This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
A bus carrying 31 passengers, while crossing the Truc Khe Bridge that was under repair in Cam Lộ (Quảng Trị, Viet Nam), falls into a river, leaving 17 passengers injured. (Tuoitrenews)
International relations
The Republic of China lifts sanctions imposed on the Philippines after presidentBenigno Aquino apologized to the family of a Taiwanese fisherman shot dead in disputed waters. (BBC)
Law and crime
A shooting spree in Dallas, Texas, U.S., kills 4, wounds 4 and the gunman is subsequently arrested. (CNN)
Nominator's comments: Very rare for a film as substantial as this from a major director to be rediscovered. Article looks in good shape, I'd suggest that the out of date tag can be removed. --yorkshiresky (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a variety of reasons. Newsworthy, article is updated reasonaby well, unusual event as the nom. points out, secondary links go to a variety of good quality articles, provides added value to the readership and variety to the ITN section. I'm fully aware that most of these reasons are not in the criteria guide before anyone points that out :) Pedro : Chat 11:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and unusual story in the world of cinema/film history/Orson Welles. This film was lost, then found, then presumed destroyed, so yeah - I think very few people saw this coming. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
President Barack Obama affirms that the US will attend the upcoming G-20meeting, despite differences with the Russian government and the cancellation of bilateral talks between Obama and President Putin. (BBC)
Portugal's treasury secretary Joaquim Pais Jorge resigns after media reports and opposition politicians questioned his previous role at Citigroup. (Reuters)
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose. She is notable for one role only, or at least the article only mentions her association with that role. Also agree with Johnsemlak. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the Weak Oppose Road. Wizard Of Oz may very well have been a ground-breaking film, but a single role is not part-and-parcel notable for RD; compared to Judy Garland who had the leading role but was also in other movies at the time.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral now, support if there is a significant update the amount of coverage in the article has actually decreased since earlier in the day when there was about 4-5 sentences supported by 2-3 references (based on memory). There would be a lot more coverage if this had happened at a European or North American airport (for example) but major fires at major international airports are rare and Kenya is under-represented here. I'll definitely support if there is a significant update to the article but at the moment I can't decide whether I'm a weak support or weak oppose, so I'll stay neutral for now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We usually post such deals on the completion of the deal, which in this case does not sound like it is completed yet (BBC says "60 days"). --MASEM (t) 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not ready to oppose yet, but I don't see the significance here. A newspaper was sold- the Boston Globe was just sold a few days ago (also for a miniscule price) and we didn't post that. 331dot (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Boston Globe and associated papers, which were purchased for US$1.4B ($1,400,000,000.00) by the New York Times in 1993 were just sold for $70,000,000.00--far less than 5% of the original investment, about the value of their real estate holdings, if one accounts for inflation, with the NYT still holding $100,000,000.00 in pension liabilities.[1] This is much bigger, more notable, and sadder news. μηδείς (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If posted, the two (Post and Globe) should go together mentioning they've been sold below asset vallue. Being as I almost always oppose business news, I'll not support the Post sale as an item by itself. A supportable blurb could be something like "In separate sales The Washington Post is sold to Amazon's Jeff Bezos and the Boston Globe to Red Socks owner John Henry at considerable losses." Or, perhaps, "In unrelated sales the Washington Post and the Boston Globe are sold at $US losses in the hundreds of millions." μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only the Washington Post sale. An iconic newspaper being bought by a very notable individual. The Washington Post is much more notable than the Boston Globe.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is able to buy a major newspaper will probably be notable, so I don't think that aspect of the story gives it anything extra. Formerip (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could write 'Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' though I'd be concerned this would mislead viewers into thinking Amazon bought the newspaper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, purchases the Washington Post for $250 million in cash." Having the reference to Amazon after his name and not before might reduce confusion. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose as nominated. The Boston Globe fire sale is the much bigger and still fresh story. The collapse of the industry may be worth covering, but one vanity purchase with no managerial or policy changes promised is not. