*I do tend to '''lean oppose''' on this due to the lack of prominent news coverage (per Medeis and TRM) but in the nomination for its announcement most seemed to want to wait until it occurred to post it; now that it's occurred we won't post it? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
*I do tend to '''lean oppose''' on this due to the lack of prominent news coverage (per Medeis and TRM) but in the nomination for its announcement most seemed to want to wait until it occurred to post it; now that it's occurred we won't post it? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
::You are correct there was a prior discussion, but I think wait is often a polite way of saying oppose. I was opposed in full. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
::You are correct there was a prior discussion, but I think wait is often a polite way of saying oppose. I was opposed in full. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
::::Not really. There are many people who will note that something should be posted on a ''later'' date, hence why they ask to "wait". As for this particular case, though, it seems that the discussion was more inclined toward general opposition, so we probably shouldn't be deciding based on it. '''<sub><font color="#4B0000">Eric</font></sub><small><font color="#550000">Leb</font></small><sup><font color="#660000">01</font></sup> <small>([[User:Ericleb01|Page]] | [[User talk:Ericleb01|Talk]])</small>''' 23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::I do understand (and in no way meant to suggest otherwise re your oppose; apologies), just kind of pointing it out, I guess. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::I do understand (and in no way meant to suggest otherwise re your oppose; apologies), just kind of pointing it out, I guess. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::Not at all, I was not offended, and think you did indeed make a relevant and valid point. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
:::::Not at all, I was not offended, and think you did indeed make a relevant and valid point. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (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.
Hossein Amir-Abdollahian
A landslide in Papua New Guinea's Enga Province leaves thousands of people missing and presumed dead.
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).
Iraqi Jewish artifacts that were rescued from Saddam Hussein's palace by a Jewish-American scholar and brought to the United States are scheduled to be returned to Iraq by the end of the summer in 2014, despite objections from American Jews citing instability in Iraq. (Los Angeles Times)
Could you post a news source in the nomination template? That would help establish that this is indeed "in the news" and is in the posting instructions above. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting lots of international media attention.[1][2][3][4] Appears to be part of Putin's attempt to increase his control over the media. I suggest that the blurb should reflect that radio broadcaster Voice of Russia is also being closed and that a new state-owned media agency called "Russia Today" is being created. Neljack (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting such a blurb as a starting point, though I welcome a shorter one if someone can create one. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot - that looks good. My only caveat is that I haven't seen anything saying that it will be smaller. In fact, I would have thought it would be larger given that two organisations are being merged. But perhaps you've seen something in an article I haven't read? Neljack (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "the smaller" from the blurb; I think I put that because some articles referenced being more efficient and affects on employees(such as layoffs) but it wasn't clearly said. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It seems like the agency is being rebranded and re-organised, which may technically entail its abolition, but I don't see any reason why this is a very significant event in the context that government agencies everywhere get restructured all the time. Formerip (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as notable in Russian politics, once a blurb is sorted out. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment/proceduralRT was not created now, its been around for awhile. Clearly I made the same mistake as the page's hat note, that should be clarified when posted.
Article is rather poor at the moment (though min. update I agree is met)Lihaas (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the articles this RT is distinct from the currently existing one. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alternative blurb looks more complete to me, but should be reworded to reflect it in a simpler way that the two agencies are merged into a new one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree but I am reading what seems to be contradictory information on that point; some articles talk about this as a restructuring/merge and some also state that the two prior agencies were "abolished" and a new one created(which is technically different than a restructuring). 331dot (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the prior discussion on this merger when it was announced, where consensus seems to have been to wait until it occurred before posting, which it has. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose important to stockholders and middle managers, otherwise a third-page, below-the-fold business item. μηδείς (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting lots of coverage,[5] not just in the US but also internationally, which is not surprising given that it creates the world's largest airline and is big even by corporate M & A standards. Neljack (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The item is getting lots of coverage...on the back pages of business sections, not front pages or even front pages of business sections. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion from web sources. I suspect it will be on quite a few front pages of business sections. And sports events that we post often are only in the sport section, not the front page of the newspaper. Neljack (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Medeis I had to look hard to find it "in the news", the nomination lacked a source. This is trivial in the big scheme of things, just wait for the biggest bankruptcy in the world I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis. The merger is also not something that was totally unexpected as American Airlines announced bankruptcy two years ago and the plans for this merger were discussed earlier this year. I also find the statement "world's largest airline" blown up in the blurb because all of the media deliver some kind of a canard with no supporting evidence on what merits the new airline will be the largest in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to lean oppose on this due to the lack of prominent news coverage (per Medeis and TRM) but in the nomination for its announcement most seemed to want to wait until it occurred to post it; now that it's occurred we won't post it? 331dot (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct there was a prior discussion, but I think wait is often a polite way of saying oppose. I was opposed in full. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There are many people who will note that something should be posted on a later date, hence why they ask to "wait". As for this particular case, though, it seems that the discussion was more inclined toward general opposition, so we probably shouldn't be deciding based on it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand (and in no way meant to suggest otherwise re your oppose; apologies), just kind of pointing it out, I guess. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I was not offended, and think you did indeed make a relevant and valid point. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We usually post announcements as they unfold information that one could have not anticipated from earlier. Future dates that are known from earlier are only matter of technicalities unless it's a very important event of wide interest. Another notable exception to this rule are some legislations or regulations who may be worth posting both at the time of their signing and the date when they are expected to come into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 9 December 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.
Oppose - sorry but a record in a national hockey league is in my opinion not ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should hide that statement. There are no field goals in hockey.
Anyhoo, its no a record field goal. there was about 67 yards in a high school game in washington a couple of years ago. so on that grounds oppose, but a record i would support as in the posting we did for sachin i blieve.Lihaas (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, speedy close please. Nice idea, but it's hardly "in the news" outside the NFL, and rugby union players kick this distance all the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Don Clarke once kicked a 85-yard dropped goal. Now that's impressive! Neljack (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. ITN is not for documenting sports records. Further, the game was in Denver(which would make the ball travel farther). 331dot (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/close, Cool, but not for ITN. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. No chance.--WaltCip (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support actually, if we list sports at all, this is quite a bit more relevant encyclopedically than the utterly banal ITN/R "X beats Y" pablum we usually post. How long ago was the previous record set? μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was set in 1970(in New Orleans) and tied in 1998 and 2011(both also in Denver) and tied again last year(in Green Bay). 331dot (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funniest support I've ever seen at ITN, remarkable and almost made me change my mind. Oops, no, perhaps not. I don't suppose many US readers are aware that rugby union "kickers" do this sort of distance every week. Big dog deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we started posting minor sporting records like this, we'd end up with too much sport on here. Neljack (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SNOW. It's an amusing news indeed but unfortunately of very low value to go on the main page. I wonder if we have to consider next time when a quarterback grabs the ball and runs over the whole field to score a touchdown.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:46, 9 December 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.
