, but one of that country's most eloquent contemporary observers and critics. His influence extended far beyond the USA. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the election of a Prime Minister of a state with 8 million inhabitants doesn't get included on ITN, the death of a single person who was neither a head of state, head of government, recipient of any preeminent awards, and who is chiefly known in one country/culture, doesn't get included either. We don't include the deaths of French authors famous in France or Chinese authors famous in China. This is not the US edition of the main page, it's the global main page. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestion that Vidal was an "American writer" of interest "only to Americans" is one that does not really bear close analysis. And established writers are generally better known (and often far better regarded) than new heads of state. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the article (which is rather short, considering his alleged importance), I see nothing in it indicating that he is ITN material. No preeminent awards, no offices held, and the article largely deals with outrageous sexist and racist statements by him, such as ""I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?" (regarding sexual abuse of a 13-year old), or him propagandizing against the "threat" of "40 to 50 million Bengalis" coming to live here. He appears to be a polemicist, chiefly known to a domestic audience of one country. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be? Whether I like or do not like right-wing American polemicists is immaterial. I had never heard of the guy before. I oppose US centrism on ITN because ITN is not for US domestic news. As someone mentioned, Maeve Binchy who is at least comparable to Vidal, was not posted. Thus we have a clear precedent. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The very, very obvious difference: Vidal's death was front-page news on both sides of the Atlantic (it's on BBC, AL Jazeera etc.). This suggests to me that it is of more international interest than you've so far acknowledged. I'd also point out that the Maeve Binchy nom is still open without a similar strong oppose from you, creating the appearance that your motivation has much more to with the US than with authors generally (whether you intend that or not). Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, two newer items than Maeve Binchy have been posted and the nomination was met with much opposition, both suggesting it's highly unlikely that Binchy will be posted. I see no reason to participate in old debates where the outcome has already de facto been decided. Also, Irish-centrism doesn't appear to be a problem for ITN right now. If Vidal is posted, then Binchy should be posted too. Ideally, neither of them should be posted. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again the bluntness of ITN leads us to these circular arguments. In all the conventional TV, radio and printed news outlets this issue did not arise - Maeve Binchy's death was news on Monday, Gore Vidal's death was news on Tuesday. But I suspect that weekly publications will mention both. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you find the same article that the rest of us have read (or contributed to), even on the distant shores of the UK, I hope you enjoy reading it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are U.S. sources on U.S. writer deaths given more value than non-U.S. sources on non-U.S. writer deaths? This is exactly the sort of thing Ireland is saying about Maeve Binchy. I don't see the difference. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it needs an update. This is not "US domestic news". We posted Christopher Hitchens, but Vidal is the real deal. Formerip (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been updated. It has been viewed 45934 times in the last 30 days, and this figure does not include traffic related to his death! Speciate (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently does not meet our minimum update requirements. We normally require at least five sentences and three references. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was also a top headline in the two UK sources I cited above suggests to me that he was, in fact, internationally known. In contrast, Binchy's death didn't get nearly the same coverage outside the UK/Ireland. Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English language press coverage does not equal "international". Did he get that much coverage in China or Russia or France? Either way, there seems to be a clear precedent that we do not post the death of people who are authors unless they have received an exceptional prize (Nobel) or there are other exceptional circumstances. Indeed, very few people and mostly heads of state get posted when they die. I see no outstanding/international recognitions, no office held that merits inclusion on ITN, and no other circumstances that merit inclusion. There are numerous more noteworthy authors alive today. As far as authors are concerned: At least a highly prestigious international prize in the given field (like the Nobel Prize for Literature) should be required for an article being posted on ITN upon the death of its subject. I only see various less notable domestic awards. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what precedent you're talking about. In the last few months alone, we've posted the deaths of Carlos Fuentes, Maurice Sendak, and Ray Bradbury, none of whom won the Nobel Prize. Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article Gore Vidal that suggests he merits inclusion on ITN. I see no significant international awards for his books. Actually, the part of the article dealing with his literary work is very short, and most of the article discusses his involement in polemicism on US domestic issues of very, very little international relevance. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's two schools of thought at ITN, representing ends of a spectrum. There's one school of thought that believes that a group of random Internet users should pass a snap judgement on topics they're unfamiliar with to determine the most important news; there's another that believes we should follow the guidance of reliable sources in judging an item's importance, such as international news sources like Al Jazeera, BBC, the New York Times, etc. I personally belong to the second school, but I realize that's still a controversial opinion. =) Khazar2 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the two schools are: The US centric tabloid school, where random (usually American) Internet users read the usual American newspapers and want to have the same headlines because that's what's important in their country right now, and the international school, which maintain that Wikipedia's main page is not a US edition of Wikipedia but an international encyclopedia, and adheres to principles of balance and a global perspective, and treats countries (whether the US, South Africa, France, China or Ireland) equally. It doesn't matter if I haven't heard of Vidal before, the only thing that matters is whether the article (which I've carefully read) demonstrates him to be sufficiently notable. It doesn't. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. I wasn't aware that the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and Al Jazeera had all been bought out by American interests, but I'll definitely keep that in mind in future voting. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC, [7] Guardian, [8] and Telegraph [9] all give detailed reports of Maeve Binchy's death as well. And if that is "too European", her death was also covered by the Washington Post, USA Today, Sydney Morning Herald, 3News NZ, Malaysia Star, CBC News. If an Irish writer who is not considered important enough for ITN can get that sort of attention then it is not that unusual for a dead American writer should get a mention in non-American sources and does not mean that these sources have been "bought" by anyone from any part of the world. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict). Some of us consider quality of sourced information rather then just quantity of reliable sources. High volume of news sources does not equal high importance alone. From the article Gore Vidal seems to be the Paris Hilton of political commentary, i.e. someone who makes controversial statements that is often reported in the western media but who themselves have limited notability. That is what I get from reading the article anyway, but perhaps the article gives an WP:UNDUE portrayal of the individual? Regards, SunCreator(talk)15:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Much too old at 86. Binchy's death was more unexpected at 72 and greeted with a greater degree of shock. That and the prospect of posting the umpteenth dead North American male writer this year. The absence from ITN after death both of iconic North American women - Adrienne Rich - and iconic non-North American women - Maeve Binchy - is telling. Can't see the difference between Binchy and Vidal in terms of being top in their respective methods, genres, etc, to be honest. Would support the posting of both but not one over the other. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I strongly dispute the categorization of this item as a minority topic. Judging from the article, he seems to be chiefly known as a commentator on American politics (which makes up the bulk of the article), or as someone put it, the Paris Hilton of American political commentary. That's hardly a minority topic. His books aren't that notable, as I see no international preeminent awards, and only a small portion of the article discusses his literary work. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The minority tag appears to have been removed hours ago in any case. Khazar2 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I saw the discussion of this above and thought it happened then. In any case, it's no matter for a nomination with this kind of overwhelming support. Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our minority topic criteria are incredibly vague and, in fact, this can easily be argued as "culture". Like you say, though, it's not likely to make much difference. Formerip (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some folks involved here need to take a deep breath. The accusations of bias are reaching absurd levels (and I hasten to point out, several of the supporters for this item are not American, and a few of them are generally stridently against US-centrism). This isn't a matter of Vidal vs Binchy. There is no rule against multiple items of similar flavor ITN; we can have two authors, two Americans, two Indian disasters, two whatever, it makes no difference if the news is notable. Systematic bias or weighting should be viewed in the long term, not by happenstance of the stories laid at our feet in a given week. I do my best to assume good faith, but it seems rather telling when one nomination is argued for "because Irish are superior" and another is opposed because "American bias." - OldManNeptune⚓17:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was intended to point out the association many people make between Ireland and literature. Like I said when I opposed this nomination above, no problem with both being included but really can't find much difference between these two. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As usual, some nominations below without provocative accusations of US bias for or against are stagnating. "Floods in North Korea" is about to disappear with a split verdict and little comment, "Tamil Nadu Express Fire" is about to disappear despite being marked ready for 24 hours, and "Alexey Navalny embezzlement charges" has attracted little comment. Would some of the editors here--especially those concerned with "US bias"--consider chiming in on those? It seems a shame to spend so much energy on Vidal alone. Khazar2 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how very pertinent, Khazar2. If one could only assume that all articles proposed here met the structural requirements, an alternative approach might be to just allow votes in support, with editors having one (moveable) vote per day? After all, something has to go in ITN, and it would save an awful lot of "debate". Or is that undemocratic? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no votes on Wikipedia. This is not a vote. It's a discussion. The number of "votes" is basically irrelevant, what matters is the arguments presented (especially those backed up with sources). Josh Gorand (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you dare make such an accusation! No way is it "blatantly WP:POINTy". I've already explained this situation - completely unrelated to ITN and my concerns about the nature of reasons given in this nomination - on my talk page. It was like any other edit I've made today on writing-related topics as diverse as Brian O'Nolan and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gordon Snell. I made a good faith edit, consensus disagreed with the edit, I left it that. You're not coming across very well by trying to spread it around to other places, to inflame the situation and threatening to have me blocked. As I've told you before, IPs are human too and are not some lower order of specimens to be censored and told what to do by editors masked by accounts. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So here we have an exceptionally weak article that does not in any way demonstrate why this person is sufficiently notable for ITN (I see some not very famous books (compared to really famous ones), the bulk of the article discussing polemicism on US issues, and no significant awards or offices), and the only arguments cited here for inclusion sound (as pointed out above) like "he is super famous" or "I knew him personally"(!). The posting of this article (and non-posting of the equally famous female Irish writer) is nothing but a scandal, especially since obvious US bias and the obvious lack of notability as demonstrated by the article were pointed out in the discussion before the article was posted. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, I'm sure no-one wants to see US bias or even the appearance of US bias. I would certainly not object to the posting of Binchy. But if you felt so strongly, why have you given support to Binchy only now? Didn't you cite her non-posting as a valid reason not to post Vidal? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be roughly equally notable. I don't think any of them should be posted in principle, but if Vidal is posted, then she should be posted too. Considering that underrepresented topics should be better represented, we could even have posted the Irish female only (if we had to choose one of them, which appears to be the current situation), as there are constantly tons of American men on the main page. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. In a way I feel bad about Binchy not being there. This coincidence in their demise has not been kind to her. I just felt that Vidal had had more range, influence and impact in his career. I think Maeve's death, at only 72, is more tragic. But there is, of course, no room for sentiment at wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who supported both nominations, I do have some sympathies. However, I must always go with what a feel regardless of the opinions of others; just because the other nom was rejected does not make any difference to my decision here. I can't control how others vote, and there's little point in getting upset about it. I just go along with it. ITN is a very small part of Wikipedia, and not worth the stress over. Plus I'm off to London tomorrow and I want to avoid stress as MUCH AS POSSIBLE!!!.... So why the hell am I on ITN?... --Τασουλα (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equally notable? I don't think so. Check out the Gore Vidal stats and the Maeve Binchy stats in June (before they got skewed by news of their deaths), Gore Vidal got 1,200–1,600 daily views, while Maeve Binchy got 150–200. That's almost an order-of-magnitude difference. -Zanhe (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was (mostly) a political polemicist in a much larger country. She was a novelist in a much smaller country. It's that simple. Page views don't equal importance. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate voicing opposition after the fact, but I can't help with this one. The article totally fails to establish his outstanding significance apart from listing several of his works, none of which strike as especially awarded. Mostly the article is just about politics, even if he is was not posted as an "American political commentator" but an "American author and playwright". And most obviously, without a good measure like the Nobel prize him being "famous" is just entirely dependant on where one lives or even the political symphaties of the indivudal. No amount of anecdotic supports can change these facts. --hydrox (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article might fail to establish his outstanding significance (I haven't read it), but lots of WP articles fail to do lots of things, and its not part of the criteria we go off. In terms of a measure "like the Nobel prize", he won the National Book Award lifetime medal.Formerip (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas, at risk of being accused of pointiness yet again, I can only observe that Maeve Binchy won what amounts to at least three or four equivalent lifetime achievement awards in Ireland and the UK. If national-level lifetime achievements awards do not improve a writer's chances when won more than once, they can hardly do so when won only once surely? --86.40.106.208 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is. But the two died at more or less the same time and the comparison offered above is relevant to any consideration that Gore Vidal may be more notable on the basis of lifetime achievement awards accumulated. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose we need to decide what to post. Also hes got more events and will win more. So its early now.
Also multiple medals in olympics aswimming is not that great. You ahve 4/5 different types for the same length. Athletics could do that if they had 4 ways to runLihaas (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A major accomplishment; no reason to post it a few days late if he doesn't win any more. Given the usual ITN turnover, this will still be up if he wins an additional gold medal for us to update. Khazar2 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We posted in 2008 when he broke the record for most career golds [11] and most golds at a single Olympics [12]. Most career medals in total seems less significant to me when he already had the gold record. If we post it then I don't think we should say "Becomes the most decorated". That type of formulation usually refers to the highest decorations. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is there any other participating athlete at the current Olympics that has the chance in the next couple of weeks to tie/surpass this record? If there's a chance that someone else could surpass Phelps, we should hold off until either we have assurance that no one else can surpass Phelps (or whomever might gain that record) or the conclusion of the Olympics. --MASEM (t) 23:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-ish support. It's clearly a major achievement, but less major than it might seem at first glance because swimmers have so many more opportunities at Olympic medals compared to other athletes. But, a support vote all the same. Do we normally talk about athletes being "decorated", or is it just soldiers? I'd go for "medalized". Formerip (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he has finished all his competitions for the games. Also, who is number two? Is it possible for him to be surpassed before the end? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The news is not how many medals he has won, but that he is now the most decorated Olympian in history, regardless of how many medals he will or will not get afterwards. This hadn't changed in almost 50 years, so it's pretty significant. --Kreachure (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because what we are posting here is total overall medals, someone could win 20 bronze and be "most decorated". If this was about most gold medals which is how olympic ranking is done then i would give it strong support. However we have already posted him once for most golds in last olympic. -- Ashish-g5501:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"How Olympic ranking is done" by who, exactly? There is no official Olympic ranking method! And sure, someone might win more medals than Phelps one day, but not on this Olympic; it could take another 50 years for all we know. --Kreachure (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The gold first ranking system described above is used by most of the world media, as well as the IOC", im going by whatever IOC and most of the world does. -- Ashish-g5503:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously cannot think of something more important than this that could happen in these Olympics, but maybe that's just me. --Kreachure (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not notable. Swimming has dozens and dozens of medal events, whilst others (say, shooting) have only a handful, rowing even fewer. It's just an accident of choice that he has so many. It's not that impressive. doktorbwordsdeeds05:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Winning the most medal in Olympic history is noteworthy enough to frature. Blurb should mention the previous record holder. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Regardless of the number of chances to win medals in swimming and other games.We aren't discussing here whether others get equal opportunities or not or if it can change in future.A news is a current event of notability and it is one.Also the blurb should mention the previous record holder.