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very big story regarding what is effectively "new media" that has bought up the old media: the newspaper of record in the capital of the USA. I do believe it is a good idea to mention Amazon in the blurb. Suggest we leave the Boston Globe out of this, as the Post is, or perhaps was, in a class of its own. Iconic is not too strong a term for the Washington Post. Jusdafax07:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ever since Watergate, the Washington Post has been a print-media beacon. In U.S. journalism, only The New York Times has had more clout. Sale of the Post far outweighs that of the Boston Globe in significance — and the buyer being a cyber-mogul of sorts may be significant as well.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose a good working musician but no awards, or major hits and only one album with its own article, on which his trio is listed second. μηδείς (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Sems to be in the news and with large scale protests, including the sacking of the national prison chief. Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no article to evaluate, nor is the scale of this person's alleged crimes given(one victim, a hundred, etc.) 331dot (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this under the bold policy of WP:BLP. It can be reopened if we get an article with sources to support otherwise defamatory claims. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Way too premature. Nominations are made here all the time without associated articles, and he is a convicted child rapist, as nearly every source on this story corroborates. Oppose if you feel there's an issue. -- tariqabjotu03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he was apparently convicted and then pardoned, and the pardon was withdrawn(part of the reason this hit the international news, I think). Still need an article but I could potentially support this. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Large scale convictions for an alleged coup attempt in a large country is notable, IMO. I know there is an article for this but I cant find it. Can someone add it here?Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if article gets significantly worked on. It's currently in poor shape and very much outdated, and doesn't even mention the recent convictions yet. The event is quite notable though and definitely has had international news coverage (e.g. top news item on German "Der Spiegel" online edition yesterday). Fut.Perf.☼11:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a serious political attack on the Turkish military, hitherto guardian of secular republic. Here's a source for the Spiegel article in English translation:
Comment. I oppose to the blurb in this form, since none, except the Turkish government and the judges, thinks that all these 200 people were really part of a plot (people who speak German can read for example here). Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was not clear: the story is very significant, is the form of the blurb which is wrong. According to the news that I read (Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, NZZ) the existence of Ergenekon is real, but the government used the plot as an excuse to get rid of opponents who had nothing to do with it, manipulating evidences. So, we cannot write "Over 200 Ergenekon members", since the large majority of them were not part of the plot. Alex2006 (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: ITNR sport event, though we could discuss whether we want to post now or at the conclusion of the series. --LukeSurltc09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
post now. We did the same for the last series. I don't think it can be argued that the retention of he ashes is not the single most notable result in the series, even if the final result is also notable.--24.90.93.88 (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A retention is as good as a win, so it's good enough for me. I assume we're not going to get an easy ride because of the inherent USA-bias and dodgy admins but a man can hope...... doktorbwordsdeeds10:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think precedent has been to post at the conclusion of the series, just in case of the extremely unlikely event that this is somehow reversed or cancelled. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Things can always be reversed or cancelled, unless the league decides to stop playing. The last stage of the Tour de France is always run even though 99% of the time the winner is not in doubt, because it is still part of the race and needs to be completed to win- the potential winner could crash or have a freak accident to prevent them from winning. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no league to talk of here. There are two more matches to play, and England lead 2 - 0. Australia winning back the Ashes is literally impossible at this point. --LukeSurltc19:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for clarity if the last 2 matches are cancelled or if Australia win them England will retain the Ashes. This is different from the Tour de France since in that case, no one has won the Tour until they actually win it no matter the lead. A better example in racing is perhaps Formula 1. There comes a point where it is mathematical impossible for anyone else to win the world championship (or constructors), this often isn't the last race of the season. However when it happens it's still the time the world championship (or constructor's) is won, which is distinct from say when Schumacher was dominating and was widely expected to win but hadn't actually won yet. (Of course when it comes to the World Championship you generally need to win it outright rather then just retaining it.) Of course it's generally possible for any result to be reversed or overturned in most sports, but this is different an can usually happen at any time, even long after the tournament or whatever is finished. We don't avoid mentioning the Tour results simple because the winner may lose their results years later due to doping, nor do we avoid mentioning the NRL (presuming we still have consensus to post this) winner simply because they could one day lose the premiership over salary cap breaches. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wait Aus can still tie, fgranted England have retained it. Nevertheless, precedence is to post after sports tournaments ends.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. Evne though someone above had already said "post now. We did the same for the last series.", the precedent is somehow to do the opposite? Wow. If Australia tie, which in itself is a pretty long shot, literally nobody would care. Not even the Australians. DW meter (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait It is incorrect to say England is leading the series (more like crystal balling) as if the next 2 games are won by Australia they will tie it. England will keep Ashes by default however this particular series would still be tie... i would wait till we know which one it is. Even if we posted it earlier last time, i see no reason to follow an incorrect precedence. -- Ashish-g5518:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"England retain Ashes" has been the headline. Unlike pretty much any other case in any other sport, in this case a draw is effectively as good as a win for England. Test cricket is weird. --LukeSurltc19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess ill be ok with it if we dont say anything that suggests england won this series or is leading the series etc... as we need to wait for series outcome. just stick to the urn -- Ashish-g5519:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now The most important result that will come out of this series has now occurred. England has retained The Ashes. Those who don't understand can check out that article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. The newsworthy item is that England have retained the Ashes, whether that is 2-2 or 4-0 is irrelevant because even in the latter case England will also have retained the Ashes, not won them. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Without a reason, that's just a vote. [And there's a BIG discussion on about voting rather than discussing here.) And votes must be ignored by the closer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I voted to wait as the result of the Ashes is not yet clear. England have retained them by the fact that they are guaranteed a draw but they can still win them outright. Comparison with another sport - I'm sure we don't post the winner of the Premier League as soon as it's mathematically finished, we post at the end of the season. With the same logic, we should post this at the end of the series. CaptRik (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's wrong. The result of The Ashes is completely clear, now. England has retained them. Comparisons with other sports are pointless. The Ashes is a unique competition between two countries which never change. Nobody "retains" the Premier League cup, or whatever they win, in the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait by default. The optimum time to post was two and a bit days ago. The second best time to post is the evening of the end of the final test, and we can get that done pretty quickly. And regardless of that, how do we succinctly explain in a blurb to the wider readership that England have The Ashes in the bag despite the fact that the series could end 2-2? —WFC— FL wishlist00:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Drug scandal in a sport with a history of drug use. Besides which, the right time to post would be if the appeal fails. If we were to post now and the appeal were to succeed, we would be duty-bound to post that as well. —WFC— FL wishlist23:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually baseball never had a player, especially a star like Alex Rodriguez being suspended such a long period of time (two years in this case) because of a drug/doping scandal. This is easily the biggest doping scandal to hit sports in general since Lance Armstrong which we posted, and probably rank among the top five ever. This has widespread implications in multiple sports, and should end the "doping era" in baseball. SupportSecretaccount23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good suggestion. Although it's a sports item, an area where I think the bar should be held a little higher (along with most other entertainment-related noms), I think this easily meets that bar and will have a more meaningful impact than many of the routine sports items that we usually post. This is a huge deal for a sport that is several orders of magnitude more significant as an entity than swimming, for example, another currently-nommed sports item (and I'm not hating on swimming; that one should and probably will be posted). AP called it "baseball's most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal." --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opening remark was intended to be facetious (apologies if it didn't come across that way), although in my defence it was a fair comment. But A-Rod hasn't even stopped playing yet: this surely only meets the bar if he is actually suspended? Otherwise we have a handful of players who have pleaded guilty to doping missing less than a third of a season. Significant, but hardly earth-shattering. In cycling and athletics you generally get one or two years, yet the problem is still widespread, so I don't accept the premise that this will mark the end of drugs in baseball. And to reiterate, if this is posted and A-Rod suspension is overturned on appeal, we would surely then need to post that. It simply doesn't make sense to go now. —WFC— FL wishlist00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an internal league matter. Far worse, the comissioner is making what are essentially criminal allegations, without any of the protections of the actual criminal system, or liability for other parties like coaches and owners who would be subject to conspiracy charges were these real criminal proceedings. Imagine trading houses that knew of their traders' activities demanding they stop trading and forfeit their salaries while the brokers kept their profits. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the top headline story on NBC News.com and CNN.com, and near the top on BBC's news page. Also covered in other countries. This being "an internal league matter" is irrelevant to its status as a news story. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "top of the news", and we have a policy called WP:BLP. These people are being accused of essentially criminal activity by a private organization. We shouldn't touch this unless there's a court verdict. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that this is a large story receiving a lot of coverage. Again, it is not illegal to use a PED so a court trial is unlikely unless A-Rod or the others lie under oath, but a private organization can discipline its members as it sees fit and as unfairly as it wants to. If we need to wait until A-Rod's appeal (I believe he is only one appealling) is exhausted to avoid a double post, okay, but this isn't yet a criminal matter. Not even sure if he is under investigation by the criminal justice system. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question having a bit of a issue in getting to the bottom of this; some background .... Am I correct in the following, MLB paid for information from a informer from a now defunct company to provide them with details of who this company supplied. Last month Ryan Braun took what amounted to a plea bargain, today it has been announced that 12 others have also taken a similar plea deal and one other Alex Rodriguez was suspend for 211 games, that suspension was it's self suspend pending the outcome of an "appeal". Now to the question, I cant find anything which indicates there has been an interdependent hearing on this; if that is the case this would be a the same as a 100m sprinter being charged with taking a performance enhancing drug, as we would never post that until all legal avenues have been exhausted why would we consider this one . LGAtalkedits01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have no independent documentation on any of this. If you read Braun's article, there is plenty of ESPN speculation. (ESPN is a TV sports network, not a branch of The United Nations.) He's not exactly taken a plea, but stopped fighting his 50 game suspension, and had an extra 15 game's suspension added on, which would be illegal for a US criminal court to do. Likewise there have been reports that Alex Rodriquez was threatened with a lifetime ban [2], and that he has gotten a longer suspension (211 games) because he didn't cooperate with the commission, which apparently saw him as an easy-to-go-after whipping boy [3]. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't illegal to use a PED(criminally, at least), though it is illegal to lie under oath about doing so. This isn't a legal matter(yet, at least), just a personnel issue. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are no criminal penalties because there are no criminal charges or protections of the criminal court, just untestable allegations which amount to defamation per se by the league. Most people assume there is some sort of demonstrated or admitted criminality here, but there is nothing other than the bosses deciding an arbitrary number of employees will lose an arbitrary amount of pay, while the managers and owners who were aware of the alleged activity face no sanctions. As in Braun's case, they have shown that if you don't accept these penalties without appeal you will face worse. Compare this to the Cumberland Farms case where the convenience chain settled [4] for having regularly accused cashiers of stealing from the till and forcing them to sign confessions to avoid criminal prosecution. [5] Supports for this nomination because it is "in the news" show our WP:BLP oversight function here is fatally flawed. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is currently the biggest new item in profession sports and involves some of the biggest names (and even formerly-possible hall-of-famers) in baseball. It is also rare in North American sports for there to be such a huge crackdown on players using perfomance enhancing drugs. This has been in the news for several weeks, and will no doubt be in the news for some time as it continues to unfold. --PlasmaTwa208:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We need to wait on this, in the same way we did on the Silvio Berlusconi and Bradley Manning cases until the FULL process has been completed (i.e. when all the appeals have been completed). From what I can see up to now MLB has been acting as both prosecutor and judge, and as now that Alex Rodriguez's has announced he will appeal posting risks the requirement for us to post a correction later. LGAtalkedits09:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a private organization, MLB can discipline its members as it sees fit (in keeping with any labor contract provisions and the law). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objections relating to an event dealing with only one country are not valid; and MLB operates in two countries (Canada), has players from many different countries, and is seen around the world. As I linked to above, foreign media has covered this (including France, where baseball is not that popular). 331dot (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ignore the armchair lawyers, their arguments are irrelevant, if not completely uninformed. This is worthy of posting now because the announcement made the news all the way to the UK, even though we don't give a shit about the sport, precisely because it's a very newsworthy sporting scandal in of itself. DW meter (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On my scandal scale, this is on par with Ben Johnson. And honestly, if we posted Lance Armstrong, this merits inclusion as well. The story here is the announcement of suspensions, but I would note that some are pending appeal. Resolute15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, reading a Reuters story on it, it appears that only one player is planning to appeal. The rest have accepted their suspensions. Resolute16:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the suspensions are a joke really (not even a 6 month suspension?). However, considering that baseball is likely even more notorious about drugs than cycling, it it noteworthy that their governamental bodies decided to DO something. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's one of the longest suspensions ever handed out by MLB for any issue? (the media called it "the most sweeping punishment since the Black Sox scandal" in 1919) 331dot (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have extremely uninformed comments above. There is no governmental body here. There is a commission of owners who are covering their own arses by punishing their employees, but not themselves or their coaches or managers. There is no criminal admission of guilt in accepting a 50-game suspension. If one doesn't "accept" such a suspension one faces retaliatory action for appealing, anywhere from 65 to 211 games as in the case of Braun who appealed, and Rodriguez who wouldn't settle. This "scandal" involves players attending a clinic the nature of which the owners and coaches were well aware while it was happening. Calling this the greatest scandal since the Black Socks is simply absurd, looking at the cocaine scandals of the 1980's. But those happened long, long ago in a nation far, far away. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have an opinion about whether the event is significant enough for posting but, if so, the article needs work first. Formerip (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A massive drug ban, and also the ruling affects players from four different countries and implicates a player from a fifth.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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: Commanded the task force that recaptured the Falklands. This included the largest naval battles for a long time, possibly since WWII. Most military people never actually fight in a war (certainly over the period 1946-2001) so to be the commander of a successful significant campaign puts him clearly at the top of his field (even though I am sure we all wish his skills had never needed to be proven this way). --FerdinandFrog (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grenada has 30 times the population of the Falklands, MacArthur's invasion of Korea falls during the period mentioned and is considered brilliant, not to mention the size involved, the first Gulf War, concluded in 30 days, is ignored, the target article has a whole three sentences on the Falklands era.... μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm not really sure what point(s) you are trying to make. AFAIUI in neither of the the invasion of Grenada nor the landing at Inchon was there a naval opposition, certainly not one of any note so there cannot have been any naval battles. The first Gulf War took place entirely on land so I am sure that there was not a naval battle there. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of, IMO significant, reactions. How does it look now? RL means that I have to stop now and won't be able to do any more for 24 hours. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Falklands War section is still a whole three sentences. The rationale (biggest naval battle since WWII?) has no serious support. μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the Falklands War section with a couple of significant items.
I never said that the sole reason for posting was the size of the naval battle and I certainly did not say that it definitely was the largest since WWII. I mentioned that it was the largest for a long time, possibly since WWII. However I cannot think of any other naval combat since WWII when the opponents were trying to (and succeeding in) sinking each other's ships. If you can then please enlighten me.
However a quick search found
this which starts by saying "The Falklands War was by far the largest and most extended series of naval battles since the Pacific campaign in World War II."
this which includes "As the largest and most significant series of naval engagements since World War II, the Falklands War ..."
and this which includes "Militarily, the Falklands War remains the largest air-naval combat operation between forces since the end of World War II."
I am not saying that these are all RS to support including that in the Falklands War article (however it is already there but I do think that they show this is a common belief.