Thailand update
Just called a new election as a result of the protests, thats a pretty big step, IMO. Though the protests are still ongoing its a massive culmination. (oxymoronic, i klnow, but you know what i mean (i hope)). Thai general election, 2014Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are these commentaries intended to be nominations? Please use the ITN template like everyone else, add sources, and type carefully so people can understand what you're trying to achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lihaas, please stop posting poorly formed ejaculations. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Lihaas is proposing an update to the blurb rather than a new blurb. As such, I don't think he is required to comply with all the formalities for an nomination. Certainly updates have often been proposed like this, without being formatted as a formal nomination, and I don't recall there being objections to them on that basis. Neljack (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, there seems to be (a) a requirement for a source and (b) a blurb so (c) please improve the quality of the nomination (and the quality of the English used to do so). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support updating the blurb and bumping to the top The calling of new elections as a result of the protests is of obvious significance. Neljack (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose post when elections are done, per ITN/R. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the protesters go home(unlikely) and wait to post the actual election per TRM. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
During the third Sunday of mass protests, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government for refusing a deal on closer ties with the European Union. BBC News
Anti-government protesters topple the last surviving statue of Communist leader Vladimir Lenin in central Kiev. (CNN)
Comment. Not opposed to bumping the story, but that blurb is about four times as long as it needs to be. Formerip (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These were posted once already; is there some specific reason to post them again? (casualties, arrests, etc.) 331dot (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The protests today are the largest yet, per BBC and an AP wire report. Both sources speak of several 100,000s of people. The demonstrators seem to have topled and destroyed a statue of Lenin, a strong symbol of the Soviet era. The protesters also seem to have given the government 48 hours to resign. I have no opinion whether these warrant re-posting right now, but would definitely support posting if the government resigns. --hydrox (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Comments: I have no experience with "Candidating" for "In the news" so forgive me my errors please. For instance I could not get the | altblurb 2 = During the continued Euromaidan protests hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians in Kiev seek the resignation of the government into the template.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion — Seems to me this — "Protesters fell Lenin statue, tell Ukraine's president 'you're next'" — would make a good hook for an updated blurb. [6] (IMO, it's high time for Old Baldy to go ... he's been dead for 90 years, and the state he founded has been dead for more than 20 years.) Sca (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If its a matter of 48 hours, wait. either way we should hav something worthy of an update to ITN.Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry: Altblurb 2 can someone comment on how a second altblurb is listed? I know I have seen it done recently. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC someone used a hack where they specified the third blurb with <br> in altblurb=. If there is a serious need for specifying more than two blurbs, it can be added of course. --hydrox (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I was asking on behalf of Yulia, per above. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BBC reports that the police are breaking up the protests. The situation seems to be in flux. --hydrox (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CAR update/bump
Djotodia has now admitted he has no control over the country (or only parts) and there is thus talk of the UN using its executive mandate that was used in kosovo and east timor to run the countryLihaas (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like an important discovery. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be a notable discovery, and getting enough coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although it's an interesting story, there doesn't appear to be anything extremely newsworthy about it. Exoplanets are discovered regularly and biggest orbit doesn't seem to be particularly important as a record, in itself. It seems like a challenging discovery for people working in the field, but ITN isn't meant to be a current awareness bulletin for astronomers. Searching Google news, this doesn't seems like it's even the biggest talking point to do with exoplanets this week (the Hubble telescope discovered water on some a few days ago, which has generated broader coverage). I think whether something gets covered by the science section of BBC news is a good indication of how important it is, and this hadn't been, yet. Formerip (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is being covered in the UK, though. What is notable here aside from the orbital distance is that no one can figure out how it got there, making it very unusual. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention the BBC because it is British, but because I know it has good science journalists who will have some sort of clue when scrutinising a press release, and will sort the wheat from the chaff. And, yes, I understand why it is interesting, but interesting things are discovered all the time in scientific research and they are not always epoch-making or ITN-worthy. Planet formation is a developing area of study, so it not surprising (or unusual, I suspect) that new discoveries will throw up new challenges. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly must rely on whatever sources you wish for whatever reason (as we all do, no problem there) but IMO this appears in enough sources around the world (Googling I even saw a Czech story) to justify an appearance. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This appears to be a significant story resulting in a discovery which was previously unknown and lays down an important milestone in further research.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support/comment no need to mention UAz as its too long and the important bit is just the dis covery...ldetails can go on the page.Lihaas (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That's a pretty arbitrary and meaningless record, which will inevitably be beaten as exoplanet surveys go on for longer (thus giving a longer baseline for orbit discovery). Better to stick to genuinely scientifically interesting exoplanet discoveries. Modest Geniustalk 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is "scientifically interesting" is a matter of opinion; the worldwide media would seem to disagree with you. Most records will inevitably be beaten,(WP:CRYSTAL) that hasn't stopped us from posting them before. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm giving my own opinion. That's true of most !votes on this page. I do consider myself qualified to assess the significance of astronomical discoveries. My point was also that the record will doubtless be passed soon i.e. within a few years. Modest Geniustalk 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the discovery upends current theories on planet and star formation, so it's not just a bare fact, but an outlier in our knowledge of the universe. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Upends" does not appear to be correct. We are not talking about settled science here, but about models that are at a stage of revision and debate. This discovery just provides a new talking-point. Furthermore, unless you know something that none of the sources are reporting, no-one has yet come up with a proper proposal as to what effect it might have on current models. Formerip (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am reporting what I have read from the sources; "This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see" [7]; and am not prepared to offer my OR on the subject. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems fascinating. It's just not a major news story.Formerip (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marking Ready well updated, strong support. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius and Formerip. Neljack (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ITN has run blurbs like this before: not huge headlines, but in the news withan advance in human knowledge of goodly scientific note. This article is decently written and evokes a sense of wonder, due to the very great distance it is from it's sun. From what I understand, this record will not be surpassed soon. The comment about the planet not being on the list appears correct, and that should be fixed prior to posting. Jusdafax 20:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel competnt to make that change. I have left a message with the nominator, and will with DarthBotto. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arbitrary. Also, most supports seem to be "seems like an important discovery" while opposers seem to present good suggestions as to why this is purely arbitrary and of no widespread interest. Not ready, as assessing quality of opinion rather than pure vote-counting is what's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello, this is the original creator of the article in question. I should point out that that blurb should be changed, as the planet of DT Virginis has the greatest orbit still. I would suggest there being a mention of the ratio in mass differentiation between the two parts of the binary star, which accounts for the possibility of the orbit being maintained. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have updated the list, so we should be good to go now! DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remarked Ready the blurb issue of the secondary link has been taken care of, the article is well updated, and there's still strong consensus in favor of the posting. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Created more better/less verbose blurb. (Sotrry a better word for that is slipping me)Lihaas (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a god altblurb, an even better might be:
Altblurb2 "Astronomers at the University of Arizona discover HD 106906 b, an exoplanet with the most distant orbit around a single star" as it uses the active voice, not the passive. μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, with content like "As it turned out, whovians found it a lot alike the home-planet of the Doctor himself – Gallifrey", and comments above regarding what the news "seems" to be about, this isn't suitable for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Dr. Who passage. The news sources given state why this has been reported in worldwide media. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had the same concern when I saw that. The blurb should specify why it is significant, per article's lead. Otherwise it's indeed a "so what?", as was noted above. Brandmeistertalk 16:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support that blurb (with possible small alterations). Brandmeistertalk 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support that blurb, and have overwritten it in the altblurb field in the template. This is red ta go. μηδείς (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess it wouldn't be ITN if we didn't post stupid cruft from time to time. However, the planet isn't further from the star than it had been thought possible for a star to be, it is that appears to be a mis-match and the structure of the planet and the size of its orbit. Formerip (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try explaining your objection clearly, FIP, rather than wasting everybody's time calling names? We can adjust the blurb, you know. Or was this just venting? μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I can be clearer. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a new or modified blurb might work, I'd assume. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'd go for removing the words "farther than thought possible" from the blurb. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, isn't the point of your objection (now that I think about it) more that this is an unexpected distance for a super-Jupiter? I'd be totally in favor of saying "super-Jupiter planet" insted of just "planet". μηδείς (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support if updated. This is a major international development. --hydrox (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support major international event.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest the blurb is expanded to explain what this actually means and its significance if this is to be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem at least at this hour is that there is no clear information in the press about the full effects of the agreement. --hydrox (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then while it looks very positive, it should be held from main page until we come to an understanding on the best way of blurbing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree (that's why I wrote "if updated" in my !vote.) At current state, the article is way premature for the main page; we basically have just the first comments from a few parties and short summary of the negotiations. There should also be sourced information about the actual content of the agreement, like practical effects on future customs and tariffs. --hydrox (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support After so long of the WTO failing to reach agreements, this is highly significant. The potential benefits have been estimated at US$1 trillion. Agree with TRM about the blurb, which should in particular make clear that the agreement deals with trade facilitation rather than reducing tariffs. Neljack (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article improvement - As Hydrox notes, the article is just getting started. Jusdafax 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wouldn't a hint on what the Bali Package is be necessary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment an hour-and-a-half ago... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's complicated. What I understand is that the Package includes several decisions (oa on Cotton), but most commentators focus on one of them (Agreement on Trade Facilitation) and seem to equivalage the package with that. I have tried to clarify. The Agreement on Trade Facilitation is "just" concluded and enters into force after 2/3 of the countries has ratified it (and then only for those who ratified); while the others might have effect earlier (or even immediate)… I have added an alt blurb that is correct and gives a bit more information….L.tak (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little better but it still remains inaccessible to most people.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree…. The dilemma is: the only way to really understand what was decided is to dive into the agreement texts which is original research… The news items are of very little use, as they at the moment don't seem to care about detailed content, entry into effect and full consequences… It's for that reason that I not casting a support or oppose vote here…. L.tak (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb2 The WTO unanimously adopts the "Bali Package", aimed at liberalizing world trade μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Medeis' proposed blurb; notable international agreement. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should that blurb be used, I'd suggest to modify that blurb to "aimed at liberalizing word trade". The largest part will require over 100 ratifications, so it certainly isn't a done deal yet… L.tak (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Medeis' proposed blurb, but I am concerned that the first sentence in the article has a {{citation needed}} on it. When/how it will go into effect is not mentioned in the article yet. John Vandenberg(chat) 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with L.tak, I was actually considering adding "aimed at" myself, so I will add the phrase. μηδείς (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tAG removed. (and reworded)Lihaas (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked Ready the article has several well formed paragraphs, plenty of sources and no tags. Support is strong. I bring to the attention of any posting admins the support for the second altblurb immediately above in the discussion section. μηδείς (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much improved, and I endorse posting per my conditional support. Jusdafax 03:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A record level of smog is reported in Shanghai causing officials to issue the highest level health warning and delaying of hundreds of flights.(Reuters)
Nominator's comments: Record snowfall and precipitation has hit the United States and has caused traffic slowdowns --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article would need much expansion before posting. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unidentified militants attack a Defense Ministry compound in Sana'a, Yemen, killing at least 52 people and injuring 167 others. Most of the victims appear to be doctors and nurses, working at a hospital within the property. (Al Jazeera)(CNN)
Pope Francis, in his first major action on the still very pressing issue, gives his assent during meetings on reform of the Roman Curia to the creation of a permanent expert-member Pontifical Commission which would advise the Catholic Church on how to deal with cases of the sin and crime of sex abuse of minors by those in Church ministries (as of now, it would not be able to take corrective action against lax Bishops; dioceses and then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are in charge of laicizing abusive clerics). (Catholic News Service)
Support This is the kind of death that deserves a blurb. His impact is beyond anything I could type here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he was very notable in the human history. Egeymi (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support. I think this could be posted ASAP. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Do it quick. Küñall (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-full blurb only. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously. Resolute 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I doubt anyone would oppose (I'll be proved wrong in due course!) - one of the world's most notable personalities of the late 20th century. But never mind "do it quick" - let's make sure the article has a decent update first. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in good (if not great) shape, and the death is noted and cited; there really only needs a paragraph at the moment about his death in one section, but prior to this we knew his health was not great. And now we'll get more on his legacy as the world renumerates on his influence, but that shouldn't stop posting without that. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a Good Article, which is better than 95%+ of what we post here, so article quality isn't an issue. There's already a legacy section, though maybe a sentence or two more at the end of "'Retiring from retirement': 2004–2013" would be good. SpencerT♦C 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously --Երևանցիtalk 21:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's proving very difficult to update the article with all the edit conflicts. SpencerT♦C 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I had trouble adding my support vote here due to edit conflicts. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Muboshgu. - JuneGloomTalk 21:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support I support this. He was one of the most influential and notable persons of the 20th century. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photo? I think Mandela deserves it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The renowned human-rights leader is an instant ITN choice. [8]Sca (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (ec) the greatest living human as of today. Immediate posting was warranted. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted photo to follow Stephen 22:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitively - most notable person in human history Miszatomic (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Being one of the largest names in, well, South African history, as well as impacting the world in such a widespread way makes this an obvious choice. Article coverage is likely to explode in the next hour or so alone. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☻) 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beaten to posting it multiple edit conflict support - no brainer. Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very obvious support- huge news. DarthBottotalk•cont 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Endorsement of decision to post to full blurb. Significance of the man undeniable. Redverton (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and endorse full blurb. Well done, editors. Jusdafax 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for shites and larfs.... Ahhhh who am I kidding?! Obvious Support for full blurb and picture! - Floydianτ¢ 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTFArs in all the posts below that also have support (and this is an obvious support no doubt) there is an update requirement and the page currently links to "Mandela died on 5 December 2013 at the age of 95, at home and surrounded by his family.[346] His death was announced by President Jacob Zuma.[" Llikewise UPDATE THIS FIRST!!!!Lihaas (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you just oppose things for the hell of it? The article quality and update questions are already discussed above. Please be more polite, type more carefully, and read what others have said. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See this from the criteria: "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article." This seems like a classic case for applying that. Neljack (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add: the article, prior to yesterday, was in pretty damn fine shape, and included up to the point of his poor health in September of this year. His death was quiet (in his bed), and the "major" update will come from the next several days. (Heck, I would not be surprised if there is a "Death of Nelson Mandela" article on the horizon, given how much tribute we're seeing so far. As such, the article was in the proper shape to let readers figure out where to add new material they felt they could contribute. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support When I thought of people who would warrant blurbs Mandela was the first and most obvious name that came to mind. The huge worldwide coverage is a testament to his remarkable impact not only in South Africa, but around the world as a symbol of justice and reconciliation. Neljack (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is an orange level tag on teh top of the page. Articles dont go up ofor that. Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rules say: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link". I'll say this is a case where we should use the exception: It's huge news and article has previously gone through a "Good Article" process. Iselilja (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The orange tag was placed after the posting, and has since been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's gone now - and unless the editor who wished it to be there can come up with any real evidence of a POV issue on th GA article in question, it's likely to stay that way. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated in light of the concern of certain editors above that this was posted without an update, see this diff showing a good deal of work done since posting, and a well-updated death section. I think the policy followed here was appropriately WP:Break all rules. μηδείς (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's not a policy, it's a "humorous essay". There's a big difference, you'd do well to learn that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They might have meant WP:IAR which is policy, and likely would have been applicable if the update was all but "he died". --MASEM (t) 14:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They might also have consistently confused policy with guideline with essay. Hence the advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - This is the major story on all news stations even now.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Things are getting worse in CAR. We've had this article on ITN twice already, the latest in March, but it seems there has been some new development. The article is full of tags, though. --Tone 09:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a specific event here to hang our hat on? (i.e. to have a blurb about) The BBC article seems to just be a general article about the poor situation there. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably this was not the best link. France is sending more troops.[9] This is a relevant development. Otherwise, it's a very ongoing story. --Tone 12:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) strong support/sticky there is a lot happening down there (and I was looking for an article...Would like to seperate the Seleka conflict article from the conflict under the Djotodia administration). It is often off the news, but in the last few weeks a bunch of stuff is crawling into the headlines. The law and order problem, the ethno-religious violence, sexual violence too.Lihaas (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After prodding, I've not created the new page and added a potential blurb. But the article needs work.Lihaas (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to be very important. Agree with the above comments about the blurb. My offering is something connected to this story - [10] - The UN, for the first time ever, uses drone surveillance in the DR Congo Conflict - but this might detract from Tone's original suggested story, so feel free to ignore it. CaptRik (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Different conflict, a long, long way away from the CAR! Brigade Piron (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, it's been a very long day! CaptRik (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; maybe we can combine the genocide claim and France's deployment of troops? Though I don't want the blurb too long. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait So far no indication that it actually happened (and I hope it will not). Bad news, of course, but currently the article contains a speculation with no casualties. Brandmeistertalk 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did put a note on the article [11] and above that it needs more work.
However, thre has been masive instability and violence. I was trying to work a blurb per the lack fo an original one. Feek free to suggest others instead of just refuting one.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the warnings by foreign politicians of the risk of genocide warrant posting. Actual evidence of genocide or crimes against humanity would. If we did have that in the blurb then, in the interests of fairness and neutrality, we would need to also include the response of the CAR government strongly disputing the suggestions (which would probably make the blurb too long). The deployment of French troops is a better candidate, but there are already international peacekeepers there, so I'm not convinced it is sufficiently significant either. Neljack (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similar to others above, I think this story is important and should be posted, but it would be better to have a specific significant even to list rather than, essentially, 'the conflict in CAR is still happening and gradually getting worse.' GoldenRing (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alsthough a google news search is dominated by French troops (as in the news) and calls for itnerventions. Still I think the former is more neutralLihaas (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment for anyone with the time/interest, see the talk page where i aded a bunch of stuff. Im very busy this week to add and sort it.Lihaas (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the quotes around genocide as they may be misinterpreted as scare quotes. Support if they are removed. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify a clearer rationale would help. The "international community" "warning" is very vague at best. μηδείς (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Warnings of genocide, not an actual genocide.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changed blubrb keyword.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note UNSC resolution should pass tomorrow giving a mandate tol a force. That should be blurb worthyLihaas (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to wait for a Security Council resolution, as we could make a clearer blurb with one. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE less than a n hour ago 2127 was passed unaimously, blurb updated
