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).
In a new law the United Arab Emirates is offering citizens a gram of gold for every kilogram of weight they lose in an attempt to curb the rising obesity rate in the nation. (NPR)
Researchers from different medical centers at major cities in the United Kingdom, led by Cancer Research UK's London Research Institute and University College London, are embarking on a massive long-term effort to study lung cancer's resistance to treatment by mapping involved genes using patient profiles. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: Follow up to the below. This is the party secy general, that was the leader. Since last time there have been deaths in protests.. Lihaas (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the two post they should be combined as one item. μηδείς (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was considering posting this but reviewing the ITN/C articles, basically realized that most "Country affirms same-sex marriages" have all pretty much been rejected as of late due to the fact its not a novelty nor anything affecting international matter. I would otherwise support this as the fact the Queen gave her assent for it, but doubt based on past nominations this will go through. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support like I've supported the French, New Zealand, et al., because of its significance. Lack of international impact is irrelevant, and in fact questionable, since the movement to marriage equality is happening worldwide. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only because it was known this was coming since it was passed as the Queen's approval was only a formality. I actually support this but precedent tells me this probably won't be posted. It is a novelty until a significant portion of nations and/or the world's population has same-sex marriage as legal, though. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually only passed on Monday, I believe, so it is not stale either way. I've changed the blurb, because this is not UK-wide law. Support, since we've recently broken with precedence by predictably posting a minor gay marriage related story because it was American. Formerip (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whilst I appreciate, as has been said above, that same-sex marriage is nowhere near becoming the law of the land in a majority of countries, passage of a new law is becoming fairly routine now, even if happening at an infrequent pace. Are we supposed to post the next 50 countries who pass a gay marriage law? It would have been notable if it was the first couple of countries passing a new law, but now we're onto however many and it isn't really notable in the same way now. Redverton (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose we didn't post nEW ZEALAND and that was a first in the region. This is not the first in Europe and sets no precedence.Lihaas (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose regardless of the national comparisons, this law essentially means churches can choose to officiate in and call already available civil unions marriages in their church. That's been state law in the US for years. μηδείς (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to of gotten too little coverage in the UK media. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Queensland wins Rugby League State of Origin 8th time in a row
Nominator's comments: I'm not sure how the recurring sports news works exactly or if this is important enough, but the State of Origin is one of the most watched Rugby League events in the world and has just been won by the Queensland Maroons for the 8th time in a row. Mike lomas (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How come this is "generally considered important enough to post", but the British Lions is not? There isn't a single credible argument that can be made that one is more important/significant/watched than the other. Mission Twelve (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the news here is not so much the single event in itself but the winning streak, it's completely unheard of. The better part of a decade. Mike lomas (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor local competition. To win eight times in a row is not that big a deal when the contest only includes three teams. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's two teams. If we posted this, can someone explain why we wouldn't start posting soccer derbys? Formerip (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good on them. μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a top-tier competition. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good on them indeed. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
McDonald's announces that it will open its first outlet in Viet Nam early next year, which will be in Ho Chi Minh City, and will be operated by Henry Nguyen, a Vietnamese businessman and the son-in-law of Vietnam's Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung. (Marketwatch)
Norwegian black metal musician, Kristian "Varg" Vikernes, and his wife are arrested in France on suspicion of alleged plans for a terrorist act after buying 4 rifles at the same time. (BBC)
Nominator's comments: I'm nominating this on behalf of an IP who had tried to do so. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the death of dozens of children due to negligence or otherwise is newsworthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose there really needs a discussed criteria for all these news events to fit into an enecylopaedia? Wheres is legacy and last value? this has no significance anywhere in the world. (even india)Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this page is to have that discussion. Further, large scale deaths of children are generally notable, especially in a public facility like a school. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Large-scale deaths of children are generally notable; agree that the title could use improvement. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly neutral unusual event, not really encyclopedic, though. The blurb should say "a free lunch" rather than a meal. Obviously it was a meal. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - incident has led to violent protests and scrutinization of India's food safety. (Impact like that is exactly we look for to prove a topic is encyclopedic, at the very least.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with Lihaas this might have real effect for better or worse in India if this becomes big enough story in there. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Large-scale food poisoning does happen - happening at a school, particularly in a nation with the socioeconomic climate of India, is sad but not unheard of. If it was clear that a major revamping of school lunch programs throughout the nation was to come of the incident, I feel this would be a stronger news story for ITN. But as it is, it is an unfortunate event but nothing that seems to have legs. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support the incident is tragic and newsworthy, but the article is a bit too short. Support on the condition that the article is expanded. -Zanhe (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article expansion is now underway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant worldwide coverage, and that coverage will continue as long as the investigation into this matter continues. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Militants open fire on a bus carrying workers from a cement factory in Arish, Northern Sinai, Egypt, killing three and injuring 17. The gunfire is believed to have been intended for a police vehicle.(AFP via NDTV)
The M23 rebel movement and the CongoleseArmy are engaged in heavy fighting in the environs of Goma. (BBC)
Two British soldiers die during a training exercise as they take part in a gruelling selection process for the elite SAS unit on the hottest day of the year. (AFP via News24)
Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is noteworthy enough for ITN, but I guess I'll just give it a try and get some feedback from you guys. The arrest is described as the biggest victory (so far) in Mexico's drug war in the administration of Enrique Peña Nieto. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the last one caught or killed recently? Given our presumption of innocence, I doubt this would go anywhere anyway. μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Lazcano was killed back in October. Treviño Morales is considered his "natural successor," although some argue that he had ousted Lazcano before and was actually the big guy in Los Zetas. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We posted the death of another Zetas leader, Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, back in October (which was touted as one of the biggest victories in the War on Drugs for outgoing President Felipe Calderon). Also, Nieto has been president of Mexico for less than eight months. I'm not saying that means this isn't significant; I'm just pointing that out. -- tariqabjotu 01:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Maybe if the one captured today were El Chapo Guzmán this would be a easy pass... ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support he has one of the largest bounties n the world. US is paying $5 mil for his capture. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I want to support this, but has he been found guilty in absentia or anything like that? Presumably he will go to trial and conceivably be found not-guilty? I thought normally we would post this if/when someone is found guilty. CaptRik (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that applies here; there's no doubt from anyone that he's a Zetas leader. "Zetas leader" is basically his job description, not an accusation of a crime. To say that, for example, "Preschool teacher John Q is a pedophile" requires the pedophile bit, not the fact that he's a preschool teacher, to be proven in a court of law. -- tariqabjotu 14:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got this wrong, Tariq. Look up defamation per se. There's a very important difference in the law between asserting someone has a job and asserting that that job is a criminal enterprise.μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. Leader of the largest criminal syndicate in Mexico and one of the main figures in the Mexican Drug War. It's comparable to the capture of a major warlord in a civil war that has cost 100K lives. The blurb might need some background to make sense for people not familiar, e.g "drug cartel Los Zetas." (P.S. Arguing that we can't report this until a trial is like arguing we couldn't have reported Bin Laden was leader of al-Qaeda without a court decision.) - BanyanTree 19:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bin Laden filmed videos and identified himself and openly declared war on the US and so forth. Has this Mexican gentlemen issued press releases claiming to be the head of a criminal enterprise? μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITN used to post things like the arrest of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo or death of Vincent Otti, with their reported positions, as a matter of course. If the standard is now that you need a press release confessing crimes, <shrug>. I'll let the reviewing admin decide the validity of my support. - BanyanTree 20:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about a mere criminal enterprise here, we're talking about a massive drug cartel that has cause the deaths of thousands. It's closer to a civil war than a criminal enterprise. Even if that isn't the case, the arrest of notable wanted criminals or fugitives has been posted before. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dyilo was tried and found guilty, Otti was killed, so bLp didn't apply. The fact that this is allegedly a "massive" crime is irrelevant. The fact that Treviño's been arrested is fine, we can report that. But we can't call him a drug kingpin unless he's either called himself that or been convicted. This is really very simple. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest we call him? "Accused" drug kingpin? Someone doesn't have to legally be adjudicated to be a drug kingpin to be one. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Medeis, if you feel referring to Mr. Morales as a Zetas leaders is a BLP violation, I suggest you try getting that information removed from the article about him first. -- tariqabjotu 21:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite aware of "WP:OTHERSTUFF". Don't lay that "fix the other article" excuse on us. Articles have footnotes, and accusations can be attributed and referenced in them, but not on the front page, and you are quite aware we hold to a strict standard here. IF it is the case they have announced it, it should be possible to say something along 331 Dot's suggestion like "Mexican authorities arrest Treviño as the head of the Zetas". But it absolutely has to be attributed, not assumed as fact. μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mexican officials report I have been looking for an official and Spanish source that says Trevino was arrested as head of the Zetas. But CNN is reporting that arresting Mexican officials refused to identify Trevino by his supposed alias or as head of the drug cartel when he was arrested:
Sánchez nunca lo llamó por su alias ni dijo que era el jefe máximo de uno de los cárteles más violentos en México, tampoco dio información sobre quién podría ser su posible sucesor en la organización criminal.
Sanchez never called him by his nickname nor said he was the top leader of one of the most violent cartels in Mexico, neither did he give details on who might be his possible successor in the criminal organization.
The best we can say is that Mexican Federal agents report the arrest of Trevino on drug, kidnapping, torture and murder charges. Even they are avoiding calling him head of he Zetas. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In this new administration, the President has pledged to soften the language of the drug war. [6] The past administration did have reports on him being a leader, though [7] I'm fine if we put "reported" leader on the blurb and/or article. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not ready to modify the wording on the Main Page. Yes, I see you've added the word "alleged" in the lead, but the genie's already out of the bottle. The Miguel Treviño Morales article says he's a Zetas leader dozens of times. The article would be a mess if you had to keep saying "allegedly" after every statement that no one contests. -- tariqabjotu 02:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I don't think it will hurt anyone if we leave it as it is. Not sure what Medeis thinks, though. Thanks for your concern. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is shameful, Tariq. did you even read CNN on the arresting Mexican official? He announced charges of kindnapping, torture, murder and drug trafficking and refused to call the man head of the Zetas or identify him as a zeta. Your recent actions are unbefitting an admin and the front page. Not to mention there's absolutely no consensus to post in any form. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maybe you like the glacial pace of ITN, but I certainly don't. There are no objections, and it's been twenty-four hours. And, yes, I saw what you said, but their refusing to call him a Zeta seems to be, from context, about not elevating him and the organization's profile. This is heavily implied in the Spanish-language source you provided in preceding paragraphs, as well as in English-language sources that discuss this point:
He was taken to Mexico City for questioning, but unlike the days of former President Felipe Calderon, there was no perp walk by a handcuffed suspect or piles of cash and guns put on display for the TV cameras. Instead, the government released a single video of a rumpled-looking, un-handcuffed Trevino Morales walking through prosecutors' headquarters, saying it wanted to avoid glamorizing drug traffickers or risk rights violations that could lead to a dismissal of charges. Authorities didn't even refer to his nickname, Z-40. (AP)
We do not have the same motives; we are here to provide verifiable information, as reported in our articles. That he is a Zetas leader is verified many, many places (including by Mexican government sources on a number of occasions). You're fighting the wrong fight here. -- tariqabjotu 02:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb I have added a blurb that avoids contradicting the Mexican prosecutor. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the usage of the word "reputed". ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 06:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Oh come on User:Tariqabjotu, this is not worth the megabytes its written with. Another low in ITN/C. doktorbwordsdeeds 15:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Why? Is there actually something wrong with the article, or do you object to the story? I can't decipher what "not worth the megabytes its written with" could possibly mean, other than an insult to the editors who put their time and energy into writing the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an insult to ITN/C that this page 43 curiosity has been upgraded to the front page. On what grounds? There's almost no support in this nomination, it wasn't up for long enough to garner consensus, and is barely worth coverage on news sites outside Mexico. This is exactly the kind of story which would, ordinarily, be shot down. Why did you chose to accept it? doktorbwordsdeeds 15:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can't just have stories languish on ITN/C as others that take place in the Anglosphere garner attention and devolve into lengthy debates. I imagine that had this not been posted, you would not have even noticed or cared to comment on the nomination. Twenty-four hours is enough time for people to see and review a nomination and register their opinion, and it took more than thirty-six hours for someone (you) to object. During that time there was no objection while the article received a healthy update and cleanup. And I don't know what you're talking about with non-Mexican news sites not covering it. From my vantage point, this story has received prominent news coverage in a number of sources, more prominent still than the UK's legalization of gay marriage. What you see as a "Page 43 curiosity" is not the same around the world. And, of course, a story being primarily related to one country (if we can even say that about this case) does not make it ineligible for ITN. -- tariqabjotu 15:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I have liked everything User:Tariqabjotu have posted lately, but this is not really fair, it is hardly his fault that people don't bother to support or oppose this. There was few support true, but there also weren't anyone who really opposed posting this before you. I also happen to think that this is fairly important news and certainly worth it to post. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The usual procedure is four supports and a ready tag, so I didn't feel it helpful to add an oppose while working to try to improve the nomination. It's called collegiality. μηδείς (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The premature and unilateral psting here is the problem. We usually have at least 4 supports before a posting. This one had one and a half supports and my implicit oppose while the way to handle the blurb was discussed. While looking in good faith for a verbatim source from Mexican officials I found a CNN source explicitly saying the Government would not identify him as a kingpin, but only state the charges. Before a discussion of this could be held, before there was consensus, before the article had ben marked ready, Tariqabjotu posted the most controversial blurb.