--Ayanosh (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This hasn't happened since 1964, so arguments that this is a modern phenomenon are out the window straight away. All of his closest rivals in the all-time table are from disciplines other than swimming. The closest swimmer is on 12 medals, and she's not contesting any more events at these games. Ryan Lochte on 9 medals, and I believe that he can only get 3 more in these games. Indeed, there is absolutely no-one who could surpass Phelps' record even if they medal in every event they participate in. If Phelps gets another medal, someone will report the outdatedness in a quicker time than it took Phelps to swim the race, and the notable thing is that he has broken the record, so there is no argument whatsoever for waiting until his games are over. Ashish-g55 raises a hypothetical point, but a) has ignored the fact that total medal count is the second most-used convention for ranking medals and b) has not provided a single example of an Olympian coming within a country mile of 20 medals without a gold. This milestone is presumed to be as significant because it is nigh-on universally presumed that to come anywhere near it, you would have to win a significant proportion of golds. To challenge that widely-held view, you need to provide at least a shred of evidence to suggest that this might not be the case. —WFC— 08:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: One of Putin's leading opponents is charged with embezzlement, prompting widespread skepticism. Top news in Russia, 2nd top story on NYT, 7th on BBC, 6th on Al Jazeera. Khazar2 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point; the verdict for that is likely coming soon and should surely be posted. (At least, I'd vote for it). But I think it wouldn't do us any harm to have two Russia stories in a week given its size and importance. What attracts me to this one is the fact that Navalny's so often described as Putin's leading opponent (as per the BBC: [16]). Who knows whether the charges will be pressed, dropped, or what have you, but the charges themselves seem like a major story; it's definitely getting a lot of international press. Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The impact of this seems fairly apparent. However, the argument that it is not a verdict, merely charges, is valid. In counter, I feel that the verdict will actually get less attention and probably not even be nominated, because the interest here appears to be surprise factor. I could be wrong and the trial could be a real battle and the verdict significant, though. I lack the crystal ball to guess, but at this moment, the charges themselves appear to be a pretty significant development. - OldManNeptune⚓17:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. - appears low on the BBC front page but not Al Jazeera or NYT yet. Still, this news is only a few hours old, so more may come later; I also imagine this is getting more play in Spanish-language media. But the article has been orange-tagged for lack of citations since March. Seems unlikely that it will be improved soon enough to post, but I'd be glad to be surprised. Khazar2 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep going back and forth on this one, but after spending an hour or two playing with it, I feel like Foreign relations of Venezuela isn't main page ready either. Despite having a scope of 190 years of Venezuelan history, it's mostly focused on Hugo Chavez, and I tagged it as recentist. Perhaps the Chavez material could be spun off into [Foreign relations of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez]]? I'm happy to have another pair of eyes on it, though, and if you disagree, feel free to remove the tag. 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
^^Announced but not verified/finalised until now? Anyway, Support for being notable in the realm of South American politics. --Τασουλα (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we are posting this, shouldn't we also mention Paraguay? A country of that size being suspended from the European equivalent would probably be posted as a stand-alone item, and while I probably wouldn't have nominated the suspension alone, if we're posting Venezuela anyway there's a strong case for mentioning it. —WFC— 19:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support many reasons: 1. slow news, 2. full membership of a growing economic bloc (about 6 years ago they stymied the us fta at the summit of the americas in argentina) and a massive emerging markert for a oft-neglected region. 4. this also has repercussions with paraguay;s coup as they were the last holdup (and probs seek to gain support with this). So in summary: repercussions and a first. We post admission to the eu.Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't want to read the gigantic article so I'm going to just ask. Is MERCOSUR an "Association of co-operation" like ASEAN, or a legally binding collection of treaties like the EU? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We wouldn't think twice about "country joins EU", for one thing. It's an important event for the region and significant enough to be carried in some detail on numerous English language news websites. doktorbwordsdeeds05:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A power grid failure in Delhi leaves more than 300 million people without power in northern India. Minister for Power Sushilkumar Shinde announces that all those affected should have power restored within "hours". (Reuters)
Article:Maeve Binchy (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Maeve Binchy(pictured), whose novels have been translated into 37 languages and sold more than 40 million copies worldwide, dies in Dublin. (Post) News source(s):[17][18] Article updated
Weak oppose - based mostly on lack of prominent coverage. BBC has this obit 3rd, but Guardian puts it way down on the page. NYT, CNN, and Al Jazeera don't have it on the front page at all. As for my own evaluation, she doesn't have much in the way of notable awards and in terms of popularity doesn't come close to making our List_of_best-selling_fiction_authors. Khazar2 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just the sample I use. But thought she appears in the publications you cite, that story doesn't seem very prominent in them, either; it doesn't have front-page posting on USA Today or Wash Post, for example (I didn't check them all). If it's not one of the top 20-30 stories of the day for these news orgs, it's a very hard sell for me to vote to post it (given that we only post 1-2 items a day on average). Khazar2 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I just don't see it. She hasn't won any major international awards (Nobel or even Booker), her death hasn't been much noted beyond the UK, and she doesn't seem to be in even the fifty most best-selling authors of her generation. If it's any consolation, I voted against the obituary of one of Bangladesh's most popular authors a few weeks ago, too. Khazar2 (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support. 40 million sales apparently is enough to make the aforementioned list, there's already an entry there with that amount. That aside, Binchy is a phenomenal success this side of the pond and given the variety of translations mentioned I doubt that she's only of interest to one country. To draw a pretty good precedent, we posted Maurice Sendak a few weeks back. GRAPPLEX03:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every one on that list seems to have an upper estimate of 100 million copies; it's a confusingly made table. I don't dispute the rest of your logic, though. Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that table even sorts strangely, but only Cussler has a listing of 40 million sales, and that's lower estimate (his upper is 150 million). I don't think sales alone is going to qualify here, even if she were on that list she'd be dead last, and a glance it's what, close to 100 entries, with numerous living authors drastically ahead? Wouldn't even be in the ballpark of the lowest listed British authors. - OldManNeptune⚓17:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Who died yesterday? Or the day before? She's gotta be at least the sort of person who dies every three or more days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.84 (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was exaggerating. Point is, there are usually a lot of worthy candidates, and for whatever reasons it can be difficult for ITN to accommodate them all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we shouldn't post it. I just think, when it comes to deaths, we need to find a more efficient and equitable way of presenting them. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of this particular nomination. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sally Ride was opposed because people here didn't think that the titel of "first American women in space" was notable enough either. And Sendak had some strong opposition, too, but part of that was due to his age (he was 80-something), thus enacting the "death may perhaps have been expected" clause. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well known, and well regarded author in her field, commercially successful enough to be considered notable even with our shifting sands approach to death nominations. doktorbwordsdeeds04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Telegraph obit. "In a survey of Ireland’s 100 bestsellers in the 20th century compiled in 1998, she took first, third and fourth places, with seven of her books in the top 100, outselling not only Yeats, Oscar Wilde, James Joyce and Samuel Beckett, but more recent writers such as Frank McCourt, Roddy Doyle, Seamus Heaney and Edna O’Brien." --86.40.96.148 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sighs. First she is not being reported by the correct media organisations. Then she is not winning the right awards to be considered. Now she is not well known enough. It seems from the above as if she is quite well known actually. --86.40.96.148 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - prolific, but not record setting. Popular, but not much outside Ireland. Reaction mostly from Irish writers and press. Death not unexpected. Recent deaths. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for being well known outside Ireland? You cite a CBC repost of an AP article which says she was on the NYT best selling list. When? For how long? With what rank? Back up your claim. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is by no measure (sales, awards, or attention to her death) one of the top figures in her field (literature), if that's what you mean. Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You can make accusations like that if you want, but Sendak's death got sustained coverage in international outlets. For me, that was the obvious difference. I realize I'm starting to WP:BLUDGEON a bit, though, so I'm willing to step out. Khazar2 (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Because she's not American" is not a good rationale for posting this. The bar has been consistently raised on death nominations and she falls below it. I actually believe IP address above me summarized well. To make clear, I'm not saying "if we didn't post x, then not this either," but rather that consensus in the past has repeatedly and over a long period of time excluded persons of roughly similar (or greater) notability who died of age, and for lack of objective guidelines, I feel precedent is the obvious way to go. - OldManNeptune⚓17:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seem like the only thing stopping Maeve Binchy from being mentioned at ITN is the fact that she isnt American. Just keeping it real.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. A US author whose death was not reported on any front pages outside the US and who never won a major award would stand exactly zero chance of making ITN. Even US deaths reported on international front pages (e.g., Andy Griffith) are described as of "local interest", and rightly so. Just keeping it real back... Khazar2 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being Irish is no more a justification than being American. She isn't among the top selling authors, didn't win any major awards, and isn't a top headline on a good sample of international news outlets (ranked high on BBC, but there's obvious local interest there). "The Irish are far superior" is not a reason to put this on the front page. - OldManNeptune⚓17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with OldManNeptune. In fact, if we did try to nom an American author we would get deluged with "This is a global project, waaaaaaa I don't like America". Nationality has nothing to do with it, unless it's being used as a justification, such as "Irelands favourite author". --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it can be justified in this case. Ireland and writing are inextricably linked. Just as there are some areas in which America is also quite good to the extent that it leaves many others in the shade, e.g. space exploration, to point to the numerous NASA missions to have appeared on ITN. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, good sir! Or anyone who is a registered user...or an IP that makes lots of contributions ;) (Well actually the comment WAS aimed at you and everyone else, feeding the trolls is bad. Assuming good faith can only go too far) --Τασουλα (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood. My insistence on unregistered editing (my choice, my fault) results in the occasional troll label, especially after an IP change. Thanks for clarifying :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good! DNFTT (As in, not feeding the trolls, not trolling) is actually something everyone needs to do more in their lives...er, Wikipedia editing. And ah well, being a registered editor has its negativities. I wouldn't be a registered editor if my IP wasn't blocked because of some asswipe making racist edits just down the road from me...which got my range blocked! I hope you never have this problem :( --Τασουλα (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A bit like how we clearly didn't post Sendak? Except we did. Nationality is becoming too much of a sticking point here; the fact is a variety of sources have shown international attention, albeit not at the highest level. If papers from both sides of the pond are reporting it then we shouldn't have to resort to jingoism or accusations thereof. GRAPPLEX18:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sendak barely made it, and had numerous WP:RS calling him "the most important childrens author of the 20th century", not "Americas favourite childrens author". See the difference? It's subtle but it's there. One is global in reach, the other regional. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this thread's gotten a lot of attention, Zanhe's nom for the Nellore train fire below still has only one comment on it. Would anyone from this thread be willing to weigh in there, whether yay or nay? Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Death of a well-known novelist (with several works made in to film). Widely reported throughout the English-speaking world (e.g. BBC, USA Today, Brisbane Times, Toronto Star, The Hindu, New Zealand Herald from a quick search of Google). Not front page news in most places, but not every ITN need to be "front page news" for it to be suitable for ITN on an encyclopedia. --RA (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - She had her works published into 37 languages and she sold over 40 million books around the globe. This has broad appeal. A very high volume of news sources have reported on this too.Rainthe 119:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless "extra" stuff about her death in European media. Several have three or four additional articles apart from reporting her death. It's like death of the year over here. Here are two others from the same publication. [19][20] Two more additional articles from another publication. [21][22] Two more from a separate publication. [23][24] Two more from another publication [25][26] Here are four others from the same publication. [27][28][29][30]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.148 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I admit I never really heard of her. The sources shown shows that she was one of the most important and beloved writers in a country known for its rich and storied history of English literature. Makes me want to buy one of her novels just because of these sources. It's as common sense as it can be under our current ITN criteria. Update sufficient. Secretaccount02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do you think writers like these die all the time? These are probably two of the top writer deaths this year. Here we have an example of the underlying sexism and U.S. centrism when it comes to dead writers on ITN. Two top writers die closely together: one American man and one non-American woman (who has the decency to even die first). Everybody rushes to heap plaudits on the American man and demand he be included on the Main Page, but is blind to the achievements of the non-American woman who outsells James Joyce and Oscar Wilde and is considered "the mammy" of Irish writing in the past two decades. Note that this is not just an accusation of this, here we have the evidence before our very eyes. Nothing has prevented two or more deaths appearing on ITN in the past. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have two domestically-reknowned, internationally-known authors who have recently died; what are the chances of bundling the two items together under a wording like "Authors Maeve Binchy (72) and Gore Vidal (86) die"; the bundling would alleviate some of the too-much-weight-on-deaths concern, ease a transition into a possible death ticker, and assuage any of the jingoism going on here. GRAPPLEX21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea. Although not a "respected" writer like Vidal, I think Binchy has certainly been a very much-loved writer in Eire and UK for very many years. Her death has certainly been given equal coverage by national BBC radio. I guess Vidal's page views were that much higher as he was really a US literary celebrity. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a sensible compromise. However, I think people should not be so trigger-happy in accusing others of having a pro-American bias. Check out the Gore Vidal stats and the Maeve Binchy stats in June (before they got skewed by news of their deaths), Gore Vidal got 1,200–1,600 daily views, while Maeve Binchy got 150–200. That's almost an order-of-magnitude difference. Gore Vidal, like it or not, is far more notable than Maeve Binchy. I'm not American, by the way. -Zanhe (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is if you base notability on how many times pages are viewed. Wikipedia does not do this. Are you honestly suggesting that the likes of Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga are among the "most notable" people in world history? --86.40.106.208 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a skewed comparison, Binchy's fanbase is generally much older and less tech-savvy than Vidal's; and I'll reiterate the guest-starring-in-cartoons bit again. GRAPPLEX22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is also a woman and many of her readers are women. Very few women contribute to Wikipedia. Also, Gore Vidal, as his article demonstrates, was quite outspoken, to put it rather mildly. Binchy did not make as many public appearances or stir as much controversy. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reading all the comments above i do not see consensus. This should not be posted based on fact Vidal got posted. ITN is not an obituary section for authors. -- Ashish-g5523:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting it is or that it should be. That's a shame Ashish, as GrappleX's idea was a good and constructive compromise. However, the "technicalities" of taking it all to a fresh formal proposal and vote will regrettably not be seem as worth the effort. That idea now seems rather spoiled. I think both Vidal and Binchy are worthy but for ITN, but probably - to be unnecessarily precise - for different amounts of time. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The northern power grid failed, leaving 360 million people across Delhi, UP, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and HP without power since 2.30 am IST. Described as worst one in 11 years. Most of it has been restored around 7/8 am IST. It is not fully restored yet, and certain remote parts will not have power till about mid afternoon IST. 200 passenger trains were stalled. The Delhi metro which transports 2 million people daily was halted from between 6 am to 8.45 am. Only hospitals, security establishments, airports, etc had power. Major traffic jams as traffic signals werent working. TL;DR: Life was paralyzed across most of Northern India. On a Monday morning. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability once updated Obviously top news for India, also on front pages of NYT and BBC. One of the worst blackouts in India's history, with 30% of the country without power. Given the amount of coverage of this, it might be better to have an article on the blackout itself rather than linking to Electricity sector in India if possible. Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--luckily, my daughter stayed asleep so I could keep trucking away. This probably has enough content now to be considered for the main page; I think I've rounded the corner into start class. Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not only is this obviously a big story in India -- and likely to have longer-term consequences, but it has received significant international attention. A nice little article exists, suitable for use in ITN. One U.S. news media outlet pointed out that the population without power was larger than the population of the U.S., leading me to think that this could be the largest electricity outage in history, as measured by population affected. --Orlady (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- this is certainly now notable enough with an article on it and lots of coverage in the media along with impacting a large number of people. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but suggest adding "affecting 360 million people" as, speaking as Western hemisphere resident, "7 states" doesn't give me much size influence, but 360 million people does. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. It had been tagged as non-notable four minutes before I posted it, but after I had double-checked the article. Personally, I don't see any basis for the tag. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has now been a second day of power outages, this time impacting even more states and hundreds of millions more people. So could we possibly look to update the blurb? [34] and [35] are a couple of sources reporting on the latest.