Strong support This is a serious and quickly escalating situation we have here in the CAR. Absolutely for ITN after some updates. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The new blurb is good, I would like to see some update, then ready to post. --Tone 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ive provided (and asked) the necessary info. if someone cares to...Lihaas (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as important news about a dire situation. Wider implications for instance than a plane crash in Mosambique (33 killed) that are currently featured. I don't think however that any of the two articles are very good at the present stage. I would also have preferred a simplied blurb that was easier to grab for ordinary readers, for instance starting "The United Nations establishes the peacekeeping operation MISCA" Iselilja (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to be an emergency UN action. Muslim militias supposedly shelling 35,000 Christians trapped in a compound. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
marked ready per the precedence on update lited above this. Likewise, the support is near unamnimousLihaas (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A mass grave is discovered near Bamako holding the remains of 21 loyalist soldiers said to have gone missing last year during Mali's coup. (Al Jazeera)
A train derails in the Bangladesh district of Gaibandha as a result of sabotage resulting in at least 3 deaths. Over 60 people have been killed since an opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party announced a campaign against next months election. (Dawn)
A Hezbollah official Hassan al-Lakkis is assassinated outside his home in Hadath, south of the Lebanese capital Beirut with Hezbollah blaming Israel. (Daily Star)
Sixty are ill with fifteen others requiring treatment for smoke inhalation when a BART train makes an emergency stop in the Berkeley Hills Tunnel near the Rockridge station due to mechanical problems. (KRON)
Politics and elections
Xavier Bettel becomes the first openly gay prime minister in Luxembourg and the third openly gay prime minister in Europe as the country's first government without participation of the Christian Social People's Party since 1979 takes office; Bettel's deputy, Étienne Schneider, is also openly gay, making Luxembourg the first country in the world with the two highest-ranking leaders of government being openly gay. (Al Jazeera)
Nominator's comments: Truly breathtaking in scale, affects every person on the planet who uses a cell phone. Yes, you reading this. --Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is all over the media here, and I guess it is much the same in other countries. An absolutely unprecedented revelation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Snowden's revelations are becoming quite frequent, and honestly I don't think this is going to shock much of the jaded public. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Snowden revelations had actually been hinted on before Snowden. What makes the Snowden revelations interesting is that we now have solid proof, which makes all the difference. So even if it was suspected before that the NSA were keeping tabs on people using cellphones, knowing it is so is actually important news. Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. On a cold, dispassionate level, it's not that surprising that a massively funded secretive agency has secretly gathered massive amounts of information. And while I am undeniably as jaded as everyone else (neither positive nor negative about Snowden's actions, but jaded nonetheless), the scale of it is unbelievable. —WFC— FL wishlist 09:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The NSA doing exactly what they are intended to be doing is not news; and once again we are not a Snowden ticker(or a ticker for his mouthpiece The Guardian). 331dot (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we no longer will post any news items about wars, since war is just soldiers doing their jobs? The fact that NSA has been ordered/allowed to do this is huge news! And once again, we should consider posting this because it is notable (and widely covered), not because we are a "Snowden ticker". Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wars are notable in terms of international relations and are not common. The NSA doing its job is not news. Further this information is being spilled a little at a time to maximize attention and sell newspapers. They've had this information since Snowden allegedly stole it and gave it to them. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The NSA is collecting location data on many millions of people. This is self-evidently hugely notable. Thue (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5 billion records per day (the source says hundreds of milions of people, so still very significant, but not 80% of the world population!). Given that they have access to data going over mobile networks, this isn't all that surprising, since your mobile phone checks in with the network reasonably frequently, and once you know which basestations receive the signal, getting a ball park location is easy. MChesterMC (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update - Another NSA revelation: Not only are they archiving everything everyone says, they are recording everywhere everyone goes. International scope, and of interest to a wide range of readers. NSA article appears to have no update, however. Jusdafax 12:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Edward Snowden is performing perhaps the largest media stunt in modern history. You may view that as a good thing or as a bad thing, but there's little arguing the fact that he's releasing his information in such a way as to garner the most attention. ITN is not intended to cover gradual progresses. It's the same reason we no longer post routine gay marriage items and such. While this is clearly one of the larger Snowden disclosures, there's nothing that particularly sets it aside from the rest of them—it stays in the category of computerized mass surveillance on a global scale, with little effect to your average person (despite the nominator's hyperbolic comment). The leaks overall are certainly ITN-worthy (and sat on the Main Page for a week or so when they first took place), but I see no reason to think that, within the context of the leaks, this is a truly extraordinary one. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a media stunt, but that does not make it not ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning) 14:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not directly, no. But the operative part of the stunt is the dramatically-paced glacial release of all the documents, which lead to a new round of headlines two-three times a week, and thus turn this into a routine news item. I return to my gay marriage analogy: We posted the decision in United States v. Windsor, because from a historical perspective that was far more significant than your run-of-the-mill "liberal state to allow gay marriage" headline. I'd argue that you have to prove a similar situation with this specific Snowden leak, that this should be seen as a defining moment in the disclosures, that the vast majority of routine leaks pale in comparison to this particular one. And no, saying "ZOMG they're spying on EVERYONE" does not count as proving those points. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the big one, of all of the releases. Abductive (reasoning) 08:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens when the next release is considered "the big one"? Every one seems to be "the big one". 331dot (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose this is a media stunt to piecemeal list everything and get attention, we cant post it all...unlike wikileaks' once in a go releaseLihaas (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. A government agency performing its function is not notable. I'll also second PinkAmpersand's comments. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It is not an issue to oppose something because it is becoming very common at ITN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this should have been posted last time about nsa spying national leaders, but it wasn't for some reason. Given that this really should be posted this time. SeraV (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing side discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't posted because the leaders of all nations spy on each other as a matter of course, even if they won't admit it. The same thing is going on here- the NSA doing its job is not news. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not some sort of expert on what is news and what is not especially since newspapers disagree with you. SeraV (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim to be any expert. I gave my opinion, just as you did. An event being in the newspaper has never been sufficient reason to post it on ITN. People forming consensus here do so by giving their views, just as they did below with my nomination. This is being made news artificially as The Guardian has had this information since it was allegedly stolen by Snowden and given to them(which we did post). They have been sitting on it and releasing it gradually to draw attention(and sell papers). 331dot (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh indeed, but since your opinion is not being based on anything it is just that, your opinion. Look I am not trying to be overly hostile to you here, but I really can't understand how you can claim that your nomination below is more important and more notable than this story. I seriously can't grasp on what sort of standards you are working on here. SeraV (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to rehash the debate below but I will say that my nomination was a first-ever event for that nation in its entire history, while this (and the foreign leaders spying) is a normal function of the NSA that is only being artificially made a story; as I said we posted the initial leak of information, so we don't need to post every piece of information that Snowden and his mouthpiece The Guardian decide to release and make a story. As I have said before to others, we are not a Snowden ticker. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your normal function is illegal in most countries that NSA is targeting. And most stories don't actually stop at the initial posting. I agree that we don't have to post everything about this, which we haven't done either, but most important pieces we definitely should. SeraV (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And when a foreign country arrests an NSA agent for their illegal activity, that might be a story, or if a nation cuts off or changes diplomatic relations with the US(like closing an embassy or expelling diplomats), that might be a story too. Every piece of information released seems to be the "most important"; it's hard to tell when it is not all released at once(which again is a strategic decision). 331dot (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like that time when nsa was spying on certain nations leaders and they confronted usa about that, right? Expect you opposed that too. But your opinion about this seems to be that nothing about this is important anymore since we posted this once already. SeraV (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing for a nation to just complain about another nation; it is another to actually respond to another nation's activity with an action of one's own. I'm not willing to say we should never post anything about this ever again, but don't think an agency performing its intended function qualifies. I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agreed. SeraV (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we need not repeat the same story over and over again. It's been posted already. When the NSA stops tapping phones and Internet, that will be news. JehochmanTalk 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for ITN are 'the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.' Because the question of significance of an event is always relative (even at the best of times there would always be some bias), we generally rely on secondary source tests like wide reporting in media etc. The current set of disclosures on phone tapping has received very wide media attention and has made headline news in most newspapers, so for me the test of significance is satisfied. But again wiki is not a newspaper and in near future Guardian and others are going to be feeding more info and as some editors have pointed out above ITN may look like a ticker. Similar queries were raised during the discussion of ITN for the syrian civil war related news and if I remember correctly that discussion did not lead to a major policy change but reaffirmed the consensus notion that only if there is a significant development in an ongoing conflict or ITN worthy item, the update would be posted. There has been a surge in media news over this '5billion call records' story and if we look at the webtraffic to the NSA article we would see a slight trend towards an increase (however it could be cyclic as well), but another article dealing directly with the leak Global surveillance disclosure seems to have a higher traffic flow than even the NSA article, thus from the trends I would conclude that the latest leaks are significant and hence I would support ITN for Global surveillance disclosure. LegalEagle (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The problem is, there's not a news event related to this. The fact that newspapers will release "revelations" when other news is slow is not itself a relevant event. I would actually like to have the NSA matter itself highlighted across the new and old media, but a support on that basis would be like voting in favor of posting a minor shooting or a development in gay marriage because gun violence or LGBT issues are personally important to me, not because of the impact of the story itself. μηδείς (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant development that is getting widespread international coverage. I note that we haven't posted anything on this subject for quite some time. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Abductive's comments about IDONTLIKEIT are absolutely correct. We have people asserting that this is "not news", despite the fact is getting widespread international coverage in the news media. Clearly what is meant is that it shouldn't be news - in other words, IDONTLIKEIT. Neljack (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is not IDONTLIKEIT. My objection is that the initial theft/leak of information was posted, and we don't need to post every revelation that The Guardian/Snowden chooses to release, to maximize attention and sell newspapers. I have a further objection in that this story is only stating that the NSA is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. It would be like reporting "US Park Rangers patrol National Park". That's their job. Same with the NSA.