At this point, I am not sure whther there is consensus to post. With the nom with a support and a half, a pull, and my oppose as is, t seems not. Yet, if the item is not going to be pulled, using the altblurb ("Reputed Zetas leader Miguel Treviño Morales is arrested on drug, kidnapping, torture and murder charges") would be a much better situation than the current one. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame User:Medeis that Tariq acted in such a slap-dash manner on such a contentious nomination doktorbwordsdeeds 17:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems Tariq is okay about ignoring consensus and criteria. Perhaps he needs to let someone else do these more contentious candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't any of you have something better to do? -- tariqabjotu 18:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, but a few recent promotions to the main page have been against any criteria and against any consensus, so we should discuss it and suggest solutions. One solution is you stop promoting articles which don't meet the criteria or don't have any consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is not the right forum for bringing out your pitchforks. -- tariqabjotu 18:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice User:The Rambling Man that User:Tariqabjotu has not addressed my direct question about when [User:Medeis]] placed his doubt over the exact details of this nomination. Tariq implied that my "pull" was the first rejection in 36 hours. Not entirely accurate. doktorbwordsdeeds 18:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This is the place to discuss mis-listing of ITNs. There are no pitchforks, simply questions as to why certain items have been posted by Tariq against consensus and against the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we focus on the item, can we either pull it or switch to the altblurb, which has more support? μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've read any encyclopaedia that suggests a "reputed" classification for an individual. Pull. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Pull I will start a discussion on the talk page doktorbwordsdeeds 18:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull if the blurb isn't changed--it implies he was arrested for being the zeta kingpin, not on the actual specific charges the government announced. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this needs either a pull or an altblurb but, if an altblurb is used, "reputed" should be avoided because it is easily confused with "of repute". Formerip (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming the blurb is better than pulling the article. May I suggest "Alleged" instead of Reputed? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged implies by a charging authority like the government or a victim. In this case the government is not alleging he was a a Zeta, just a drug dealing , kidnapping, and multiple murdering torturer. I do agree if it is supported that changing the blurb is acceptable if there's not enough support for pulling. The issue of pulling is separate. Procedurally a pull is called for. On the merits it is borderline. μηδείς (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the government is not alleging he was a a Zeta What? Of course they are. Their refusal to use the term, or his nickname, during a press conference is about not elevating the status of the organization. You're really bending over backward to make your point. -- tariqabjotu 20:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Or, it can just stay as it is. We defer to article content. This happens all the time. If Medeis wants to claim that this headline is a BLP violation, he has to claim the entire article is a BLP violation (as it repeatedly treats Morales as known member of Los Zetas). For some reason, Medeis is unwilling to do that. This is a tempest in a teapot, and it's obvious no one actually agrees with his position on the blurb except to merely appease him or to claim impropriety on my part. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems a notable development in the Mexican drug war. I agree that "Zetas leader" is sufficiently undisputed by reliable sources to be placed, unqualified, in the blurb. --LukeSurltc 20:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Neptune's fourteenth moon named S/2004 N-1 was found by NASA's Hubble Telescope. Andise1 (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (after article is ready) - Significant discovery.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is quite an insignificant moon. Its discovery might be more interesting. Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yet another tiny space rock. Just last week, Medeis was assuring us that the chance to name a body like this would never come along again. In truth, the giant planets have scores of little bits of rock and ice orbiting them. This isn't news outside a specialised circle. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your unending crush on me is flattering, Alex, but I am not interested and you are probably grossing out everybody else with it. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "The moon is so small it was missed by Voyager 2 in 1989." μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a bad article for a moon discovery announced yesterday. It may not be a large moon, but this is exactly the type of subject that people turn to Wikipedia for information on. Regarding the rareness of the event, this is the first Neptunian moon discovered in the past 10 years. Kaldari (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is the moon of a planet, not a dwarf planet. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many of these minor discoveries to be legitimately notable doktorbwordsdeeds 10:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A new planetary moon is quite notable, unlike asteroids and the so-called minor planets that pop out almost every day. Brandmeistertalk 10:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the moon of a planet in our own solar system therefore the casual reader is likely to have heard of Neptune and be interested in this story. CaptRik (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the comments of Kaldari, although the blurb is a bit weak. Suggest:
or something similar. Pedro : Chat 13:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with playing up the method of discovery in the blurb. Abductive (reasoning) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I'm leaning towards a weak support, but isn't there any sort of hurdle such as getting the moon recognised as a moon by the next International Moon-recognising Convention or whatever? Formerip (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I normally auto-support these kind of news, but this is the 14th moon of neptune, about 10 km in diameter... Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue with these small moons of the gas giants is that given their primaries have ring systems (and this body is in the rings system) in essece composed of moons; you are basically looking at moons all the way down to the size of dust. Finding them just depends on how hard and long you want to look. I think someone posted a link of the recently found gas giant moons in the debate over the recent Pluto posting. A chart like that would be informative as to the notability of this satellite. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Pluto discussion. Here are some of he recent gas giant (multiple) moon naming announcements:
I am frankly not at all worried about the prospect of this posting. I just want to point out small moons of gas giants are pretty much discovered whenever we take a close look. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We generally post war crimes convistions for notable people (as in Balkans and Africa), so this seems notable as head of a major political organisation. Lihaas (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. War crimes convictions are generally notable. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - war crimes convictions are indeed notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Issues with the POV tag need to be resolved; see the article talk page for details. SpencerT♦C 20:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - War crimes convictions are usually notable.--WaltCip (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, per Spencer the article should be improved not to have POV tag.Egeymi (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support – Support only if POV issues are resolved in the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'd really like to post this: based on support and referencing and overall quality of article (at first glance) this would be an easy post, but there's an orange-level dispute tag that needs to be resolved, and a talk page discussion currently going on regarding that tag. If that discussion can reach a consensus, please ping this page or myself, and I'll see what I can do to post. --Jayron32 02:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That talk page is by a partisan editor on the south Asian topics. I don't see it gaining anywhere till someone (an admin) overlooks it.Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combine this with the new nom if they're posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Eighteen people were killed when trying to get out of the stadium (1,500 spectators were there altogether trying to leave the stadium) when riots broke out between the supporters of the boxer who lost the championship match at the Bupati Cup. Andise1 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a Bupati Cup article for context here. --LukeSurltc 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As above, a three sentence article, and no article at all about the Bupati Cup can't be posted at ITN. And really, who cares about football riots. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 17:51, 16 July 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: Lots of English-language coverage (naturally a lot more in Russian), highlighting the well-publicised dangers on Russia's roads. --Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Casualties of this level are rare in automobile crashes. Neljack (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they only occur in a minuscule proportion of automobile crashes. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Deadly accident with coverage by many media outlets. However, not a terribly uncommon event. Based on the above list linked by Bongwarrior, there have been over 20 accidents in 2013 resulting in over 15 fatalities. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no We need a ban on all but the most exceptional transportation accidents, such as the recent Canadian derailment. The SF airplane crash is the subject of jokes, These are simply sensational, not encyclopedic . Opposed, btw. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What, what, what, what, what? Are you seriously trying to say that you want us to believe you live in a world where large passenger jets doing carthweels down a runway and only killing 3 people isn't something you'd call a "most exceptional" accident? Mission Twelve (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Not an uncommon event, even with this level of casualties. Might support if there was a criminal act or terrorism involved. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Many casualties but a lot of sensation due to the video of it.--NortyNort(Holla) 02:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh how many bus/train/plane/truck and so forth accidents we posted so far this year, I agree with Medeis to an extent, we need to set some firm criteria on both accidents and disasters. Oppose common occurrence in Russia, unlikely to lead to drastic changes. Secretaccount 03:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a significant accident, but does not rise to the level we should be posting on ITN (we post too much death as is). I am also against "firm criteria" as the number of deaths should not be the deciding factor - something accidents that involve few deaths are more significant that those that involve many for various reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues. We do need firmer criteria on just body counts. Obviously body count is not going to matter if we have a famous victim or a famous crash site. That's a separate issue of notability. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tragic but not particularly noteworthy from a worldwide context. Gamaliel (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says quite clearly at the top of the page, "do not complain about an event only relating to a single country". Mission Twelve (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't really matter if there was firm criteria, you'd still get what happens here - differing views based on the exact same figures. I personally have absolutely no idea what people think is "common" for Russia, even though someone has even actually posted a baseline figure for 2013. It would be a complete waste of time voting either way, especially when there are people in here who think even cart-wheeling passenger jets is not all that exceptional. Quite what one does with views like 'too much death' is also a complete mystery. How much is too much? It's clearly a waste of time discussing it, as I'm pretty sure nobody is even counting. Mission Twelve (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We're not a traffic police newsticker doktorbwordsdeeds 10:21, 16 July 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.
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 17:54, 16 July 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: Notably covered by International media. Though not many people were using it at the time of closing it would formally mark an end to a once popular means of communication. Encyclopedic. Regards, theTigerKing 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Wonder how many people were using it before it closed down? Withdrawing support based on evidence presented below. Tap tap tap. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this doesn't seem to be the end of the last telegram service in the world, as our article and [16][17] make clear. Hut 8.5 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support though without the reference to the last in the world. India is a large enough country in terms of population for this to be notable. 331dot (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless supporters can explain away the reliable sources saying that telegrams will continue to be delivered in places such as Canada. Abductive (reasoning) 02:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not the last in the world, but possibly still notable enough to post. I'm neutral for now (thought about nominating it even but wasn't really sure about notability). If anyone can explain the importance w/o resorting to the false last in world claim, please do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Last in the world would be worth posting, but I don't think ending them in one country (even a large and important one) is sufficiently significant. Neljack (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it rude to say "it's just another outdated business closing shop? –HTD 05:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not the last in the world. Even Canada counts. Gamaliel (talk) 22:54, 15 July 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: First typhoon of the year and resulted in major impact. Large population affected with significant damage; however, an unusual aspect is the lack of casualties in Fujian Province where the storm made landfall (a first according to Chinese media). --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate option – Since there's already a blurb up in regards to a natural disaster in China, might be more reasonable to combine Soulik with the ongoing flood event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. The flooding and the typhoon are not related weather events and have occurred at different sides of a very big country. --LukeSurltc 23:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this likely to be the most devastating typhoon of the season? Based on my incomplete understanding, I lean oppose as if the 2013 season is like the 2012 season several more devastating storms would be expected in the coming months. --LukeSurltc 23:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no certainty as to whether or not this will be the most devastating. Sure you could say that the past has shown that there tend to be other devastating storms later in the season, but there's no guarantee. I don't think going with the mindset of "is this likely to be the most devastating..." is appropriate for ITN, however. Many events of the same nature but in varying degrees of impact are included all the time, such as train accidents or bus accidents. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. But in the same way that we don't write a blurb for every accident, we couldn't be expected to write a blurb for every typhoon (there were 25 named storms in 2012, 14 of which were typhoons). There has to be some cutoff point. This will unavoidably be arbitrary and subjective. --LukeSurltc 00:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not often that sources indicate that over 100 million people are directly affected by such storms (total that I've found so far is 121.4 million people across three provinces). That's the main reasoning for my nominating Soulik, rather than it being the first typhoon of the year. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can I ask what "affected" means in this context? Did they need to evacuate? What was the probability of injury or property damage for these people? East Asia is a densely populated place, so I would expect a great number of people would be within the area-of-impact of many of these storms if "affected" simply means being in the storm's wide path. Personally I think that casualties and $ damage are more useful metrics.