Good job with the article and the post, I see the article is now in the works thanks to the second outage of the East and North Eastern grids. Thought I'd just drop in a line before the Southern Grid goes down and takes me offline tomorrow! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The news is somewhat misleading. The text should be "A power grid failure leaves seven states in northern and eastern India without electricity, affecting over 600 million people". Article has many references for the above mentioned changes.Regards, theTigerKing18:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Vaibhav's proposed update. For source, see for example here [36] or [37]. We might also add this is the world's largest blackout ever, per NYT. Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A widely reported disaster with significant death toll; the reports that sabotage may be the cause give this one extra interest as an ongoing topic. ITN has been a little India-heavy this week, but it's a nice break from being US/UK heavy. Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant train disaster. I have no problem with multiple Indian news items if the news exists, and I'm happy to see an improved article turnover rate in any case. - OldManNeptune⚓20:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mundane transportation accident. When compared with 300 million without power this will look absurd. Maybe when the inquiry is complete, if the result is shocking or causes a change to rail transport in India, we can revisit. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the Burlington train crash and the dutch bus crash and a plane in africa hitting a bus all got sour faces. I see no reason to repeat the mistakes of the past (such as Buenos Aires and Szczekociny). These types of incidents, while tragic, are not particularly unusual. Crappy wiring shorted out and started a fire in a super crowded Indian train. Sabotage would be different, but there is no evidence yet. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needs update the Romanian presidential impeachment referendum, 2012 has no background explaining why this is taking place, or what the consequences are. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Supportper FormerIP's conditions. Since this appears to be final whether yay, nay, or "too low a turnout", I'm also good either way. Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of finality, we can probably go ahead and post. It's still an "estimate", but it's an estimate from the official body overseeing the election, and it doesn't even seem close (4.1% short of the needed turnout). Haven't checked the current state of the article, though. Khazar2 (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not absolutely sure that the turnout is below 50% since the figures do not appear to take into account people who voted away from their residence. Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should give you a good idea of what's going on. It is very complicated, and has had the adverse effect of splitting the country between supporters and opponents of the President. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready In fact I am about to tag this with a neutrality template. According to news broadcasts I heard earlier the President had explicitly advocated that his supporters do not vote in the referendum. With this in mind the current lede that portrays his survival as a mere legal technicality as opposed to legitimate will of the people is grossly unfair: the lack of support for the President was a clear political strategy on his part. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's a good change to make, but it seems like something that can be cleared up with a single additional sentence to the lede rather than requiring a tag. Khazar2 (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the tweaking I just did and let me know if it's mutually agreeable; we can continue the discussion at the talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It's looking a lot better now and I'd consider that issue addressed. Didn't get around to looking at it sooner since I've just been drafting several pages of legalise that needed to be in today. And no, Nergaal, there is no partisanship going on here: I'd never even heard of him until this arose. It simply can't be asserted to be NPOV to cite limited turnout as the reason the poll failed when that turnout was in itself a tactical position adopted by the President. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notwithstanding the results, the event was a major one. We usually do not have headlines like this one either, so I'm cool with it. ComputerJA (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with the note that some of the above support rationales may be out of date. The result of the referendum appears to be that the poll is invalid because turnout was too low. I might have supported if there were a result, and I'm convinced that most of those above supported on the presumption of there being a result. But we cannot seriously be thinking about posting a referendum that failed because people didn't turn up!? The fact that the low turnout may have been a tactical ploy is interesting (and something I would mention if this blurb inexplicably goes up), but doesn't alter the notability of the story. By the way, the article has been 3x expanded in the last two days, so a DYK nomination might be a realistic alternative. —WFC— 07:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notable thing is that the PM/President power struggle came to a head, and the President won. The fact that he won it by boycott rather than by straight vote doesn't make it less notable to me. Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this non-neutral? The results are contested. While the president claims victory, the PM and the acting-president are waiting for the Constitutional Court to confirm. They allege the voter turnout percentage is based on outdated population figures and might be reconsidered by the Court (RL, Revista 22). --ELEKHHT00:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. On the day of the election, the BBC and Reuters both reported flatly that Basescu had won ([38][39]), and it appears the Central Election Bureau did report a figure of 46%. How is the latest development being reported in international media? That would give us a good guide for how we might phrase any revision. Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure yet that a pull is required. English-language media seems to consider the referendum over, per the links above and in the article (for example, the NYT called the election over and stated that election officials had called it [40]); the Romanian articles are difficult for me to get the nuance through translation. Ponta has pledged as of four hours ago to respect the decision that the impeachment failed. [41] How are today's news stories phrasing the situation? Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best sources in this (technicalities) are Romanian sources. (Non-"native" sources aren't that reliable as they leave out the specifics.) Now we need someone who reads Romanian. For the meantime, there's no reason to be safe and pull this; it'll certainly be back before the week's end. –HTD01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The news hasn't reached yet the English media. The Hungarian national TV however reported on the dispute around the outcome. The German media questions the notability of the referendum, qualifying it only a battle within a larger war. I would say to pull would be the cautious thing to do. --ELEKHHT02:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, of the two Romanian sources cited here, both appear to state (through Google Translate) that the referendum failed and that USL is trying "trickery" to change the rules; the second source describes the USL's action as an attempted "coup". The leaders of both sides agree that the referendum failed. I won't object further if you want to say better-safe-than-sorry and pull anyway, but I'd be more comfortable with we had multiple reliable sources saying that the referendum's results were still unclear. Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's SOP for a court (or something else) to rule on something once there's a dispute. That's pretty much universal. –HTD02:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update the official final results are out, and the turnout is 100% surely under 50%. The side that voted for the referendum is trying some small trickeries which have essentially very, very little chance of changing the situation. The result of the referendum is clear at this point, and if any major changes appear, the blurb can be updated. Sometimes today, the Constitutional Court will give the final verdict, and after that, all that is left is to delay the impeached president from actually getting his rights back. Nergaal (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Top story on BBC and Al Jazeera at the moment, dominating world news. Article looks like it could use a little cleanup, but I'm starting in on that now. I also cleaned up the grammar in the blurb a bit--hope you don't mind, MCJ -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - top story. also want wikipedia to make people aware of the syrian regimes atrocities and the russian and chinese support of the atrocities... assad will soon fall.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Syria is in a civil war, and battles will continue to be fought. Civilian deaths, while tragic, are in the 100s, not 1000s or 10000s. Maybe when the battle is over if it has some larger impact on the overall course of the war, I can support. But right now 100 civilians are dead, in a war zone, it's simply not news. Sorry. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's obvious this city is an important stronghold, and a lot rides on this battle, but I still think it's best to wait until the battle is over. The TV is bored and it's talking about something that started 12 days ago. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support — Syria's largest city, with a population of over two million people, becoming the centre of a bloody battle between regime loyalists and rebel forces. I should think this is fairly significant news in and of itself, but when you really think about the situation, it starts to become quite harrowing. For those living in stable democracies, imagine this — your city winds up in the middle of a war. You hear tanks blasting outside your home, you're sick to your stomach in fear over whether you'll be safe inside your house. You have no idea what's going to happen, if your friends and family are OK, if anything will ever be the same again. Sitting in a corner in the fetal position with your heart racing and your whole body trembling with terror. You're scared. You just want it to end. You've never experienced it before, have you? Neither have the people in Aleppo. This is the reality they're facing today. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is terrible, but the country is at war, and that's how it goes. Further, it's been at war for many months. This is a status update, and seems heavily charged with "boo to the dictator Assad and long live a free Syria". The war won't be won on Wikipedia. Wait until the battle is over, please. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thesis argument remains that a bloody battle in a city of over two million people is worthy of being included on ITN. The rest of my comment was an aside. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've indicated my support above, I do agree that this is a pivotal battle. But my concern is that the article and the tone of some of the support arguments here do not even bother to make a pretense of being neutral. Not saying human rights violations did not occur before, nor am I condoning them but not everyone sees this as "Brutal regime crushes helpless people". Some see it as US/NATO fanning civil war and destabilizing a sovereign country. There are insurgent/separatist/revolutionary movements throughout the world - as long as they campaign through peaceful protests and democratic means, its all fine - but the moment they take up arms, its the stated policy of almost all governments (or where the US/NATO does not favour them, "regimes") to put them down by force. Russia (Chechnya), Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam), Pakistan (Baluchistan/Waziristan), Thailand (South Thailand), almost all African states, I can go on. And forget pointing fingers at other countries, the Indian government allows peaceful protests in Kashmir, the North East and Maoist dominated areas. But the moment they take up arms, they are put down by force (and IMO, rightly so). Since we are now friends with the US, its not a "regime" oppressing "freedom fighters" but a democratic nation fighting terrorism. If the US were to arm the Kashmiri fighters, its not like we will just stand around, we would have to use more force to put them down. If you amass rebel fighters within a heavily populated city, the government/regime will have no option but to go after them. It's fine to have a POV, and its natural that your POV will, in most cases, coincide with that of your government, but to use Wikipedia to promote it, is not fine. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's some soapboxing here in the supports, but it's also led into by perfectly valid arguments--in BabbaQ's case, that this is a top international story, and in M&E's case, that it's a large-scale battle in a nation's largest city. As for the tone of the article, that's probably an issue better raised on the article page (or better yet, if you'd be up for doing some direct editing to fix it). I'll take another look, too. Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose based simply on lack of prominent international coverage--doesn't seem to be on the current front page of New York Times, BBC, CNN, or Al Jazeera, despite having happened today. Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it's a personal choice, but I'm not a fan of the approach of amateur Wikipedia editors (myself included) overruling the professionals on what news stories are the most significant. A few days ago, for example, you strongly opposed the posting of Oswaldo Payá's controversial death to the main page as not notable enough, though it had easily twenty times the prominence of this item. (Indeed, Paya continues to be front-page news on the BBC today, a full week after his death). I realize an encyclopedia has different goals than even the most dignified news source, but as the "In the News" section, I think it's useful for us to generally parallel what's in the news; hence, the vote. Khazar2 (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main impact (Tropical Storm Khanun making landfall) was about 10 days ago, which would explain why its not on the front pages of various things.Jason Rees (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the blurb probably needs to be changed to "North Korea's KCNA news agency raises the death toll from Tropical Storm Khanun to at least 88 people dead and more than 60,000 homeless" or something like it; if the actual flooding happened ten days ago, it's technically too late for that part to be an ITN posting. Khazar2 (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — 88 people killed and 60,000 more being driven out of their homes by massive flooding is pretty major news in any country. In North Korea, catastrophe seems to be the norm: totalitarianism, poverty, famine, human experimentation, slavery, thought control, incarceration, isolation, repression. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. At the present time, the ITN box badly needs stories that do not begin "At least XX people are killed...". Formerip (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but the article needs work. Most of it is unreferenced. It might be hard to find sources for a disaster in this notoriously secret state. Modest Geniustalk19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