Lastly, many stories get "widespread international coverage in the news media" and are not posted (such as a first-ever event for a nation) so that isn't enough of a reason to post something, and never has been. 331dot (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point in noting the widespread international media coverage was not that this was sufficient by itself for posting, but to show that your claim that this was "not news" was patently false. Nobody has suggested that we should every revelation that is released - that is a straw man. But we should not decline to post stories that are of sufficient significance because of the way in which the information has been released - that is quite irrelevant to its significance. Finally, I find the point about the NSA just doing their job quite bizarre. Are we now saying that things people do as part of their jobs should not be posted? That would, for instance, rule out virtually everything that politicians do. No doubt the NSA is doing its job, but the point is that the way it is doing its job has caused considerable international controversy. Neljack (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that controversy is being stretched out artificially by a newspaper. Let's get the whole kit and kaboodle released so we can actually decide what is the "most important revelation" in the stolen information. In another week we will likely be back here discussing yet another "most important" bit of information. It is obviously true that no one has actually suggested posting all stories from Snowden's trove, but that is de facto what is happening. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian may have been the first to report on it, but they aren't the only ones doing so. If the international media publishes something that only involves very specific groups, I do understand that not all of Snowden's documents may have a long lasting effect and we should not include such details here. But this one affects the global population at large. -A1candidate (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These ever growing accusations of "IDONTLIKEIT" are beyond silly. That applies to genres or works, not disagreements over notability/significance/importance. Nobody has opposed this nomination because they don't like the Guardian or the NSA. How in the world does pointing out that there's no new event (i.e., no new news) associated with this release, that could have been made last week or next, amount to not liking anything? The whole point of this page is to come to consensus on notability/significance/importance, and saying that people cannot express the judgment that a nomination lacks notability/significance/importance because that would be "NOTLIKINGIT" is to fail to understand both the scope of that policy and the purpose of this page. μηδείς (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the biggest data leak- which is why it was posted when it occurred. We don't need to post it every time The Guardian chooses to release some information. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That will ultimately depend on the significance of the leak itself. This particular leak certainly is one of the most significant ones:
Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, called it "staggering" that such a massive location-tracking program "could be implemented without any public debate."
Every leak seems to be "the most significant". We have no way of knowing which one truly is, as The Guardian drips their info out a little at a time to maximize attention. Rugby is ITNR and its presence on ITN does not mean it is "more significant" than anything else; each item is judged on its own merits(or should be, at least). 331dot (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are individually significant and will ultimately affect the course of world history. A rugby tournament may be a recurring item, but that alone does not make it significant. I also have to point out that it was The Washington Post, and not The Guardian, who made this particular revelation. -A1candidate (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand posting historical effects of this information, such as a nation expelling diplomats or cutting off diplomatic relations, but the leak happened and was over with when it happened. The news source cited above is The Guardian(and they have the information). 331dot (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The historical effects of Snowden's disclosures are not just limited to foreign relations. The disclosures themselves involve equally important topics such as human rights, the freedom of the press, and more importantly, the individual privacy of every human being on Earth.The leak is not over yet, it has just begun. If you have been following Snowden's disclosures closely, and if you were to take another look at The Guardian article, it should be clear that their report is almost entirely based on an earlier version by The Washington Post, one which The Guardian rightfully gives credit to. -A1candidate (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The leak has already occurred; Snowden and those working with him are not currently stealing information. They are only releasing what they already possess. I understand there are potentially other effects; if laws are passed, people arrested, or other actual, current events due to this, then I would probably support posting that. This is not a current event, it is a public relations stunt to generate sympathy for Snowden and his cause. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the news leak is an ongoing occurence. The copying of electronic information by Snowden should not be confused with the leaking of information itself. The news leak started when Snowden first sent his documents, but it certainly did not end there, or else the public wouldn't have known anything about it. Not sure why any newspaper woukd "generate sympathy" for Snowden and risk being investigated by state prosecutors on charges of terrorism -A1candidate (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume they would do so due to the aforementioned causes you speak of(free press, etc.) 331dot (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Surprisingly, Snowden's evidence is continuing to reveal major new aspects of the surveillance programme. This is a significant revelation, above and beyond what came before. Previously he was talking about either discovering who was talking to whom, or reading people's messages. Now it's about actually tracking where they are. That's another major step, and worth another blurb. This is important news, regardless of how tired some of the commentators above have become of the ongoing story. Modest Geniustalk 13:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And we'll be back here in another week or two with another bit of "important news" about this leak that is being stretched out artificially. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should just establish a ticker for Snowden to back this artificial media circus. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking for a Snowden ticker. There are some disclosures that would only be of interest to specific groups such as IT specialists and citizens of a particular country, but other disclosures are of interest to the global population at large. I think we're just seeking to include those that belong to the latter category. Not doing so would grossly compromise the goal of ITN to "reflect recent or current events of wide interest." -A1candidate (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is only continued wide interest because one newspaper working with Snowden has decided there should be. The actual event, the loss/theft of the information, already generated the wide interest; these drip-drip releases done only out of self-interest just serve to continue it long after the actual event has passed. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you would be more careful before making such accusations, because your statement is factually wrong. The documents are being leaked by multiple news organizations in multiple countries. -A1candidate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, though The Guardian seems to be the most well-known. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb only, with Global surveillance disclosure as the main topic. This is not about Snowden, who is said to have given everything to the reporters, who are releasing it how they see fit. This specific revelation is an opportune time to give people the high level view as provided by Global surveillance disclosure. John Vandenberg(chat) 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeShould this be getting major coverage? Probably. But it is generally not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs. This has been largely absent from the news cycle and is only getting the same coverage the other revelations. A Google Trends analysis of NSA shows that search interest is waning, indicating that it is less likely that readers will be searching for the content because it is in the news. What this does reveal is that we probably should have posted the spying-on-other-nations story (when there WAS a significant jump in searches), but that time has come and gone. I am also rather concerned with the fact that every citation about the event in the global surveillance article is cited to the Washington Post, the publisher of these revelations who has a significant stake in the success of the story. There may yet be another story from these Snowden leaks that makes headlines and would make for an appropriate ITN item, but this one is not it. Teemu08 (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your assertation that "every citation about the event in the global surveillance article is cited to the Washington Post" is factually wrong. The documents are being leaked by multiple news organizations in multiple countries. This is something that is reported by the international media, not just a single newspaper. -A1candidate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look I agree here with you a bit, however that other spying-on-other-nations story was filibustered by the same people this story is now, and ultimately ignored in spite of reasonable consensus to post it. And I fear that all other stories about this are going to face the same fate, so if this is not posted now I fear it never will be again. That aside I do believe this story does have reasonable consensus to be posted now. SeraV (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "... all the time, forever" makes it sound less like a typical news event. But I don't see why the huge size and momentum of this story makes it any less worthy of posting. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. And soon, before this one too has been talked into stagnation. This is a story that is huge in scope and, while originating from one nation, is one of the few stories we've seen that is quite literally global. GRAPPLEX 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking anything into stagnation, nor is anyone else. People are expressing valid concerns and opinions. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be defensive (unless you think a nameless statement refers to you) but the previous stories about the NSA were talked about until they went stale and frankly I'd like to see us actually post one some time before the sun explodes. GRAPPLEX 23:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When was the last NSA story that was posted to ITN? Links to ones that were talked to death and not posted would also be helpful for people like me who don't frequently participate in ITN. John Vandenberg(chat) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready Article is updated. I believe there is consensus, both numerically (two to one in favour) and in terms of strength of arguments. Neljack (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Well its a landmark jurisprudence change just short of a new constitution. Not to mention perhaps the highest change since 2011. --Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An Islamic country voting to use Islam as the basis of its laws is not news. It'd be news if they voted to be more secular. I also appreciate the news source given, but I'm finding little coverage of this at this point. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Contra 331dot, this is significant news. Only a minority of Muslim countries have sharia as the basis of their whole legal system. More commonly, it only applies in certain contexts, generally relating to family and personal status matters. See this article: [12]Neljack (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to that article Libya had some degree of sharia law during Gaddafi's regime, so this is not a massive change in policy. Further, as I said already I am not seeing many stories on this vote(nothing yet on NBC, CNN, BBC, Guardian, Le Monde), 331dot (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such a fundamental law is obviously notable. Just imagine if the US made a law tomorrow that "the bible is the basis for all law in the country". Would 331dot then say "A Christian country voting to use Christianity as the basis of its laws is not news."? Thue (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US is a secular country per its constitution. If we amended our Constitution to recognize Christianity as the state religion and The Bible as the source of our laws, that would be news. It would not be news if the US as a secular country voted to be a secular country. That said, this vote has nothing to do with their Constitution (which has yet to be written), if it did, then I might be more persuaded to support it. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you presume that Islamic countries have Islamic law? Lots are secular, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and a bunch of others like Seneral , etc.Lihaas (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make here is that Libya has used at least elements of sharia law in the past and simply voted to do what they had been doing before. It also is not yet in their Constitution; if it was, we could post it in that context(and I would support that). 331dot (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update or change of target article - A big news story, international in scope due to the recent revolution and murder of the head of state. I notice the target article is not updated and now tagged by the nominator. Perhaps it would be better to update the Libya article itself. Jusdafax 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dropping my opposition as I am now starting to see this appear in other news outlets. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no update to the bolded article. Stephen 01:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 5 December 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.