Please don't get me wrong, I feel this is a strong nomination and you've done a great job on the article. I still just about lean oppose for reasons stated above. I'm going to sleep now, I hope this exchange is useful for others here in forming consensus on this nomination. --LukeSurltc 00:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understood :) I know you're just stating your opinion and there's no fault with that. I don't know of the details of what affected exactly means but rarely do I see 100 million show up even for other storms that have hit the same area. For what it's worth, within Fujian Province, at least 30 million people were temporarily displaced by the storm while another 2 million were evacuated in Guangdong Province to the south. I guess for easy reference of others, current tally (as of this comment) is 6 fatalities with $364 million in damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for such an intense storm (Category 4), it's quite notable that only 9 people died. As for being the strongest, as Cyclonebiskit said, there's no way of knowing that, but as of 2010, only 6 storms have lower air pressure than this one, so it's pretty intense, and that's an average about 20 since 2010. –HTD 11:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article does a good job explaining the extent of the damages caused by the Typhoon, even if there wasn't a relatively large loss of life. SpencerT♦C 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: Sudden death of one of the main actors on one of the most popular (and rather groundbreaking) television series today. Of high human interest. Secretaccount 05:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This actor was internationally famous and here in the States his death is even breaking in on some of the Zimmerman trial coverage. Andrew327 06:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RD is fine I guess he died full of glee? Nergaal (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the preliminary findings of his death, his battle with drug use and time spent in rehab, you might find your comment was in poor taste. Just sayin... 204.111.20.10 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A tragic death, but I think there is a difference between "star of a major TV series" and "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of television. If anyone can provide evidence that he was widely regarded as such, I will reconsider. Neljack (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is borderline. However, as evidentary information I'll point to Montieth being part of the cast that won the 2009 Screen Actors Guild award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series (also nominated in 2009, 2011 and 2012) and his People's Choice Award nomination for Favourite TV Actor last year. Personally, whilst I can ignore the Ensemble ones to a great extent, it is the People's Choice Award nomination which I consider to be the breakthrough as it shows individual recognition by a major awards program. Not that I would say every nominee would qualify, but certainly I think if any from the previous year's awards died then I think they would. Not really posting to argue the point, but just adding those so that you may consider them. :) Miyagawa (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Of course, one of the difficulties is that "very important" is rather vague: just how important does the person need to be? I think I probably apply higher standards for RD than most people. I guess I'd regard him as important, but not very important. He hasn't won any individual awards and I'm not convinced that he will have a major enduring impact (sadly, his career was all too short). :) Neljack (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update (for RD) The first section has a cite needed tag on it. That needs to be cleared up. Miyagawa (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD He was well-known, and the nature of his death is attracting news attention. Canuck89 (what's up?) 07:53, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
Support for RD - It seems that the suddenness of this death is helping it to make headlines; but the subject was indeed very well-known. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Not watching Glee I'd never heard of him, but its clear I'm in a minority on this. It's the most read story on BBC News currently for example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. His notability combined with the nature of his death merits posting on RD. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a textbook definition of what should not go to RD; in fact, this is essentially similar to a death of the longest living person, as long as RD is concerned, where the death is the news and not the life of the dead person. Either this gets a proper full blurb, or not at all. –HTD 13:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The actor is very minor relative to the entire entertainment industry (with really only one well-established role to his name). Yes, a shame to lose him at 31 but nowhere near the level of importance that RD should be reserved for. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Recent deaths space is free. -- tariqabjotu 14:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD as per Canuk89. --LukeSurltc 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't meet any of our normal criteria, death itself is unexpected but not otherwise newsworthy. μηδείς (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Medeis says, not sure how this guy meets our RD criteria? Can anyone expand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD. A sudden death like this is not what the RD section was intended for, and should only be for a full blurb, which I oppose as well. SpencerT♦C 19:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull "Recent deaths space is free" is not a valid reason to post. Individual does not meet DC. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly seems to have been posted prematurely. Headlines have nothing to do with top of one's field or other notability. If anything, this seems about as notable as a low-level athlete killed in a car crash. It makes news but has no encyclopedic importance whatsoever whatever. μηδείς (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see the merits in pulling. Take a step back from fixed criteria, and consider whether it is better having a link to what will almost certainly be one of the most in-demand articles on the site at the moment on the main page, or some empty space? --LukeSurltc 22:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't really understand this. It has been established that the death is in the news and that people are interested in this subject (perhaps more so because it was unexpected). The article is in decent shape and is appropriately updated. And, yes, of course, Recent deaths space is free, as nothing needs to be removed to add this particular item. So, I don't understand what purpose it serves to omit this from ITN. -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why wasn't Joyce Brothers posted? Her article had huge interest. If you want to change the rules, that's fine, and I actually agree--I think we should have less strict criteria and a full ticker except for unusual dry spells. But following the rules matters, especially to those of us without the administrative privilege to decide otherwise.μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. See an empty space, ignore the criteria, post an actor who's had an extremely limited career, who isn't top of his generation, isn't award-winning, won't ever be remembered outside his untimely demise... Still, has set a precedent that just about anyone can be posted to RD if there's a space. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. There's a bit of subjectivity to the criteria. He may not have been the pre-eminent actor of his generation, but he was extremely well-known and Glee is one of the world's most watched TV shows. This complies with our standards so far this year (someone who was in Mork and Mindy, someone who was in Harry Potter) and there is no doubt that this is a very significant death to a large number of people. Formerip (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD - per Tariqabjotu and Former IP. Jusdafax 23:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD - The fact that he was not ""widely recognised as a very important figure in the field of television" was because of his age and limited acting career. He died at the age of 31, meaning he did not have the years of acting roles and experiences other actors who were older had when they died. Even though he started acting in 2004, he really began when he became one of the lead cast members of a widely watched television show (Glee)...and that was only for four years. Andise1 (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - posting it is/was correct, as the consensus appears to be in favor of posting. I am neutral/undecided based on merits alone, but would have posted if necessary based on consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I don't understand why this was posted, he does not meet the criteria for posting. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Doesn't meet the criteria - why was this posted? Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me categorically answer that question, since people seem unable to scroll up. It was posted because, at least at the time of posting, there was consensus to post, and those who supported it did so because "He was well-known, and the nature of his death is attracting news attention." and "His notability combined with the nature of his death merits posting on RD." (among other points). Now, why hasn't it been removed? Because there hasn't been any indication that we're doing anyone a service by doing so. Perhaps removing this will prevent ITN/C folks from bringing this up in future discussions, but I don't think our mission here is to prevent our clique here from making false equivalencies. -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that you used is "Recent deaths space is free", which is not a reason to post. It is better that we have empty ITN slots or a blank RD than to say "we need to fill it up with something!" (compared to DYK, which is serving a different purpose). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is better that we have ... a blank RD Why??? -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see a day where no one of importance had recently died then trying to fill spaces just because its empty. As noted, you create a precedence for minor celebrities to be nominated for RD. I don't have time immediately to do this but I suspect that if I searched around, I could find plenty of other notable people that died in the last few days that are more significant than this actor but that most wouldn't have thought to brought to ITN/RD to nominate, and that starts a rather bad "game" of just tossing up people that would have normally never made it to RD if it was full just to fill out blank space. It is better to not include and avoid that game altogether. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minor people dying who got this much news attention? Probably not. -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In American tabloids, yes. In the world news? Not at all. Gone without a trace already. Filling a space because a space exists isn't one of the RD criteria I've read. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because regardless of whether you agree with them or not, we do have guidelines as to who qualifies for ITN/RD - and this one doesn't. THere must be many minorly notable people that die every day and they don't get posted - because people don't even nominate them because they know they don't qualify. This person shouldn't qualify purely through the tabloid interest in their death. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some people who disagree. "Tabloid" is thrown around left, right, and center at ITN/C to discredit virtually any story that's in the news that people here don't want to be. It doesn't matter what the death criteria specifically say; one of the major purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Some people felt that was paramount in this instance, despite Monteith not being among the elite echelons of actors. I see no reason I should have ignored them at the time of posting, and I see no reason to ignore them now, when the best reason for doing so is "we have" other "rules". -- tariqabjotu 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is the rationale for support in most cases didn't match the RD criteria. You were supposed to assess the quality of the opinions before posting an actor who was famous for one role for a couple of years. Mere "yes, well-known" and other such tenuous non-criteria arguments are there to be acknowledged but not really meaningful in the big scheme of things. Hardly ground-breaking, hardly top of his field, not going to linger long in our minds. Amazing how challenging it was to get a world-reknowned international TV broadcaster whose career spanned nearly 60 years and was known around the globe on RD, but this was such a cakewalk, because he was in Glee. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, one of the major purposes of ITN is "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Those pointing out the high interest in this story were within their bounds to do so; indeed, that interest is corroborated by the 1.35 million page views this article received yesterday (in comparison with the 31,000 page views received by Alan Whicker [whose nomination didn't meet much resistance, in fact] on the date of his death). Your insistence on diminishing the interest in this story to a few Gleeks and American celebrity gossip girls is without basis. -- tariqabjotu 20:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we change the RD criteria to include general interest to moderately popular people, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking your bait; fish in another pond. -- tariqabjotu 20:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor are you interpreting drive-by fan-boy supports appropriately. I suggest you find another pond, especially since you don't like the scrutiny in this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a "drive-by fan-boy" supporter, and I don't appreciate the suggestion. I reviewed the article and the news sources and decided that it merited my support. I had never watched Glee in my life. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Come on now guys, seriously it is a sad story with his death and everything. But surely this actor has not done enough in his line of business to justify an inclusion at ITN. This is a typical "american" issue... Had he been Swedish or Romanian with the same amount of movie/series work he would not even be considered for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure these people who supported posting this are perfectly willing to support same sort of stories about some random actors in romania and sweden as well, it is only fair after all. Seriously though he is a minor celebrity whose death should not have been posted here, unless you are willing to post every other death of every other minor celebrity in every other country. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - Lets not keep the ITN criteria different for difference cases. The news may have been reported significantly in one country but the person does not meet ITN criteria. If someone does not meet ITN criteria, nothing but exceptional circumstances should allow them to be reported. And this isnt such a case. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I keep reading that this person does not meet the death criteria. But what it says is "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field". Given that the field would be TV acting and he was acting in one of the most internationally successful TV shows around, what part of the criteria doesn't he meet? Is it just that the people who regarded him as very important are not wide enough? Formerip (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are people that I know I've seen nominated that have won awards in Television but were rejected for even RD posting (Andy Griffith comes to mind since I know I nominated that), because they aren't considered that groundbreaking or important. Being a non-award-winning star in a popular TV series is not sufficient for this purpose. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Griffith died in July 2012, whereas Recent deaths was introduced in October 2012, so he was not "rejected" for RD posting. -- tariqabjotu 01:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really saying that he is regarded as a very important actor out of all actors then? How about all his actor buddies in glee, are they also very important figures or why just him? In my opinion being widely regarded as an important figure in his field does not mean that it is enough to act in one succesfull tv show. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Huge show + dying young = big news worldwide. If the criteria don't recognise basic facts of life like this, then they're simply wrong. We're talking about a line on a website, not considering him for a Nobel Prize for christ's sake. If someone like Mylee Cyrus OD's tomorrow it would be up like a shot, and not a single person here bitching about this 'violation' would be able to explain how she meets the criteria but this guy doesn't. I dare anyone, anyone at all, to claim that Mylee Cyrus is widely regarded as a very important actress or singer or whatever the hell it is she does. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And with that, I think it's time for an admin to Close this. 01:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: Conclusion of what has been a very high-profile trial, at least here in the United States. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose A badly botched political trial, with a local judge incompetent to offer felony murder, and who admitted the victim's marijuana use as justifying his murder. Meanwhile the Bulger and various other murders were of far greater notability. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t know what you´ve been smoking, but the judge said nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.235.88.105 (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose just another media-made sensation --Երևանցիtalk 05:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck This story was ferociously shot down in April 2012, when Zimmerman was charged. Part of the reason for that was because it was not at the verdict stage, but that was only a small part. As you're starting to see already, a significant number of people see this whole thing purely as a media circus. Indeed, while coverage of this story was non-stop on U.S. news networks during the trial, I'd submit that the interest in this story was greater in the leadup to Zimmerman's arrest than in the leadup to Zimmerman's acquittal, and therefore we missed the boat on posting the important element of this story. The sole piece of evidence I have to suggest otherwise is the astronomical number of page views the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article got yesterday. -- tariqabjotu 05:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While I have been watching this case and been keeping up with it, I have to agree with Yerevanci that it is just a media-made sensation. The main reason for the large amount of page views is because this case has been in the news quite a bit. A lot of innocent people are killed everyday in places like Chicago, Illinois and those shootings are ultimately no different. The only difference is the shootings in Chicago only get local coverage (excluding the Hadiya Pendleton shooting) whereas the shooting of Trayvon Martin gets national news coverage. Andise1 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This case wasn't an ordinary "media-made sensation" trial like a Casey Anthony or a Michael Jackson, or any missing white woman syndrome here. It was high-coverage for a reason here, with the result likely heading to the higher courts, but I'll say from a judicial standpoint one of the most important state trials so far this century. With the result, it has serious implications in the United States, especially when it comes with the controversial issues of killing or hurting someone in self-defense as there is no clear definition on where that issue stands and to a lesser extent race relations and stereotyping. Secretaccount 05:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US principle of double jeopardy makes it nearly impossible for the state to appeal a not guilty verdict (generally they have to show something like jury tampering or witness coercion). As a result it is very unlikely there will be any appeal. This case is almost certainly done. The result might lead to legislative action to update the laws, but that is entirely speculative at this point. Dragons flight (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sensational murder trials that get lots of attention in the country where they happen are quite common. They are largely of national interest and have little wider impact. It would take something highly exceptional for one to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is still pretty localised domestic news. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I really don't see how this is considered all that notable, at least outside of USA. If you really want a trial in the news, there was few days ago when Sergei Magnitski was posthumously convicted of tax evasion in Russia. I don't think there is a big controversy that Magnitsky trial is more notable out of these two. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, just another murder case. --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I don't think it's just another murder case. There's a whole lot of stuff there about gun control and race relations. But these all figure in localised forms specific to the state of Florida. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb would have to explain its relevance for the main page. The verdict, as far as I can tell, concerns just another murder case; exactly as the blurb formulates it. Should the verdict have any consequences, then perhaps some of these could be significant enough. But this particular verdict alone isn't. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasons given above. If there are effects resulting from this(riots, etc.) we can revisit the issue. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there were a thousand or so people protesting here in Oakland. Kaldari (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Top news in English language media, not only from the US but also BBC, Independent, Irish Times, CBC, ... Therefore the "only domestic, only national interest" claims are not true. ITN is designed to help users find articles whose subjects actually are in the news. It is unimportant if Wikipedia editors agree that this should be in the news or not. --RJFF (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to this list it is one of the purposes of ITN. It's not our job to mindlessly reflect various publications, we make our own evalutations on what we choose to put in our news section. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that media empires and ulterior agendas do exist, we cannot simply post every headline news that's in the papers. Wikipedia is an independent force and is under no obligation to report on the main page everything that's making headlines nor should it. Last thing we need is another website subjected to sensationalisation created by the media for financial purposes. YuMaNuMaContrib 12:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per RJFF. There are a lot of wider implications here: the "Stand Your Ground" law, Florida and US race relations, the nature of gun laws, the irregularities of the trial, the ongoing repercussions and the overwhelming news coverage. I usually ignore items I feel are tabloid in nature, but this story is iconic, and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 12:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then these things need to be implicated by the blurb, and any impact this verdict is thought to have must not be mere speculation; but generally accepted to be real. If it is not thought to change anything or reinforce status quo beyond what is normal for a verdict of similar sort, it is just another murder case. --Njardarlogar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at present time. The case, regardless of how the verdict was to be handed down, was certain to face additional legal challenges, and it looks like there will be, at least as a civil case. It is an importance case about race and stereotyping but the impact is unclear yet. (And while fortunate we didn't have riots like the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the fact there wasn't any makes the impact of this case for ITN less likely.). --MASEM (t) 13:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Secret said it well. Anyone in here who claims this was just another murder, or it's just a media hyped story, really doesn't know anything at all about American society. The reasons why this case has been followed with such interest, and generated so much controversy, are beyond obvious. Some people have already listed them, but it's frankly disgraceful people even need to do that to counter such obviously false grounds for opposition, such as this completely made up claim that it's only been a domestic story (and even if it had been, right at the top of the page it clearly states, "do not complain about an event only relating to a single country"). Mission Twelve (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because kids don't get killed in other countries, right? Media made it a huge deal from nothing. The US is a country if 300 million and I'm sure racially controversial murders take place every week and media happens to choose the "best" ones. --Երևանցիtalk 18:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Trayvon Martin is the only US citizen to be murdered in recent times. Jesus Christ. Why is nonsense like this even tolerated here? Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We really need to stop refusing to put obviously notable stuff on the main page. Was it a media-made sensation? Maybe, but who cares if it was? It was definitely a major news story, and every news outlet in the country considered this to be very very newsworthy. We're an encyclopedia; we're a tertiary source. The secondary sources' opinions are already in. Just like they were with DOMA, just like they were with countless other huge stories that either didn't make it onto the main page, or barely got enough !votes to. Let's stop second-guessing the media to support whatever biases we have about what warrants news coverage (I forgot that The New York Times is a "sensationalistic" source), and do our fucking jobs. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that this is a notable story, but its consistency with other trial cases at ITN. Everyone fully expects more court efforts to come about so there will be more legal challenges and thus this isn't the end of the story. The acquittal doesn't change anything about common law nor change anything about race in the US (since it was limited to Florida). It didn't cause the riots that some had suspected with the acquittal. Ergo, it's not as a major a trial result as we would normally want to see before ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"More court efforts"? Huh? Under double jeopardy rules, this is almost definitely the end of any criminal charges against Zimmerman. And I don't think it has to be a major trial result. It's a major trial, and it's as relevant now as it'll ever be. If there are Constitutional challenges against Stand Your Ground, or legislative efforts, then we can cover those separately. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The killer can be sued civilly for wrongful death and under federal civil rights charges as he killed his victim acting as a town watchman with tacit approval of the government. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And there's word this morning that there may be federal hate crime charges placed against him. Clearly the legal battle is not over, even if there's no criminal penalty. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support since this is the final verdict on a very high profile case, but only if this leads to a large public reaction or some sort of protests. SpencerT♦C 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Sadly the media is taking this and running a muck with it. It's become far more notable than it really should and has taken a spot as major news. People want to know about this and everything behind it. Just look at social media outlets, they exploded last night when the verdict was announced. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has become international news. It was on the national news in Australia this morning. Elements that make it notable internationally are the carrying of handguns (something about America that's seen as weird elsewhere) and the race issue (seen as an American thing too, though Australia hasn't been too kind to its original citizens). Protest marches are being reported. It seems from some of the posts above that some would just like it to go away. It hasn't. It's big. And I doubt if it will be the end of this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The story is definitely "In the News".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I didn't post when this originally came up because I expected this to be thrown down, as per conventional opinion re: overly sensational trials. This is, of course, no different. It is a relatively basic murder trial blown up by the American media to turn into a racial frenzy bloated with misinformation and conjecture. The only reason I see why we would post this is due to mass protest, which was the reasoning behind other trial outcomes, something that did not occur here. With that said, it would be foolish to entertain this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And your qualifications for making statements like "relatively basic murder trial" are what exactly? It strikes me that if you have a "very basic murder" case on your hands, you don't let the guy walk free until public pressure forces you into a very public reversal. And you don't then fail to even get a conviction for manslaughter if what you had was a "very basic murder" case. If people can call the attention over this trial simply a product of media hype, then I'd be amazed that they would even consider public protests of any interest at all, such a delusional outlook on the world would seem to go hand in hand to me. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose media, special interest and political sensation... the only reason it is so prominent in the news.--NortyNort(Holla) 02:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Historic outcome with important political repercussions. I would also like to express my concern that a white and middle class userbase on Wikipedia cannot understand, and perhaps resist understanding, the importance of this decision for people of color. Owen (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an outstanding expert on American society, please share with your views on how "important" this case was for "people of color". --Երևանցիtalk 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It doesn't take much effort to infer (either through your personal knowledge of the case or some brief research about it) that he's referring to the idea many have that this case, and the verdict, highlights the racial inequity existent with the American justice system. In other words, the perception is that had the races of the victim and the killer been reversed, the verdict would have been different. Or, going back even further, had the victim not been black, the confrontation that led to his death never would have taken place. These undertones have existed throughout this saga. Some would argue these perceptions are with basis, while some would argue they are without basis. Obviously, one does not have to be black to feel these concerns are with basis (and you don't have to be white to feel they are without basis), but I feel it's perfectly reasonable for Owen to suggest that a predominately white set of people (in aggregate) might be less likely to sympathize, and certainly empathize, with black people who feel the system is against them. And, because of that, he might feel such a set of people might be less likely to see the value in this story than a greater, more diverse community would. -- tariqabjotu 04:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whites, Blacks, Asians, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Pashtuns, Arabs, Cherokee get killed also, don't they? Why make it a huge deal? Again, this case is simply a media-made sensation. As Morgan Freeman once said, if you want racism to go away stop talking about it. --Երևանցիtalk 04:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evidence supports that Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon because of his race, additionally Zimmerman is not white, he is Hispanic. Some of what you have said may be true in spite of that information, and you can probably thank NBC for the doctored transcript and the media in general in their attempt to make Zimmerman a white devil. Arzel (talk) 04:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arzel, this is a ITN nomination to decide whether the article belongs in the main page, not a place for what you thought of the case in general. That comment is inappropriate here, see WP:NOT#FORUM. Secretaccount 04:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate questions. Is this an important case/verdict? Is this a well-supported/justified/motivated nomination according to existing policies and values? I happen to think it's the most important criminal case from a sociological standpoint since OJ. I also think it is a bad nomination according to our policies. We don't push the news. We don't help the encyclopedia by making it a tool of other agendas. There may be a lot of popular interest. But we won't improve the project by posting this. A week from now this will be stale. What will WP have benefited during that week? μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Media went out of their way to sensationalize this case (including doctoring audio conversations etc...). As an encyclopedia which ITN is part of, i dont think we should be doing the same. The case as it stands was made to look about racism by media and if we were to look at facts alone then its not much more than random shooting in one country where guns are problem to begin with. I dont think this serves any encyclopedic value. -- Ashish-g55 14:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you suggest deleting the article then if you think this was just another murder? What a load of utter rubbish. The media covered it because people were outraged and it generated massive levels of controversy. Why do people like you have such a problem with that? Anyone who can read an article like State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman and say they didn't learn anything new, is a liar. If law professors and judges can debate the various issues this case raised for months on end, then I'm damn sure some random Wikipedian doesn't really deserve to be considered a better arbiter of whether or not it was just another trial. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The case is what it is due to media and nobody can deny that. For ITN purposes yes it was another trial. My note was meant for ITN and ITN alone and has nothing to do with the article or the case itself. ITN does not and should not post every single case that media loves to talk about was the point. -- Ashish-g55 14:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can deny it, and I do deny it. You are basically ignoring all the facts about the case just to make a pathetic protest here about the way the media works, which you seem not to like, for whatever reason. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone isn't aware, this guy really did just compare the huge and long running controversy over a murder trial which has sparked protests across the US, to the complete non-reaction in the UK to Gordon Brown torpedoeing his already failing election bid with a mildly offensive remark caught in an open mic incident. Comparing the two is really quite ridiculous. It's borderline trolling. Infact, no, I'd have no issue with calling this a bone fide attempt to troll. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless Wikipedia reanalyzes its treatment of court cases ITN - There is something seriously inconsistent about the community 's decisions concerning whether and which court cases should be ITN. The Supreme Court of the United States guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark piece of legislation that was the crown jewel of decades of struggle in the Civil Rights Movement, and the decision to strike it down will effect literally millions of people for generations--and hardly anyone posts on its ITN nomination. Now, one person is found innocent of murder in a Florida trial court, and all of a sudden people are interested in talking about the "importance" of court cases being ITN? I do not mean to diminish the significance of Zimmerman's case in any way, because it's clearly important and has generated a great deal of discussion about racial oppression in the United States, and on that basis I would probably otherwise support it being ITN. But unless some objective criteria and not simply "I personally feel like this case is important, but this other case isn't" can be established to help guide the community in determining which court cases can make ITN, then I'm going to oppose this nomination. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does that even make sense? Nobody is going to create objective criteria for how we measure the importance of court cases just because you have a strop here about an unrelated case not being discussed enough (and really, Supreme Court decisions affecting millions of people? Isn't that what they are there for? And aren't there a few million people in Florida alone? Literally speaking). Despite the fact you claimed otherwise, your intention is quite clearly to diminish the significance of this case if you are willing to oppose it unless someone acts on demands that nobody is going to take a blind bit of notice of. Mission Twelve (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes perfect sense to suggest criteria and to object to cases being placed willy-nilly as ITN items in the absence of criteria. That is the conversation I am hoping to start. You are free to make guesses about my intent, but that's missing the point entirely. And it's not really just Shelby County, it's any number of landmark cases that are routinely disregarded as ITN. If a landmark Supreme Court case can be disregarded by Wikipedia as an ITN item, then there is little reason why cases that are neither landmark nor Supreme Court should be included, irrespective of how significant they are (which this case is, as I said, pretty significant). If you would like to actually have a conversation about criteria that can help guide the community on this issue as I have suggested, by all means let's begin; otherwise, I will not take a "blind bit of notice of" anything you have to say. Alternatively, if what you are trying to say is that this is the wrong forum to voice this concern and nobody will take a "blind bit of notice of" it here, perhaps you (or another editor) could kindly point me in the right direction. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense at all to oppose this nomination just because you want to have a conversation about future policy. You might think there is "little reason" to take notice of cases which aren't landmark or Supreme Court decisions, but just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Especially not when the whole world quite clearly is taking notice of it, and it is having ramifications and consequences over and above what normally happen for even landmark or Supreme Court decisions, a basic fact which cannot simply be dismissed by the nonsense being talked about by others about this all being just 'media hype'. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you must have missed this part: "If you would like to actually have a conversation about criteria that can help guide the community on this issue as I have suggested, by all means let's begin; otherwise, I will not take a "blind bit of notice of" anything you have to say." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did I miss it? I said quite clearly, it doesn't make any sense. If you don't want to justify your opposition of this trial with reference to the actual trial, then go right ahead. I'm sure it will improve the reputation of ITN no end. Mission Twelve (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US Supreme Court decision that was not posted lost out mostly because people felt that the gay marriage decision to follow was much more important. I would say that one should nominate court cases with as many secondary sources that one can find that say that there will be lasting impact. Point out encyclopedic content too. Abductive (reasoning) 04:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was my point above as well... where is encyclopedic value in the case (which got a fairly rude reply)? was this a landmark case that impacted a law? ITN should not post every case that goes into media frenzy. at the end of the day this is an encyclopedia not CNN -- Ashish-g55 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedic interest here is obvious if you bothered to read some of the media coverage or even the Wikipedia article - the long delay before there was even an arrest, the debate over 'stand your ground' and racial profiling, the disagreement between federal and state courts after the verdict, the protests and other policical reactions, etc, etc. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All contrived and will probably go away after a week's time. Come now, we don't mindlessly follow whatever current events the media throws out there; we didn't do wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTF has Anna Nicole Smith got to do with this? If you want to play that card, you could at least name an actual trial verdict that wasn't posted. How do you "contrive" a debate about racial profiling/stand your ground/judiciary conflicts? The only people being mindless here are those claiming this is all just media hype, burying their heads in the sand about why the actual facts of this case are being seen as such a big deal by the public, media, politicians and prosecturs. The people saying this will go away in a week, were probably the same people saying it would go away a day after the verdict was announced. They're either delusional, or are trying to get Wikipedia to wrongly ignore this obviously notable trial verdict for their own personal reasons. Mission Twelve (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In The News" is the title, not the criteria. I'm not sure where the line is between someone throwing a dustbin on the one hand and a riot on the other, but if it is crossed, then maybe the rioting should be nominated in its own right. Formerip (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Riots (if big enough) would be a separate nomination that should be discussed away from the result of this case... -- Ashish-g55 14:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get that logic. There is a clear link between the riots/demonstrations and the Martin murder verdict. Saying we ahve to nominate the riots separately seems like stifling the nomination with bureaucracy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
dont need to create separate nomination but atleast the blurb should then focus on riots/demonstrations then... which to be honest are not all that big as far as i can tell -- Ashish-g55 00:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it would need a line drawing. Not to "stifle" it, but because consensus is never going to be a clear without starting a new discussion. Formerip (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] World's largest building opens in China
Stale; nominated too late. SpencerT♦C 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:New Century Global Centre (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The world's largest building, 500 metres long by 400 metres wide and 100 metres high, opens in southwest China. (Post) News source(s):The Age Credits:
Apologies if we've covered this before, but it has just opened according to the article I have referenced. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something more than the current stub would help establish notability. Otherwise it is basically a bunch of smaller projects within one curtain. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if sufficiently updated & expanded. While not as high-profile as world's tallest building, world's largest building is still a pretty important record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Article states building opened June 28. 3142 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ThaddeusB, with same if too. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stale, our own article says it opened on 1 July. Not "in the news" then, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes it is. It was in my daily paper yesterday. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know what I mean. It's not "in the news" here if it occurred 12+ days ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A technically valid point, but does that mean that anything that doesn't make it quickly to mainstream western news services gets ignored? That's a a systemic bias that we shouldn't accept. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should look to modify the ITN criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would there really be any point trying? Would I have your support? HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep comments on other nominations in their respective locations. SpencerT♦C 20:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well it's not up to me to choose, you'd need community consensus of course, but I'd support anything that got this place a bit more dynamic and expressive. Today we've posted the premature death of an actor who essentially had a three-year career and who will be forgotten in months. Don't get me wrong, it had consensus, but in posting, the RD criteria were clearly ignored/overlooked. So I see no problem with the "staleness" criteria being ignored/overlooked in some circumstances since the precedent to completely disregard the criteria has been set. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose purely on timing grounds. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely a landmark achievement but late in the news. The article is surprisingly small as well.--NortyNort(Holla) 02:21, 15 July 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 The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. Actually quite a big deal for this little country fairly new to democracy. --LukeSurltc 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Reaction and Analysis section. --LukeSurltc 23:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article had been updated well - kudos to Luke for his work! Neljack (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe the article is well-updated. -- tariqabjotu 18:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little bit more. To be honest, this is as good as it's likely to get. There seems to be only two AP reports from Bhutan that all the English-language reports are using. --LukeSurltc 21:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found this New York Times article as a possible source for more content. I'll see if I can add some stuff to the article from that later. SpencerT♦C 14:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: According to ABC News, the attack was "the deadliest ever single attack on the international force in the country." Andise1 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article would need a substantial section of prose on this particular attack. --LukeSurltc 16:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: An ITN-worthy example of the role of public discourse in China nowadays. Work is needed on the article update. Formerip (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This has only been cancelled by the "local government", leading to fears it may only be a postponement. It's pretty obvious that if this plant was deemed necessary to the Chinese economy (and if as is claimed it would fuel half the countries nuclear power stations, it seems they might), then the national Communist Party will pretty obviously think nothing of overriding the local government, protests or no protests. As the article states, public protesting is not unheard of in China. It is yet to be seen if this is a watershed moment thought. Mission Twelve (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm not seeing the significance here. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A third person, a critically injured unidentified girl, dies at San Francisco General Hospital of injuries she sustained as a result of the Saturday, July 6, 2013 crash-landing of Asiana Airlines Flight 214, a Boeing 777 (180 were injured, 16 remain hospitalized, including two critical adults; autopsy results will take about 3 weeks). (NBC)
Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan visits the UN headquarters in New York City to celebrate her 16th birthday with the UN address. (AP via Yahoo! News)
Law and crime
Authorities in Indonesia search for 70 prison inmates who escaped from the Tanjung Gusta prison in North Sumatra province after a prison riot last night. Twelve of the escapees were convicted of terrorism related offences. (AAP via SBS)
Comment The veteran Bollywood actor had featured unanimously in ITN this year for receiving the highest Indian cinema award. He was a respected name in the Indian cinematic space.Regards, theTigerKing 17:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD. Clearly a significant person in Indian cinema, but I'm not seeing anything that suggests suitability for a blurb. Thryduulf (talk)
Obviously support on notability (for RD) - however, the orange tag needs addressed and the death section needs more than just one sentence (e.g. reactions) before it can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article has a single sentence about his death, no reactions, and numerous style issues like dead links, is this what we want to feature on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't post with all the dead links - it would be embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD if article is cleaned up. --LukeSurltc 17:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support RD but after cleaning up and updating article..-Nizil (talk)
Support for RD: I sense that one of the socks of User:Shrik88music has been on the article. Hence the mess and unnecessary statistics. I have reverted the article to possibly best version of past. But dead links still remain. Have added one comment on death by PM. Will add more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support upon article cleanup. Clearly notable in his field. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as Ready All the dead links have been removed. The artcile has a small section on his death. Tributes would definitely pour in today as he had died last night IST. I guess we don't have to make the article a tributary of sort. Lets do justice with his body of work Period.Regards, theTigerKing 02:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is definitely updated. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The career sections are largely unreferenced (and orange tagged). Fixing dead links is nice and all, but unreferenced material is a much more serious problem than a link no longer working. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD Pending citations being added - there is a lot of uncited information in the article currently. Miyagawa (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT The website in the cite section is under construction (as suggested in the home page). Hence, the dead links. The article had the same links while it was posted in the ITN (when Pran was awarded with the Dada Saheb award). I believe we can post the article in RD for now. Could not find a replacement of the dead links in the web. AFAIK.Regards, theTigerKing 19:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern is not over deadlinks, but rather uncited information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tags Technically, the movies that are linked to in the career section serve as primary sources, as long as he was credited in them, which seems highly likely. Tagging the whole sections is neither helpful for the article or here, individual claims that need support should be tagged. If the full ITN blurb was justified, it seems pointy to oppose the ticker at this point. I am going to remove the section tags, and ask that specific claims be tagged instead. μηδείς (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you like. Some tags added. Also, this article is very poorly written and very poorly formatted. "Various celebrities have congratulated him on this occasion...", "Amitabh was going through a bad patch in his career", "continued to cast him in pivotal roles", "Pran's performance as the negative character was very much appreciated in Dilip Kumar starrers"... do those who support this actually read the article? It's appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read worse--but don't tell me here, it's not my nom and I have no personal interest in the topic. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article was posted (with a full blurb of course) in April. Has the article really deteriorated so significantly since then? -- tariqabjotu 22:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article when it was posted, around the same quality, surprised it was posted in that shape though the article was way worse when it was first nominated in April. Secretaccount 04:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious, but I'll say it anyway - a past mistake (posting with insufficient quality) is not sufficient justification to repeat the mistake. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it all even worth discussing now, that too for a RD where only four alphabets will be displayed? We should simply close this discussion. Also its no longer news now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The item can still be posted, it is no where near stale yet (i.e. older than the oldest blurb). I have no clue what the rest of the comment means. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready I have commented out a few claims, removed the tag from one which claimed Pran and Dev Anand worked together--the movies themselves are linked and they credit the two--further references aren't needed. LionBase1234 has added refs for other claims. At this point the article is untagged and ready. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, the article looks ready now. I've done a basic cleanup on the prose, which has improved the article. It still contains a few problems, but I don't think that it should give ITN any problems. The article is certainly Ready. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled as the article has copyright/close paraphrasing tag that needs to be fixed. Secretaccount 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked for copyvio content when I posted and I don't see the tag in the article; what exactly was the copyrighted/closely paraphrased content? SpencerT♦C 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Repost this is incredible. We have a 36,000 byte article to which someone adds a page-wide tag with no comment on talk? It should be reposted immediately unless tags are immediately added to the specific disputed claims. There is no other way to address them. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leery about adding potentially copyvio material to the Main Page; I'll look over the article again to try and figure out what was the issue. I also asked for clarification of the tag on the talk page of the user who tagged the article. SpencerT♦C 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia did. From your link: ...and the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2013[3] for his contributions towards Indian cinema. Notice the "[3]" in the middle of that sentence. SpencerT♦C 14:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see Spencer left a note for the editor who tagged the article. That editor did not give any reason on talk oredit summary for his action. A bare link on RD doesn't convey any copyrighted material, so it should be safe to restore if we don't get a response soon. μηδείς (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did some investigating, and the tag was added by user Bonadea after she noted some additions by a now blocked user (editting here in good faith, apparently) were close to the source material he posted. I went through his additions and rewrote everything from scratch. Hence there's no reason at this point to fear copyvio, and the item should be reposted.