Nominator's comments: Truly international news. Covered in many national medias with reactions from politicans etc. Wikipedia has a very fine table over results (table updated by an IP;) *IMPORTANT UPDATE I do see we need a a special article for the 2012 tests, so I have started one and am in the process of expanding it. Everybody invited to participate in the article writing (including correcting language errors). Also changed the blurb. WITHDRAWN. Iselilja (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) --Iselilja (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, a good nomination. This is the headline article on the website of Australia's national broadcaster right now. (Perhaps because Australia has gone downhill in the assessment, and this is dramatic news.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support in principle, but "and East Asian countries" is a bit vague and probably not uniformly true. Suggest a just-the-facts-ma'am approach focusing on Shanghai. It should be noted that there are a few other regular surveys of education systems and PISA is not without its critics. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless there is more of a hook to this story than just "students take test". I just don't see much meat here; it seems to be confirming that the smart countries are smart, and the dumb countries are dumb. Not really trying to be flippant here, but I'm looking hard at this and I don't see what makes it ITN-worthy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my post? It's in the news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything that is nominated here is in the news. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just some test results. 331dot (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my post? It's in the news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. And when that's enough to post a story here, let me know, since I have a few suggestions. 331dot (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for discounting the judgement of Australia's national broadcaster like that. It's good to know that you know better. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to any particular broadcaster; but an event merely being in the news has, rightly or wrongly, never been enough on its own to post a story. 331dot (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the article is updated, the purpose of ITN is to feature "articles that have been substantially updated." Basically every year, the PISA article is just updated with a new chart showing which nation has the highest scores. Realistically, unless there was an in depth article about 2013 PISA results, marginal updates to the PISA article every year are not sufficient to indicate that these events are sufficiently notable. SpencerT♦C 05:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The tests are only held every third year (and presented the year after). (I see the lead needs to be updated.) I fully agree it’s unfortunate we don’t have a sub-article for 2012 (and previous test years); there is certainly enough sources and notability for it. Maybe these shortcomings of Wikipedia makes we can’t have it on the mainpage; but it’s a shame because the tests themselves are surely of great notability; there are a lot of media buzz when they are presented; and they have long-time impact; influencing the educational system and political debates in many countries. Sweden's result for instance continues to fall, causing the media and politicians to use phrases like "Black Tuesday", "National catastrophe" (Opposition leader) etc.; it will be a dominating theme in the upcoming Swedish election. The bad results for Sweden also influences the educational policies in Norway, because the current right-wing government were inclined to support a similar privatization of schools that Sweden have had; but due to the horrible Pisa results Sweden has had, they are more reluctant to do so. The Norwegian Minister of Education has instead already been on the phone with his Polish colleague because Poland did surprisingly well and he will now go to Poland to study the Polish system, as well as focusing on the Dutch system since the Netherlands also did well. You will find similar mechanism in other countries. But Wikipedia's coverage might not fully well show the importance given to these tests. Iselilja (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "dog bites man" is not news. μηδείς (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly incomprehensible oppose, so best ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So now your personal ignorance of aphorisms is an ITN criterion, TRM? Perhaps you should go unilaterally insinuate that in a policy somewhere. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make no sense. Why would you use "aphorisms" to oppose a nomination here? Why would you expect others to understand your curious !vote? Try again. And while you're at it, please learn the difference between a policy and a guideline, which currently clearly evades you! Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?
Oppose as there is little significance in an organisation announcing the results of a test for students. We do not publish every security council decision of the UN, etc. etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN; due to opposition, but also because I've got a bit of flu, so I won't be able to improve the article sufficiently in due time. (I'll probablyn ominate it for DYK instead). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:18, 5 December 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.
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: Famous Egyptian poet whose songs were popular during the 2011 Revolution. Al Ahram described him as "one of Egypt’s most renowned vernacular poets of the second half of the 20th century". Mohamed CJ(talk) 08:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support when updated. Seems to have been one of the most high profile Egyptian poets. Currently there is no mention of his death in the prose at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon update with death information per Thryduulf. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Death info now present; I fully support posting. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to qualify for RD. A writer who made a significant impact not just on literature but also on his country. Neljack (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article (2 lines and 3 sources for those who count). There is however an orange tag added about an hour ago as two sections of the article are without references to back them up. Mohamed CJ(talk) 14:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WHY? ITN needs reasons, we dont vote count..Lihaas (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When a poet is awarded for being an ambassador for the poor, one gets the impression his poetry is not what he's actually known for. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that an indication that he had a substantial impact? Neljack (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not as a poet. μηδείς (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well some of the political impact does seem to have been through his poetry, which was quite political. Anyway, what would matter if most of his impact was as an activist? Surely we assess people just the same, whatever field their impact was in. Neljack (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And why, pray thee, would he have been selected as an ambassador, if he wasn't already known? Wikimedia Indonesia has a "free knowledge" ambassador, Christian Sugiono, and he was known as an actor well before he was taken on by WMId. Gita Gutawa was "educational ambassador" for a cigarette company, etc. I'm assuming that similar positions are awarded in Egypt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have posted this, were it not for the fact that the article is comprised of two sections without a single reference between them. Stephen 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link o death sectionLihaas (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems fairly notable in his field. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attention needed' to the article. I oppose this, but I just went to the article to see if it could be marked ready in light of the obvious support. However, the article is orange tagged, and the early life section (the largest by far) has not a single ref, and the Duo section has only one ref among its three paragraphs. I don't read Arabic script myself, so someone else will have to address this for the article to be ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the New Hampshire's U.S. District Court, the former medical technician David Kwiatkowski is sentenced to 39 years in prison for infecting unknown numbers of patients in various states with hepatitis C through the reuse of his contaminated syringes. (FOX News)
It's clear this isn't going to be posted, which is very unfortunate for Wikipedia. Aside from the minor citation issues on the page, I believe that the purpose of ITN is being forgotten and a little systemic bias was at work here. That said, I must move on. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 6 December 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.
Nominator's comments: We don't often hear that a nation had its very first death due to police action ever, which is the case here. I concede this might not get posted, but it is getting coverage and I thought since I updated the article I'd give it a shot. --331dot (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we don't often get this sort of story, and we don't often get stories about Iceland. It seems that this is very significant in Iceland and is getting coverage internationally. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this is interesting, I don't see that a small country having its first fatal police shooting is really of sufficient importance to warrant posting. It is still one person being killed, just as unfortunately happens every day in various places around the world. Neljack (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, but may be hard for us being from larger countries to understand what this exactly means to Iceland. This sort of thing never happens there, let alone not happening every day. It is also important enough to mention in media around the world, perhaps not as the top headline story, but it is there nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point, though I think I have a better idea than many since I'm from a fairly small country. New Zealand's 4.5 million is obviously quite different to Iceland's 320,000, but a fatal police shooting here will always be big news throughout the country. While I'm not convinced this is sufficiently significant, I won't be upset if this is posted - it certainly is an interesting story. Neljack (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support with update. It is a rare incident, a minority topic, and it does have small country repercussions (per 331dot) (in a globalised perspective that is not bias)Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tend to Oppose here. The incident is currently mentioned in one short paragraph and there may not be a whole lot of meat in the story to expand it with. So far, it seems too minor for the front page; even though it's the first police shooting in the small country, it's kind of natural that it could happen there too, and there doesn't seem to be something particular scandal-like with what happened. Iselilja (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for lengthy updates; just an update. The guidelines state "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable." I've met this five-sentence guideline. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was more that if the story can be adequately covered in a single paragraph it may be a sign that the story isn't all that much. I can easily image news stories where only a short update is needed and the story is still notable: for instance if a person wins something very notable, also somethimes deaths, resignation etc. of a major personality. But a crime story, accident, storm, etc. that doesn't have more in it than can be summarized in a paragraph or two; will seldom be notable in my view. Iselilja (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - because it is a very rare incident over the entire scandinavian area. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, truly interesting in this age of another-day-another-shooting, but the blurb needs work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and am open to suggestions. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose no evidence of police wrongdoing, certainly not the first death due to state action. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is in Iceland by the police, which is why it is in worldwide media. How many such things have happened elsewhere? 331dot (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, missing the point I'm afraid Medeis. There's no implication of wrong-doing, just that this is the first person to be killed by Iceland police, ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fatal shootings by the police are fairly uncommon in most Western countries, so that whenever one happens it is likely to be a first for the locality. Iceland is a small place and this is a sad event, but it is unremarkable. In case this is posted, though, note that the sources seem to say this is first fatal shooting by police in Iceland, rather than "the first death due to police", which seems a lot broader and a bit open to interpretation. Formerip (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be unremarkable to you and me, but we don't live in a country where this sort of thing just does not happen at all. I often hear complaints of systemic bias here, and I thought this would be a good story to work on that issue. We don't post many stories from the Nordic countries. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, FormerIP, despite opposing, sums it up perfectly, this is very common in most Western countries, but not in Iceland. That's why it's in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the case. In the last 23 years, 54 people have been shot dead by British police. Using that as benchmark, and given that the population of the UK is about 200 times the size of Iceland's, you would expect one fatal shooting by Icelandic police about every 100 years. It's no more interesting an event than taking a random British case and saying "this is the first time this has happened in Coventy/Enfield/Rotherham/wherever". Formerip (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't talking about a subnational entity here, we are talking about a sovereign state. Using math to somehow diminish the importance of this ignores the fact that this is being widely reported. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference. Still using UK data, being shot by police seems to be about as common a way to die as being stung by an insect or hit by a cyclist, and only a bit more common than being struck by lightning. Are we supposed to post the occurrence of any unusual event if it happens in a small, young country for the first time? Formerip (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in the news, then why not? Being struck by lightning is purely random, being shot dead by Icelandic police is not random and has never happened before. "Young country" etc is all fascinating, but there are no other similar stories in the news, this one is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "no difference", it is every difference. I don't see "first death by bee sting in Iceland" or "first death by lightning in Iceland" reported in the news worldwide. And, as TRM points out, there is a difference between random occurrences and this one. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should post items just because they have been reported in the media, regardless of whether they are otherwise noteworthy? I can't agree with that. Formerip (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should post items that are in the news, that are of interest to the general public, that are certainly noteworthy in a world where police kill suspects with alarming regularity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. You surely know your argument is thin when you resort to bolding "in the news". If that's a good argument, it's a good argument for posting absolutely anything. I'm not sure the regularity is all that alarming outside the US, though. Which is kind of my whole point. Formerip (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Unfortunately, they're not uncommon in the U.S.! This event seems noteworthy for being the first ever in Iceland, which though a small country has a long history and a reputation for being unusually civic-minded. Sca (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement shows an ignorance of context. Our article List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States says there are approximately 400 "justifiable homicides" a year, which, if we compare populations, means one police shooting every two or three years in Iceland would be a comparable number. Of course, Iceland is a small, incredibly homogenous country, comparable to innumerable small cities in the US which haven't had a shooting by police since WWII, with Iceland becoming independent in 1944. Iceland has nothing comparable to the large, Democrat machine-run cities like Detroit, Camden, NJ, and Chicago which account for the bulk of US police shootings. Lucky Iceland. μηδείς (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. This is the first of such events. You may be well used to it in the US, but in Iceland this is a landmark event. Who cares about your little villages and their shooting incidents, frankly. This has made international news, is actually interesting and should be part of ITN. All the statistical analysis is pointless. And no, it's not "lucky Iceland", it's actually "unlucky US", quite obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant national event with worldwide coverage. Gamaliel (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged this as ready again. I respectfully submit that the opposes seem to boil down to IDONTLIKEIT. Further, opposes saying that such shooting are not rare where they come from miss the point. The update guidelines have been met, this is in the news worldwide, and it's from a nation we don't often have stories from, if ever. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For someone quoting ITN guidelines, it should be known you cannot tag our nm as ready.Lihaas (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out where it states that? I see it done often. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I can't do it as the nominator? I'd still like to see where it says that, but I accept that for the moment. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
331dot was perfectly within his rights to tag this as [Ready]. All that does is alert any uninvolved administrators looking at the page that they should have a look to see whether it should be posted. The posting administrator still has to independently assess consensus and the adequacy of the update. Items are usually tagged by editors who have been involved in the discussion - they, for obvious reasons, are the most likely people to be paying attention to it. Neljack (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for not liking it. On the contrary. I am from Norway so I am almost genetically inclined to support bringing Iceland and other Nordic countries some attention in the world. I will honestly be delighted if this item is posted. It’s just that I don’t see as hard news that a notorious criminal gets shot and killed by the police (he was once expelled from Norway for having shot at the police here). It hasn’t happened previously on Iceland which may make the country seem exotic in other parts of the world which appears to be the underlying news appeal; basically this is a “Dog shot Man” kind of news story. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "Dog shot Man", it's "Dog discovers that Man can be shot, and shoots one". It's very different. Regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging as [ready] since oppose votes are all based on some bizarre statistical analysis in comparison with the US or some claim that Iceland is a "young country". Either way, it's the first time this has happened for nearly 70 years, the first time ever, has made international news and is what ITN is all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Be Silly "man justifiedly shot by cop" has to be the least newsworthy item ever nominated here. The NYC train wreck and the Scottish copter crash blow it out of the water. Until we start posting things like "first ever police shooting in Princeton NJ" opposition to this is rational, and support is based on a fascination with gun violence that speaks to politics, not reality. μηδείς (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Princeton, NJ is not a sovereign state. There is nothing political about stating the simple fact that this occurred. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rare event untypical of a particular sovereign state, but otherwise highly normal, is not an ITN criterion. Nor do news stories in small states gain any more weight than news stories in NYC. Would we publish it snowing in Puerto Rico, a helicopter crash killing one in Vaduz, or a drag race in St. Peter's Square? We wouldn't publish a murder suicide of five in Reykjavik. Why we would publish a policeman using his legally sanctioned arm against one suspect is beyond comprehension--unless there's something inherent to gun violence itself, and the implied comparison with uncivilized countries to the south? But that's POV. μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why publish it? Because it's in the news, and not just in Iceland. I am starting to better understand systemic bias issues here, I think. I make no comparisons to other countries. I simply suggested a story widely in the news of an unusual event. You are adding your own political and social views to this discussion. 331dot (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, don't be silly, and stop using straw man comparisons. This is unique occasion, just because the US sees this kind of behaviour every day, and has done for decades, the fact that it's never happened before in Iceland makes it newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. You use a bizarre statistical analysis to support this. Then you resort to comparison with gun violence in the US. Not in SA or ME. But in the US. Thou dripst with POV. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saying an event is "the first time this has happened in Iceland" when it is something that has never happened in Iceland ever before is not some "Bizarre statistical analysis". Posting only events that would be significant if they happened in the US is extremely biased. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are not many countries, if any, that can say there is a first time event like this one. The unique nature of this news item is what makes it ITN-worthy, in my view. Opposers quite fail to convince. This is an interesting blurb for ITN, and I suggest we post it. Jusdafax 23:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Here's my problem with the item; the sources are unsure if this is the first death by police action, there could have been ones prior to WWII. Also the fact is that the story is of a single event with nothing else to say besides "for first time, lunatic shot by cops in Iceland"--might as well not wikilink to anything, that's the whole story. No lasting impact. Abductive (reasoning) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC said "It is the first time someone has been killed in an armed police operation in Iceland, officials say." Fox said "the first time armed police have shot and killed someone in the nation." Al-Jazeera's headline: "Regret over Iceland's first police shooting". NBC said "Police in Iceland killed a person for the first time in the nation’s history". Which sources are saying it might not be the first? It is also crystal ball-ish to claim there is "no lasting impact"; you have no way of knowing that yet. There is also no requirement for a story to have a "lasting impact". 331dot (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 331dot completely. I'd go so far as to emphasize to the administrators who post that the opposes have failed utterly to present any real weight in their reasoning, and additionally that this blurb should be posted based on worldwide news coverage of a first-time national event. Jusdafax 04:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why then does this article say "going 60 years without a single shooting death by police"? Because this police force is only one year older than the man they shot. Prior to WWII there must have been some deaths by police. Abductive (reasoning) 03:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
marked as ready given the large support and irrelevance of much of the opposition arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it interesting that the police force of an independent nation had never before been directly responsible for a shooting death. Canuck89 (what's up?) 11:08, December 4, 2013 (UTC)
Oops. The article is tagged. Obviously that is a problem. Jusdafax 12:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some of the citations need help. I'll work on it. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited everything I can, but I cannot find where the list of weapons and vehicles they use comes from. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the legitimacy of the claim we can't simply use "Oh it's a sovereign country therefore it's notable" argument. Iceland is tiny terms of population - 300,000 or so. Police killings are generally a rare event in the developed world at least, so it stands to reason that a rare mode of death isn't going to occur frequently in a small population size. That simply the effect of statistics based on a small sample size, not some inherent notability.
To expand this point I looked up the rate of fatal police shootings in the UK and got a figure of 30 in 12 years, or 2½ a year. Correcting for population would yield an expected figure for Iceland of 0.0133 deaths a year assuming the same rate. Since the country has only been independent since 1944 that this is the firsts suggests the statistics for each are broadly similar.