Comment you are supposed to include references in the nomination, the BBC are currently stating seven dead with numerous injuries. In any case, we'll need to see how this develops, but it's a mild support right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose six fatalities, just one of those things, unless someone finds out it was a bomb or something, this isn't particularly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to article expansion. I came here to nominate this. It's still very early days so there isn't much to the article yet, but it's clear this is a major incident (although the BBC are presently saying 7 rather than 10 dead) and more details will emerge. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Link for AP story, suggest editing blurb to "passenger train". --MASEM (t) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless this develops greatly in notability (crime suspect, death toll exceeds 20, notable victim, edifice harmed) it just amounts to a sad, but routine accident, not worthy of featuring, if even encyclopedic recognition. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "routine"? This is the first significant railway accident in France since the Zoufftgen train collision in 2006. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My position is quite clear, there is no point in us detailing every 7-death transportation accident. Why do you not instead explain what is encyclopedic about this, since the burden lies entirely on the nominator to show actual notability? μηδείς (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is clear, but your reasoning is not. We indeed do not write encyclopaedia articles about every 7-death transportation accident because there are thousands of such road accidents each year. This isn't a road accident though, it's a high-speed derailment of a passenger train at a busy station (which is very rare), also rare are fatal railway accidents in not just France (first since 2006, deadliest since 1998) but most of the rest of the world too - the Fairfield train crash in Connecticut resulted in 0 deaths for example. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Medeis has made her position clear, no point in chasing it. Six deaths in an accident in France with nothing more to report isn't that notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is ready. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disasters with this sort of death toll are pretty common, and we certainly don't post most of them. I'm not seeing anything sufficiently special about it to warrant posting. Neljack (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Most people are not going to know how to pronounce "Brétigny-sur-Orge" and this has caused no traffic jams in the San Francisco area. Formerip (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless there is something else notable about this (terrorism, criminal act, etc.). 331dot (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query. What is the history of posting similar train accidents on ITN? Have such accidents been regularly posted, or rarely posted? Abductive (reasoning) 03:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just like the Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 crash which was covered ITN, this is a rare and therefore notable event. The number of dead and critically injured people is similar. Cochonfou (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plane crashes are rarer events than train crashes; we just posted the Lac-Megantic wreck. This was the first fatal plane crash of a large airliner in the US since 2001 and only the second accident involving a 777(which first flew in 1995). 331dot (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the first fatal train wreck in France since 2006. Again, these events look very comparable in magnitude to me. It is not every day that a Boeing airliner crashes, and it is not every day that a train from SNCF wrecks. Both have excellent safety records. Cochonfou (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notable train accidents arerarer than notable plane accidents, especially as it seems that articles about borderline notable (and frankly non-notable) air accidents are created more frequently than articles about similar rail accidents. The Lac-Megantic disaster and this accident happening so close together is completely coincidental and is no more relevant to the notability of either any more than the Asiana crash has any bearing on the notability of either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: rare major disaster, worst train accident in France in 25 years. -Zanhe (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is very similar to Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 which was posted, I will find it extremely odd if this is now decided to not be worthy of posting. 84.248.131.49 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It shouldn't even need explaining really. If an air crash like Flight 214 is the bar for inclusion for disasters, then a multiple fataility train crash in an advanced western European country like France easily has the same level of significance. The intensity of media coverage is the same, that's for sure. Anyone who thinks these sort of rail disasters are just a routine part of life in that part of the world, but fatal plane crashes for modern airlines/ers in modern airspaces are extremely rare, is just completely delusional. I am amazed people even have to think about it. But there you go. This is apparently a place where a human powered helicopter is a huge achievement, but landing a drone on a carrier is no big deal, and where Wimbledon is an awesome spectacle of top level sport, but the Lions are just a bunch of exhibitionists just playing sport for a laugh. Mission Twelve (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable rail accidents are actually rarer than notable air accidents; the only difference being that we have an active number of editors at enwiki who believe that every incident that doesn't result in a plane landing normally is worthy of an article. They're wrong. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fatal train crashes in developed countries such as France are rare. –Randor1980 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Rare F1 Mercedes Sells For Record £19.6m ($26.4m)
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:06, 17 July 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: World record. Noteworthy car. Noteworthy price. Noteworthy user(s). Nice change from all the death and despair that is in ITN (that is not ITN/R) currently. Broke records for: Most valuable motor car ever sold at auction, Most valuable Formula 1 racing car ever sold, Most valuable Mercedes-Benz --Torqueing (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt more than a one line update can be made for this... so oppose -- Ashish-g55 16:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like DYK. μηδείς (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Medeis, would make a fine DYK, but not really ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact it's in the news? :) It's broken 3 world records, it's newsworthy for as long as people drive cars and auctions sell things Torqueing (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree selling an historic car for a large sum is newsworthy, but then again, so is the highest 10th wicket partnership in Test cricket which was a world record broken yesterday (along with another world record for highest score by a number 11 on his debut). It's all about how this would appeal to our global audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have posted other auction records (on art, for example). However, I have to agree with Ashish that the inability for an extensive update is a concern. If the article was substantial improved in some way (either general expansion or finding a way to write about the auction in a meaningful way [how did it come up for sale, for example?]) I would support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if it's broken some record for auction, then that should be included in the blurb, otherwise it's "car sells for loads of money". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – aside from being a complete waste of money (end bias opinion), what makes this ITN material? Sure it may be something rather notable within the realm of racing and auctions, but that's about it. There's nothing outside a line of X car sold for X cash and no real world repercussions, positive or negative. As stated before, it's something more worthy of DYK than ITN. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said for sculptures (4 February 2010) and photographs (15 November 2011), these made it for ITN because people paid "silly" money for them and you saying these are more significant to cars. Donnie Park (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had I noticed them then, I would have given a similar oppose. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – We had records for arts, sculptures and photographs appearing on ITN, so why can't record for cars appear or do I smell double standards, or the works of several people is insignificant to the so called expressive work of one man. Not forgetting car auction records have always been big news and these record breakers are never forgotten, thats by the public and motoring press; example Bugatti Royale (1987), James Coburn's Ferrari 250 GT Spider California SWB (2008) and Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa (2009 and 2011). Donnie Park (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"car auction records have always been big news these record breakers are never forgotten" – That's all fine and dandy, but what's so important about it? It's a car that's really expensive that has no major impact aside from that guy's bank account. I don't see any notability outside of the the car and auction world. I don't consider something that pertains to such a small and specific realm of the media as "big news," but I could just be ignorant since I don't care much for cars. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I could just be ignorant since I don't care much for cars" - you made your claim there, the same there as I couldn't care less much for art and sculptures either, I'm not a supporter of giving lottery and government grants to keep these arts to public hands and very very few cars received handouts. "I don't consider something that pertains to such a small and specific realm of the media as "big news,"", it may not be as big as people rioting, dying in plane crashes, people winning some big event, what about that Coburn's California, it managed to appear in Top Gear (link below), my point is to a car person, people remember these cars for a long period of time. Donnie Park (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Donnie Park. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in case that's not clear. Get back to me about double standards when they hang this in the Louvre. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply offensive when you accuse people of a double standard. I know a lot of people I often disagree with here who go out of their way not to have one. You'd have been much better off making an objective case in favor first, rather than throwing accusations. μηδείς (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think there are two differences between this car and an artwork. First, there have been artworks that sold for more than it. Examples include the Guennol Lioness, an 8 cm tall ancient statue, for $57.2 million, and the The Card Players for a quarter of a billion dollars. Second, art has more depth of meaning to humanity than a vehicle designed to improve a company's image. Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have no understanding of the word "art" Torqueing (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, thus "art" is a highly subjective subject. What people consider "modern art" I consider messes half of the time. People also consider cars a form of art, I see them as modes of transportation. Conversely, people see anime as plain cartoons, I see it as a form of art. Perception of art differs greatly from person to person so criticizing someone for having no understanding of what "art" is basically amounts to telling them they're not entitled to their opinions. Not that I'm claiming such were your intentions, however. That's just how it appears to me. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made the same argument as I did. Artistic merit is in the eye of the beholder Torqueing (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is art, then it is by no means ITN-worthy since it sold for so little. If it is not art, then it is not ITN-worthy at all. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Blurb at present says 20 pounds. Order of magnitude is missing. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Ireland approves life-saving abortion
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:05, 17 July 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: Seems like a major development. Even though not passed as a law, its one of those incredibly controversial topics where this kind of progression is a big news in itself IMO. Either article can be used... ---- Ashish-g55 13:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. While significant for Ireland, legalized abortion in any form is not a unique thing in the world. Many US States have taken the opposite route (passing more restrictions on abortion). 331dot (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article makes it seem as though this is not yet a final decision, as the Seanad still needs to pass it and the President needs to sign it into law. SpencerT♦C 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's certainly newsworthy, it's incredibly significant if it passes in law. We need to wait until that happens, I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is actually meant by this? An abortion where the mother is not in immediate danger? Even the Catholic church allows surgery that might kill the baby if the mother is in immediate life-threatening danger. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe its not so much about health but suicide. So if mother is deemed suicidal Ireland will allow abortion. A bit weird but major development for ireland since they got much tougher rules against abortion -- Ashish-g55 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suspected that might be the case, in which case I oppose as written. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs a much better blurb. What is obviously of interest here to everybody is whether abortions will be harder or easier to get. The blurb doesn't tell me. (And I, like most readers, am not going to go clicking on random links in the hope of finding out.) We must summarise the significant change(s) in the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted to RD] RD: Alan Whicker
Posted to RD. --Stephen 00:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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: Television broadcaster whose career spanned nearly six decades, and whose award-winning show Whicker's World ran for 29 years. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long career and recognized with some awards and a CBE. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - article is pretty short right now. I would hope more could be said about someone notable enough to post on RD after a 60 year career. Death update is sufficient.--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he did spend 29 of those years hosting the same show. Can you pinpoint the omissions please, and I'll do my best to fill them in. Otherwise I think we're well over the line for RD inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would have opposed on importance, but this documentary, which I always thought was about David Attenborough, makes me withhold opposition. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral is about as good as you can expect from an American who has thought he was Attenborough for five decades. μηδείς (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shame really. Some Americans may take the opportunity to re-educate themselves as to his impact and legacy. Others may not I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How? It's not our fault he wasn't big enough to break into the American market. :) I'll gladly watch his best-of, if the BBC hosts it on line and doesn't put a blackout on American viewing. Until then, let me know what you Brits think of John Facenda or Charles Kuralt. I didn't think so. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Between "let me know" and "I didn't think so", you didn't give us much of a chance, did you? ;) (And they're both well beyond ITN inclusion)... (And I suspect a BBC blackout on "real" news broadcast to America is to prevent mass panic.....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You proved my point, TRM. While I am willing to be neutral about this chap, you are happy to put down Facenda who was perhaps the most recognized voice in radio and TV at the time of his death, known as "the voice of god" and of the NFL. So, I didn't think so, and I was right. As for real news, do you mean Chinese birds flying into Scottish windmills? μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really, the two fellows you noted died a decade or so beyond this nomination (I didn't "put them down", just noted that they weren't eligible for ITN/C). You know they died years ago, don't you?). How is that helpful to this nomination? And no, I didn't mean birds flying into windmills, I meant massive offshore windfarms providing vital renewable power to hundreds of thousands of people. Perhaps you missed the London Array? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed you were making some comment beyond staleness, which I thought was too obvious to mention. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable travel writer & reporter, 70-year career. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither having a long career nor winning awards establishes that he was "widely recognised as a very important figure" in the field of television. I will oppose unless further evidence is provided about his impact and reputation. Neljack (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the Queen made him a CBE just for the heck of it? I don't think she gives those out to anyone that comes along. How many broadcasters have worked 70 years? (How many people in any industry have worked 70 years?) In order to make it 70 years he couldn't have been too ordinary. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are rather over-estimating the significance of a CBE. By my count 107 people were given CBEs in the Queen's Birthday Honours List last month. With two honours lists a year, we can estimate than about 2000 people have been awarded the CBE just in the last decade. We're certainly not going to post all their deaths; I would think that only a very small minority of them would qualify for RD. Even most knights or dames (who are above a CBE in the honours system) would not qualify. Incidentally, the Queen does not actually decide who gets CBEs. Neljack (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure she doesn't pick each and every person on the list, but I'm sure if there was someone on it that she felt did not meet the criteria, they wouldn't get one. It's still recognition from the government that someone was notable enough to be recognized. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: she didn't think Mick Jagger should be knighted, but he was - she was constitutionally bound to accept Tony Blair's advice to knight him. Neljack (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no evidence presented that he was "widely recognized as a very important figure" inside his home country, and certainly not anywhere else. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, at least the first assertion. People aren't referred to as "legends" without being widely recognised as important. Please read the sources provided and the reaction to his death before making erroneous statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ. His obituary in the Telegraph is titled "Alan Whicker: One of television's defining figures", and the by-line is "Television has lost one of the defining figures of its early golden age with the passing of Alan Whicker". It goes on to say he was "instantly recognisable to a generation" with a "presenting style that has influenced every maker of a travelogue since" which "every significant presenter post-Whicker owes something to". Why is nonsense like this Abductive person's clearly totally ignorant comment even allowed in here? Mission Twelve (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spoken like a true provincial. Nobody outside of your country has ever heard of this Whicker. Abductive (reasoning) 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you determine that by asking every human on the Earth outside of the UK? You have no way of knowing if that is true. Further, "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive."331dot (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... and which Whicker have they all heard of, I'd like to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jesus H. Christ, One of the most important TV figures of the last 60 years. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks ready to go, a single unsubstantiated oppose, and plenty of support. Plus a lot of work done on the article. Should be enough for two words on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:03, 17 July 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: The landing has always been the hard part of operating a plane from a carrier. It has also successfully taken off from the carrier. Drones are the future of aerial warfare, and carriers are a central part of aerial warfare, so this is a significant first. Thue (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Thue (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The future is here, all right. Jusdafax 09:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable technological advance being covered by news sources. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This doesn't seem to have involved any significant technological barrier, just getting a machine that can land itself to land itself on something new. Formerip (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's new when the landing site is moving in all directions as a ship is. Computers could not account for that until recently. It's not as easy as it sounds. This is also likely the future of aerial warfare. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm always sceptical of publicly announced advances in military technology. What we really have here is the first publicly announced landing of a drone on a carrier. What makes any of you think that they haven't been doing it for quite some time? And that far more dramatic advances aren't happening on other fronts. This is managed, manufactured news. It's not real. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The world press would seem to disagree, given it's news in most places. All technology is practiced, designed and tested before formal attempts at accomplishing its function. The fact that it's military technology we're talking about here shouldn't disqualify it. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that line of argument, almost any first would no longer be news, since somebody might have potentially have done it in secret. I have seen no hints that the US have been operating drones from carriers before now. Giving that thousands of people work on each carrier, it would also have been very hard to keep secret for long. Thue (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An aircraft carrier is also kind of hard to hide. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
331dot - The world press gets excited about Hollywood romances and the subsequent babies. We don't record them here. So simply saying the media is excited is never enough to justify posting something. Thue - I'm talking about what is obviously a managed news release. The real audience of this sort of stuff is the US's enemies, and perhaps it's own citizens if they somehow feel some ownership of this. It's propaganda. Maybe we could describe it as "US military announces that it has successfully landed...". We will never know the real truth and details about military advances. This is an incremental advance, not a revolutionary step. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is "in the news" so "excitement" of the world press is a consideration.331dot (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no need to parrot military PR. Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The public landing of a drone on a carrier, whether or not it has been done in private before, sets the world on notice that the U.S. may not be requiring airbases in neighboring countries to launch certain surveillance, attacks, and covert actions. It should also warn kids dreaming of growing up to be fighter pilots that they need a new dream. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it's propaganda, and it has obviously worked on you. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "propaganda" if it is true on its face. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All military press releases are propaganda, if only by the selective nature of what they choose to release. When did you last see a military press release about something costing billions that didn't work? HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read about the last failed test of the US missile defense system in the news. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain "propaganda" in this context. Are you saying a drone can't land on a carrier? I recognize there is an incremental commercialism here in that the hook links to an article which names the company making the drone, rather than linking to a general article on drone aircraft which might also fairly be updated based on such news. I would welcome such a change in focus, but I don't see that point rising to the level of "propaganda". Wnt (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose infinitely more important than a bunch of fans in the Thames estuary, but still, incremental only. μηδείς (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose far less important than providing electricity for half a million homes, and still just something that's not actually that impressive or newsworthy. Despite what vox populi think, drones can fly (and land) autonomously just as well as civilian aircraft. This is no big deal at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced this is a sufficiently important step to warrant posting. The previous inability to land on carriers doesn't seem to stopped drones being widely used. Neljack (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that those who oppose this create a drone, its avionics, and program it to land on a carrier before they state this is "not revolutionary" or "not a big deal". If it was easy, it would have been done decades ago. Their use will greatly increase in the future once drones' range is no longer limited by requirement of land-based air bases. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that if you agree to crash a train and have an abortion. Formerip (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Train crashes and abortions are not unique and first-time events, as they have been done for numerous decades. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But, if it's reasonable to ask editors to perform any feat they oppose for ITN, then I am surely not being unreasonable. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was using rhetoric to make a point; that this isn't as easy or unimportant a feat as people claim it is. I didn't expect anyone to go out and start designing their own drones. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was also using rhetoric. I don't believe anyone has said "I could do that". But the fact that something requires specialist skills and knowledge is not enough to make it suitable for posting. Formerip (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, if it wasn't "in the news", which this is. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In actual fact, reusable UASs are designed to be able to land entirely autonomously should they go off-tether. This is simply getting it to land on a very slowly moving object. No big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is quite obviously both a major advance in a cutting edge technical field, and something that will be of huge strategic significance, a step change in the military capability of any nation that currently uses drones. The fact that it is 'military news' is precisely because no civilian organisation has anywhere near the kind of money it took to acheive this advance. It's really really depressing that these discussions seem to be allowed to happen in an environment where displaying total ignorance of basic facts like this is something to be celebrated. It is doubly depressing when you see an item like 'First human-powered helicopter' going up in a flash. I mean WTF? Sure it's a major achievement and deserves recognition on the main page maybe on the trivia angle and yes as a technological advance, but compared to this advance, it's nothing, and has no wider implications at all (I cannot see civilian helicopter manufacturers moving to this new power source, and neither can I see it having any impact on military strategy, except maybe by allowing microstates like Sealand to finally have an air force). Mission Twelve (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give Sealand any ideas. ;) 331dot (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially with the human-powered helicoper comparison - that was (interesting) trivia, this has real consequences! The whole "how hard can landing on a carrier be" angle of some of the opposes had me going WTF. Doesn't everybody know that landing on a carrier is one of the hardest tasks in aviation? Thue (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's hard for a human. A computer just does the math(s) and the arrestor hook does the rest of the work. Besides, these drones can fly a lot slower than, say, an F-14, so the whole task is that much easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Mission Twelve (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said. If you have either the qualifications or experience to show otherwise (and I invite the others who are claiming to know what this feat involves), now would be the time to present them. Already today I've seen a BSc student dismiss the Travyon Martin murder trial as "relatively basic", so I can't wait to see what your qualifications might be to be able to dismiss this as "no big deal". Mission Twelve (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than suitably qualified to discuss this topic but I don't need to fax you a copy of my CV to prove it. You'll just have to believe me! Welcome back, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suitably qualiified would make the statements you have in here, so if you don't want people to think you're just lying, you're just going to have to post your CV. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you would appreciate the irony of your statement! Or was it intended to be sarcasm? I can't tell. Anyway, moving on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the irony. I just think people are able to tell the difference between someone pointing out the obvious when it is backed up by both the coverage and just simple logic, and someone claiming it's no big deal based on nothing but an appeal to just 'trust them' (or maybe you actually have a reliable source which describes this as no big deal?). You obviously don't know anything about what this technological acheievement entails, which is why you're 'moving on'. Mission Twelve (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm moving on because (a) this nomination is beyond dead (b) I'm arguing with someone who knows nothing about me (c) I'm fully aware of what goes into this kind of technology and (d) you've started making familiar remarks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this nomination is "beyond dead", then it's only because of people like you who want to oppose it even though they quite clearly know absolutely nothing about the subject. You're 'moving on' only because you know that you haven't got a prayer of providing a source that described this as no big deal. Which really wouldn't be difficult to find if what you are claiming here about either the achievement or your supposed knowledge was remotely true. In fact, the closer you claim to be to this subject, the more ridiculous it looks that you can't provide any such source. If you don't like familiar remarks, perhaps you shouldn't put people in positions where the only way they can judge whether what you say is true or not, is to be personally familiar with you (and if you don't like that coming up as a subject at all, then just don't say it - you're the person who is making this an issue about how much we know about you with all this 'trust me' nonsense). Mission Twelve (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see you badgering the other opposers. Why not ask them for their credentials? This thread depressingly familiar, wouldn't you agree...? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of them made the remark "No, of course not ;)" though, that's all I'm responding to here. And familiar? Well, maybe you've had the same sort of argument with someone before, but it wasn't me. If you routinely ask people here just to trust you, then it's probably going to happen to you quite often I would have thought. Mission Twelve (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see you saying "You clearly don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about." to FormerIP (!) when they said "just getting a machine that can land itself to land itself on something new. ". Go harangue someone else, we're done here. But just for you, you should be aware that the solution to all this was comprehensively modelled nearly a decade ago. Some news! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] NSA backdoors