Unmarked as ready - it can't be ready if the article is tagged, and in any case consensus is hardly overwhelming. The opposes have decent grounds and can't be dismissed as irrelevances. 3142 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3142, comparing this to other countries is irrelevant and also is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is notable in Iceland, and around the world as it is in worldwide media. This sort of event (the first ever for a nation- which has had police for hundreds of years even if they haven't been independent that long) does not happen every day. Comparing this to shooting rates of other countries misses the point. We are missing the forest for the trees here and forgetting what ITN is supposed to be for. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plus thats a logical fallacy. Anyhoow there is not orange level target (which is the reasons for holds) so remarked ready.Lihaas (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, we have an entirely unreferenced section "ranks", and a section "equipment" of five subsections with one lone citation. Those parts of the article are not up to snuff. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ranks is not unreferenced; I put the reference there myself. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 331, I see it was tucked down under the chart. I moved it up top to make more visible. Problem is there are still two main subsections, one with a single ref not covering all the minor subsections, and the other with no refs at all. There should be at least one ref per paragraph in these sections. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but at the very least Medeis could get your username correct, since she is so sniffy about other's getting her's correct. It's 331dot, by the way, Medeis, not 3331. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that those areas should be better referenced, but I have hit a wall in that area; I could not find anything on the English-language page, and I cannot read Icelandic. I do understand not posting this for that reason- though at least it is better referenced than it was. If nothing else, this process was good for that, I guess. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a bit of work on the article: nothing big, just some subsection breaks and minor tweaks. I suggest pulling out the unreferenced subsections. They can always be added back if sources become available. The author could be contacted or pinged, for example. Jusdafax 22:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Of course comparisons to other countries are relevant: the core of my argument was that these kinds of quirks are inevitable given a sufficiently low population. If this was the first but in comparison to other countries we would have expected a hundred or more such shootings by now, then yes that would be notable. As it is we would expect around one and we have precisely one. It's very difficult to assert any kind of notability when the tally is precisely what we would expect on a comparative basis.
This whole "but is the first" thing doesn't hold any water either since it ultimately amounts to a notability inversion: it has the effect of inflating the significance of the "first" based in the insignificance of the population. It's easy to imagine all sorts of "firsts" among e.g. the residents of Pitcairn (pop 56) but those do not amount to intrinsic notability, because the pool of people that might achieve that first is so small that the restriction on population amounts to over-classification. Would we post the first fatal police shooting in the US where the deceased's surname began with an 'F' and the shooting happened on a Tuesday? Of course not, we would say the classifications make the "first" meaningless. That is still a larger pool of potential shootings than the entire Icelandic population. 3142 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your explanation, but I still feel that amounts to IDONTLIKEIT with some elements of systemic bias because you view small nations as less important. If that was the case in this instance, there would have been no news coverage of this, but it was covered all around the world, and as such people might come here to learn more about it. That's what ITN is for. We are also not talking about a subset of a national population, so such a comparison is meaningless. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not some sort of genre issue, like saying you think Rap isn't real music. Unless you are accusing others of racism here--which I do not believe you are--"I don't like it" is not a good policy on which to hang your complaint. I don't see anything that has to with not liking Icelanders, Iceland, police, etc. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. IDONTLIKEIT is not really designed to support objection to absolutely any example of someone not liking something. You're allowed to not like articles that are completely unsourced, pictures of penises in the George Osborne article (however unavoidable it might be) or, with a reasoned argument, ITN nominations which you feel lack global significance. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ITN hasn't been updated in two days. If there ever were a time to post something like this, it's now. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unexplained removal. The section for a relatively decent size article is sourcedLihaas (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still I see no consensus to post this, therefore rm ready. And not all opposes can be dismissed as I don't like it. --Tone 15:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its 9-6 in favourLihaas (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If some opposes can be dismissed as Tone suggests, it is more than that. Are we trying to avoid systemic bias or not? 331dot (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Trivial in the grand scheme of things. No significant impact. -Zanhe (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you live in Iceland, which is precisely the point here. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready we've still got the uniform, weapons, transport, vehicles and firearms sections all unsourced, save one with a rather minor source. Nowhere near ready, and repeated denigration of the opposes at this point is just silly and insulting. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As 3412 points out the comparatively small population makes the unprecedentedness of this less significant than it might appear. Even that claim is somewhat arbitrary since it apparently relates only to post-1944 which doesn't even cover the country as an independent nation. More to the point I concur with Medeis - IDONTLIKEIT is in play here, but it is being used to attempt to casually dismiss valid opinions as opposed to actively countering them. It's been thrown about repeatedly but not once has anyone illustrated HOW it applies here. In the absence of that the claim simply isn't justified and the very suggestion that one side of the argument should be permitted to act as judge and jury for the other side's arguments defeats the whole purpose of consensus-forming. MonumentallyIncompetent (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It applies because many of the opposes are just "it's not notable" or "it's trivial"- neither of which is the case. It wouldn't have been reported on otherwise- and I think there are elements of systemic bias at work here. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready per Nelson Mandela...and the section is updated stop looking for excuses to surpress what you don't want posted.Lihaas (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world is "ready per nelson mandela" supposed to mean? I assume you can't seriously be comparing the importance of the items. That's not even to mention the lack of consensus and other issues. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is far too minor to be posted to a main page. One man justifiably shot by a cop is not in my opinion important enough to be posted even if it happens first time in a particular country, interesting enough that that is though. I think this could be better as a DYK nomination honestly. SeraV (talk) 10:27, 6 December 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.
Nominator's comments: Art is not important enough for ITNR, but the Turner Prize has been posted in the past. Formerip (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm certain this won't be accepted as it's dominated by Europeans, but for what it's worth, there's a half-decent winners article here for the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the disdain is for the rich-man's pointy prize, not for Europe. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the winner is Canadian, French-Canadian, an AlienFrench...And yes, it is a rather snooty prize, one that isn't paid much attention to over here in truth. --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you need to update her article, she's French, born in Lille and lives in London. Perhaps that odd combination makes her Canadian? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessarily the bold article (the proposed blurb doesn't even have one, hence why I suggested a half-decent article above), so while that's interesting, along with the red link, it's not really important. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Maybe we should replace the link to Laure Provost with one to the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, on grounds that Channel4's ads for their show about the Prize always told us it was to be awarded in 'Derry-Londonderry', and when we had finished a long and meaningless argument on the pros and cons of this suggestion, as an act of artistic homage to 'Fountain' (which, you ignorant philistines, was simultaneously a factory-made urinal and a famous artwork by Marcel Duchamp), we could submit a printout of our argument as a work of Visual Conceptual Art that fully deserved to win the 2014 Turner Prize, due to having at least as much artistic merit as some of the previous winners, while adding that anybody who failed to appreciate the undoubted universal importance of our work was obviously just a philistine and thus clearly not worth listening to :) Tlhslobus (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case anybody doesn't understand what I'm trying to illustrate with the above, my point is that, at least in my view, the Turner Prize doesn't belong in ITN because it is at best of highly doubtful significance even to the British art world, let alone to the rest of us, and all too often it seems to many (and probably most) people to be just an overhyped absurdity.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agree with Tlhslobus, turner prize seems to be overhyped absurdity but could that be because we(?) are under educated with regard to art, is it important - dunno, I guess I end on weak support which is a bit of a surprise to me seeing as I am one of the 'most people' that think turner prize is absurd. EdwardLane (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regardless of the demographics of the winners, this is perhaps the world's best known art prize. Gamaliel (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Withdrawn] Croatian voters reject same-sex marriage
Nomination withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 3 December 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.
Nominator's comments: It seems an important development in the debate over same-sex marriage. My own country (Ireland, a 90%+ Catholic EU country, as is Croatia) is due to have a referendum to legalize that in 2015, so it is especially interesting to me, but perhaps less so to other people. --Tlhslobus (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is a vote to enshrine the status quo in their constitution(it was already illegal in law). 331dot (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Per 331dot (this reminds me strongly of the Falklands referendum, Religious flavor VS Nationalist flavor essentially, predictable result, no surprises at all). --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The precedent has already been set that we are not posting every gay marriage development, even with its legalization in France. The status quo continues in Croatia is a far smaller story than that. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another EU country officially legalizing gay marriage. These stories aren't that distinctive anymore; the only type of item I'd really consider supporting is if a majority Muslim nation like Saudi Arabia legalizes gay marriage. Then we have a major story. SpencerT♦C 23:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not legalizing it, but banning it, thus bucking the EU trend. Also I could be wrong but as far as I know it's the first time ordinary voters have had a say on the issue in the EU, and shows a gap between politicians and voters on the issue. To some extent, it also seems to highlight a new development in the division between Donald Rumsfeld's Old Europe and New Europe. But I suspect that nobody here will think any of that makes it newsworthy, even if any of that were mentioned in the article, which it probably isn't. (Plus once again I'm foolishly getting involved in a discussion which I want to avoid). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Oops, sorry, there was a similar referendum and similar result in neighbouring Slovenia last year, so it's not really bucking an EU trend but merely confirming an existing 'New Europe' trend, thus strengthening the case for omitting it from ITN.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: In view of the lack of support, and the above Correction by me, I now withdraw this proposal.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:36, 3 December 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.
References
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, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)