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 14:02, 17 July 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: The fact that the USA has been giving access to such massive amounts of secret information, and lying about it, is surely ITN-worthy. Thue (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Should raise eyebrows, even jaded ones, worldwide. Jusdafax 08:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Snowden is likely going to be doing this sort of thing (releasing information) for a little while and I don't think we need to post every bit of information he releases. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alternative is posting nothing, which is what we have been doing, even though it has been all over the front pages. I choose to suggest this item as standing out a bit from all the other revelations - I am not suggesting to post every little bit, but we should post just a few of the bigger stories. Thue (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion if most of his information was "little" the US Government wouldn't be pursuing him so vigorously. Everything he has is likely to be on this scale and we are not a Snowden ticker nor should we help him do what he wants to do (whether it is criminal or not). 331dot (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If everything he reveals is newsworthy, then I have no problem with being a Snowden news ticker. I don't see why we should stop posting noteworthy news just because it is coming from the same source, or because there is a lot of it. Thue (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowden himself is newsworthy, not each piece of information he chooses to release. We know he is going to be leaking information, just not what it is. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose - As much as I personally wish to promote this, it's unreasonable to post every single leak that has emerged. In Australia, the same leaks have revealed that Australia's largest telco, Telstra along with its Hong Kong subsidiary have been hoarding information for the US government for the past 10 years. Either sticky or don't post anything at all. YuMaNuMaContrib 09:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a sticky for Snowden news. Count me as a supporter of that too. Jusdafax 10:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Telstra thing sounds insanely notable. If it is notable then it should be posted; it would be unreasonable not to. Post all the notable things. Thue (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Telstra thing is not notable, as it is just the standard NSA tapping of all fibres coming into the US, which we have know of for some time. Thue (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's debatable how much he "reveals" is true (or at least provable). Microsoft deny his revelation ([20]) so until the facts are clear, I can't support this for ITN. CaptRik (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment his allegations are getting enough press that we at least could (and should IMO) post it as a "alleges" new items. Thue (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but rework. With something this political, "reveals" is not going to cut it. That's a loaded term straight out of WP:WTA. Say that Snowden released documents that indicate... and be sure you're going exactly with what they say. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or sticky, we shouldn't keep giving prominence to this one story in English-language Wikipedia. A sticky would suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant revelation. I agree with Thue that the fact we have posted previous stories about Snowden should not stop us from posting new ones that are sufficiently important. As I understand it, Microsoft does not deny that they cooperating with the US; it just claims that they were legally required to do so. The blurb does need to be made clearer though; I found it difficult to understand. Neljack (talk) 23:40, 12 July 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: The historical overtones of such a "first flight" record makes it well suited for an encyclopedia. Thue (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great item for an ITN blurb. International interest and quite different. Jusdafax 08:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, and different. CaptRik (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support First such flight, and won a prize established over 30 years ago, an interesting and historical story. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it isn't "working", then it isn't a human-powered helicopter, any more than my chair is a non-working human-powered helicopter. The word "working" is implicit and therefore unneeded. Thue (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb. Successful human-powered aircraft are rare, and winning a prize after 33 years is a significant achievement. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Glad to learn about this here. Congratulations. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a more thorough update. Right now it is just a couple sentences basically saying it was achieved. Surely there is more information about it than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since it was viewed as a challenge for 33 years. Abductive (reasoning) 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support My mother just told my nephew this weekend she'd fly up to Boston to see him if only she had wings. Now there's no excuse. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready - I have updated human-powered helicopter with the details and adjusted the bolding accordingly. (It seems to be the better place to put the history of the project/technical details.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Target article looks like total trash. Maybe someone who voted "support" could have fixed it before we featured it on our main page. Perhaps we accept sub-stub articles these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has a [citation needed], I've tried to fix up the crap prose and piss-poor referencing, more to do, but I'm surprised this suddenly became "main page quality". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the target (bold) article was changed to human-powered helicopter. In that article, things are referenced, the prose is fine, and while it may not be super long it isn't "sub-stub" either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I missed that. The new "target article" is also totally piss poor. Why are we linking these from our main page? Some people spend months trying to create great quality articles (FAs, FLs, FPs etc) and yet we seem happy to link totally crap articles from ITN/C. Bizarre. (Mildly embarrassing that so many supports for such a sub-standard article came about from ITN regulars who I thought could spot a poor article from a 100 yards..) Don't get me wrong, [21] is charming but I thought WP:V, NP:N, WP:RS were part of our thinking before we posted to the main page? I'm sure all those editors above who supported this for main page inclusion are aware of these and took them into account before supporting the "article" for main page inclusion........ The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not require FA quality or anything close to it (neither does OTD or DYK incidentally). The article certainly meets verifiability, meets notability, and uses reliable sources, so I have no idea what you are objecting to exactly. To my eye, it is roughly of the same quality as most articles we post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. To your "eye" it's ok. To my eye it's far from good. Perhaps we have different quality thresholds. Right now it's worse than a poor GA. You're happy with it on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we appear to have different standards. I feel we should be roughly on the same level as DYK for minimum quality, which would mean this article passes. If the standard was GA or higher, we wouldn't be posting much of anything: <1% of Wikipedia meets that standard. (Are any of the currently posted ITN articles at GA level?) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the currently posted articles, excluding this one, the Asiana crash is rated "C" the others are rated "Start". So, we would have no news articles at all if we used GA or even B class threshold. ITN is a different beast to TFA - the former showcases our timeliness without claim to be our best work, TFA showcases our best work without claim about timeliness (yesterday's article was about a car that ceased production in 1967, the day before was about a 2004 hurricane). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull article is appalling and an embarrassment to Wikipedia's homepage. I'm shocked we're happy to publicise this rubbish on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Six women climb western Europe's tallest skyscraper, The Shard, towering over Shell's headquarters in London, to protest against Arctic drilling. (BBC)
No consensus to post. --Stephen 00:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:07, 14 July 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: The earliest/oldest alphabetical text written was found in Jerusalem. Andise1 (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We need a better source or more accurate scholarly reporting. The discovery only mentions the use of consonants, which is not an alphabetic script, which combines vowels and consonants. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two cited sources only appear to say that this is the earliest alphabetic text found in Jerusalem, not the earliest in an absolute sense. Are there other stories that say it differently? Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article alphabet there are earlier known Canaanite abjad samples from Egypt, and again, this is apparently an abjad without vowels, not a true alphabet. What is the original paper describing this find? μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think Jerusalem should be the article updated; probably a new article about the script itself, no? SpencerT♦C 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What article is being nominated? I think Jerusalem is an FA and probably way too long already to encompass this story. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a former FA and there is no need to burden it further with this story. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a fragment of old writing being found in a given city is not what archeology is about. Abductive (reasoning) 16:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Posted] Luxembourg PM
Posted. --Stephen 00:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nominator's comments: Resignation of longest-serving European head of government. Will probably result in a snap election. --LukeSurltc 09:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support subject to update. Isn't a change of head of government ITN/R? Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definitly for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find out though whether he's stepping down right now, or whether he's resigning his government and he stays on as a caretaker PM until the next election, as happens so often with other European countries. I'd rather be clear on what's happening before I lend my support. Redverton (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the whole government who fall with him, [22] this seems to mean that there will be new elections (which is the prerogative of the Grand Duke, something which is more than just nominal power in this country). The legislature is effectively suspended at the current time, no new laws can be passed. I've changed the blurb to "government falls" rather than "PM resigns" because I'm not sure whether the PM's office is technically vacant or not in this inter-election period. There's certainly someone watching Jean-Claude Juncker who won't let the infobox be changed as such. --LukeSurltc 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is his statement about the affair here. Unfortunately neither me nor Google can read Luxembourgish. Thryduulf (talk)
Well the two 109 IP edits are mine. I forgot to log in. :P But other people have been reverting changes to the infobox as well. It certainly does seem like Juncker himself is stepping down right now, as opposed to the government in general, but I'm getting no indication at all on who'll succeed him. The PMship surely can't remain vacant until the elections, because it looks like they'll be in October. But whatever, the blurb change suggested is right, because at least then we know we're on solid ground. I've suggested an alternative blurb highlighting the huge length of service - it's perhaps one of the more interesting things about him that he's the longest serving head of gov in the world right now. Redverton (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Government falling in controversial circumstances is sufficiently significant. Juncker has also been a figure of importance on the European stage beyond what one would expect from the size of his country. Neljack (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
President of Mongolia Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj is sworn into office for his second term as President of Mongolia in front of Genghis Khan's monument, the Parliament and public on main Sükhbaatar Square in Ulaanbaatar. This is the first time Mongolian President took oath in front of public in the country's history. (Montsame News Agency)
The President of PortugalCavaco Silva calls for a national salvation understanding between the three main parties: the Socialists, and the governing coalition PSD and CDS-PP. In a statement after the President's communication to the country, the Socialists said they will not support such Government and called for early elections. (Reuters)
With still two years until its closest approach, NASA's New Horizons team releases the spacecraft's first high resolution view of the Pluto/Charon dwarf planet system. (JHUAPL)
[Posted] China floods
Posted. --Stephen 23:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nominator's comments: Heaviest rain/worst flooding in last 50+ years --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a major disaster. Neljack (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Neljack and our posting of the Alberta floods. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Normally I would prefer to wait for a bit more discussion, but we're overdue for an update, the article looks good, and I don't anticipate much opposition to posting this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above. --LukeSurltc 08:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above comments. CaptRik (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This might not be worthy enough to be on ITN, but I decided to nominate it to get opinions from others. Andise1 (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as long as an appropriate article is created/updated. Nergaal (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose silly social-science nanny-state busy-body-ism and borderline racist. We don't post which countries have the highest alcoholism or demographic extinction rates. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
would be really odd to post there are more fat people in mexico than US. will come out sounding like an achievement lol -- Ashish-g55 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This story would not be up for consideration were it not for the fact that the U.S. was the former recordholder. Ergo, U.S. centric.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Medeis. There are plenty of similar records broken every year, and I don't see why this one is particularly important for inclusion. Even if we agree on its importance that sets it apart from the numerous other records omitted, the fact this is appropriate nomination for ITN is challenging since, at first glance, it suits better for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not DYK obviously not a new article, nor significantly expanded, but yes not ITN either. EdwardLane (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and tomorrow, Liechtenstein? And next week Western Samoa? Not newsworthy at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Medeis et. al.. Trivia, not highlighting Wikipedia content of particularly high quality Pedro : Chat 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Is this a joke? WTF? !!!!!Nottruelosa (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nottruelosa - Erm, the nominator stated "This might not be worthy enough to be on ITN, but I decided to nominate it to get opinions from others". That's right up in Wikipedia philosophy of being bold yet seeking consensus. I personally oppose it, but there's no reason whatsoever to respond with "WTF is this a joke" sarcasm that helps no-one and disparages a good faith nomination. Pedro : Chat 21:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is a US-centric issue, nor a joke nomination, but ITN isn't really for that sort of trivia. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fat chance. It seems that's only for the world's largest countries. lol. The jolly old CIA, who seem to be behind this lovely league table claims that American Samoa gets the prize. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tabloid fodder. Not proper science. And where's Australia anyway? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... slouching along, just behind UK, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Closing. The OP made a good faith nomination, but is taking enough abuse. I'm closing this per WP:SNOW. --Jayron32 22:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Big iceberg
No consensus to post --Stephen 01:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have every right to oppose, but don't make yourself seem so ignorant. Try to come up with a real reason. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain I am the only one who has. Can you explain yourself without the personal criticisms? μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure there's a direct personal attack here. Suggest HiLo48 retracts it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No retraction is needed. μηδείς (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support-It seems B-15 was gargantuan, but this iceberg is nonetheless big. It makes an interesting news feature, however, general notability will be what precludes this from being posted (if that happens). QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a record size? SpencerT♦C 02:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are known to have been at least five larger naturally occurring icebergs, including one 15 times larger, but I think this is the largest to form for about a decade. Dragons flight (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a chunk of ice. It isn't any kind of record, and I'm not seeing much news coverage or evidence of any real-world impact. If it does anything besides float around and melt, I'll reconsider. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, It's big, but not the biggest. If it sticks around long enough to sink Clive Palmer's Titanic, I'll change my position. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a record size. Not seeing widespread coverage yet, either. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we have more interesting stories in the news this week than some big chunk of ice.--WaltCip (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cant believe there is a page that long for an unborn child. O well atleast it will go up on ITN faster -- Ashish-g55 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't, I have something very important to do in real life. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose big bits of ice are falling off the ice caps every day. Perhaps we need a sticky to say the end of the world is nigh. Or that global warming is definitively real. Or that we need to stop destroying the planet. Or that we need to focus on step-change environmental issues which won't get laughed out of ITN. I'm not laughing, but we need something with massive impact to get past tennis and minor air crashes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)