I think Falklands campaign had the largest naval losses since WW2 in terms of ship displacement. US Navy lost more personnel in Vietnam, though. In any case there seems to be very little coverage outside UK. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - article quality is adequate but I have concerns about importance. Woodward's death doesn't seem to have been covered outside of the UK except for a few wire reprints. That tells me the world doesn't seem him as all that important of a general commanding officer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Woodward is one of a rare breed, a post World War II military figure who actually had to make wide-scale life and death decisions in an armed conflict between sovereign nations that was not a foregone conclusion (Stormin' Norman was a great leader, but it can hardly be said the outcome of GW1 was in any doubt, somewhat limiting the notability of his actual wartime decision making). Some might say his decisions affected the UK after the war, right up to the presnt day, given the fact that Thatcher's election win and the subsequent shift in UK politics, is often put down to the feelgood factor after the victory. Lack of coverage outside the UK (if this is even true) is irrelevant - it says so right at the top of the page. DW meter (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the Falklands War section has been nicely updated. But I take three things away from the article. He ordered the sinking of the Belgrano. He was later appointed NATO commander of the submarines of the East Atlantic. He was knighted. Not given a baronetcy, but knighted. None of that amounts to "top of the field" or "highly influential". μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being knighted for military service, historically the primary purpose of knighthoods, is relatively rare in modern times, I believe. Sinking other large naval vessels is also a rarity since WWII (the Belgrano was only the second vessel sunk by an enemy since then). 331dot (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is customary for any British officer who reaches the rank of Vice-Admiral, Lieutenant-General or Air Marshal (i.e. the equivalent of a two-star general in the US) to be knighted. There are lots of them. So it's not at all uncommon. Neljack (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced that commanding the Falklands task force means that he is a very important figure in the military field. Important yes, very important no. It was a significant conflict but not a huge one. Neljack (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This was nominated before but was closed as it was unsure if he was actually the new Prime Minister. Since he has been sworn in, it is appropriate to post this now when the articles are adequately updated to be on the main page. Andise1 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The jurisdiction has a population under 12,000. In most areas this seat would be called Head of Parish Council, not Prime Minister. I'll omit the clips from Vicar of Dibley and The Mouse That Roared. μηδείς (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this election affects very few people. We would never consider an event of an other type that attracts so little attention. Elections are not that special as to receive a free pass on reader interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to decide on a case-by-case basis based on the level of interest (media attention). Often drawing a bright-line is not the best way to handle things. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, but roughly equal countries differing in internet penetration or continent could be treated differently. There are rather few "Tuvalus" and many "Djiboutis" and "Icelands". 88.88.162.176 (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is one of three of the highest rank in Tuvalu political ranking, have little to do outside and inside his own country. The British queen and the elected Governor General are high ranks aswell. Not to forget this is only about a country that is less than 12k people. – HonorTheKing (talk)08:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-The results of mayoral elections have been posted, if I am not mistaken. Why we neglect to post the highest governmental change in a sovereign state I cannot comprehend. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe any mayoral race was posted - In a quick search I found a couple that were rejected, but none accepted. That said, I guarantee the mayor of New York City or London or dozens of other cities has a larger impact on world events than the PM of Tuvalu. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support we do usually post these right? If we do I see no reason not to post this based on how populous the country is. Tuvaly is a sovereign territory with spot in UN after all. SeraV (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - A head of state change is significant both for the country in question and in international relations. Arguments that the population size is small overlook the significance of the event in regional and global affairs. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what "significance of the event in regional and global affairs" of story is being overlooked exactly? Pleasde name one way this significantly impacts anyone outside of Tuvulu. That Tuvulu is a sovereign state means it sets its own laws. It does not automatically mean that it has any influence over anything that happens in any other country. If this selection is truly going to have an significant impact on the world, why are so few reliable sources covering it? Normally, we expect analysis of the impact of an election, but that is not possible here because no reliable source cares enough to provide any as far as I can see. Most US states (for example) have a far bigger impact on international affairs than Tuvulu; even a mayoralship of a large city has a bigger impact. Sovereignty is not equivalent to influence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can compare this to other changes that have a "far bigger impact" on international affairs, but I never said that this event will have a super-uber-mega impact on international affairs, only that it will have an impact--which is more than many strictly domestic topics of other countries that make it into ITN. As far as I'm concerned, this is sufficient for inclusion, arguments of small population size notwithstanding. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really answer my question at all. I asked you to explain what significance people are allegedly overlooking and your reply was basically well it might not have a huge impact, but it will have some. Well every story nominated on this page - even those roundly rejected - will have some impact on the world. As a "strong" supporter, surely you can provide some concrete way that this particular election might impact the world. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is self-evident that the change of the head of a state of a sovereign country will effect how that country is perceived by other countries and how it will interact with other countries. And again, this is more impact that many strictly domestic topics that make ITN. You're asking for specific instances of how this will affect international relations, yet I highly doubt that you would be demanding such level of detail if it were the head of state of a larger country, and either way such level of detail is unnecessary because this type of event happens often throughout the world and its general effects (even if not its specific effects) are self-evident and well-known. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of what an election means is a standard part of election articles. None exists here. Granted, this isn't a real election - just the existing MPs selecting a new leader - but still, the lack of analysis speaks volumes as to its importance in the eyes of the rest of the world. That this will have any material impact on international affairs is an assumption, not a fact. More likely, IMO, the vast majority of the heads of the other 205 sovereign states couldn't care less who the PM of Tuvalu is. If we posted every domestic story that affects 12,000 people, hundreds of stories would be eligible everyday. --65.60.163.84 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - im not gonna support or oppose this nomination but i would like to point out that we did post the change in leadership in what is considered to be the smallest state in the world. However im sure most people would agree to that one going up since it was the Pope and the Vatican City. It is also interesting to note that the Prime Minster of Tuvalu has instructed lawyers and threatened to sue certain countries including Australia and the USA before now.Jason Rees (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is particularly notable because it comes after the previous Prime Minister was dismissed by the Governor-General. This is an extremely rare constitutional crisis involving the use of a reserve power. No Prime Minister has been dismissed a Governor-General or monarch in any of the Commonwealth realms since the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Contrary to some claims, there has been a fair amount of coverage of the crisis. Three major British newspapers have covered it [6][7][8], as have Australian [9][10] and New Zealand [11][12] media. In response to Thaddeus's comments, I would note that, despite its small size, Tuvalu has played a significant role in climate change diplomacy. That is only likely to be increased by the fact that the new Prime Minister was formerly Tuvalu's lead climate negotiator and Vice-Chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as ready The article is very good and well updated, and there is consensus to post (11-4 in favour if you want to vote-count). Neljack (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This was sort of nominated below, but was nominated too soon (Franklin tying the record), so the discussion focused on the wrong things (IMO). I am re-nominating it now that the event is complete on the basis of the championships themselves, not on Franklin's record. We post the WCs of many sports less popular than swimming, so I feel we should post swimming as well. This year's event is especially notable in part b/c of Franklin's record, but I'll leave it up to the community as to whether or not to mention her. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting the championship in some form. This also goes for the upcoming athletics championship. Together with gymnastics they are the most popular Olympic sports. None of them have ITNR items as far as I can see. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support either blurb, but with a mild preference for the alt. The most medals by a single competitor is not something that happens routinely. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC) (restored Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC), not sure how it got lost but it did)[reply]
Strongly oppose posting until the prose is there. I *support* the story, it arguably should be ITNR, but it must not be railroaded through without the sort of update we would expect of non-sporting articles. No objection to the current blurb, although I don't see grounds for Missy Franklin to be bolded. —WFC— FL wishlist23:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and marked ready since opposition was based solely on lack of update which has now occurred. (I wasn't trying to railroad anything through, as evidenced by my "Article will need a significant prose update" comment in the nom - I just didn't have a chance to write the article until this evening.) I prefer the altblurb, for the record, but unbolded Franklin (her page is updated but w/o refs for the WC stuff). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to ThaddeusB for the update. Not sure on the picture though, it is not the best as it is a single person coped from a multi-person shot but on the other hand it is better than the current image. LGAtalkedits05:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change main blurb... to [[[2013 World Aquatics Championships]] if we are going to go for the medal table blurb unless we want to ignore diving, water polo, synchronised swimming and everything else that is not won by the Americans, though regardless tops the medal table. Donnie Park (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I omitted the picture for now. Yeah, it just looked too strange cropped for Main Page viewing. As LGA said, it's a picture from another picture already (with her head chopped off and those words in the background). I don't think I agree that's better than the Mugabe photo; while the latter is also cropped from a larger photo, it shows his whole face and the background is muted. That being said, I wouldn't object if someone swapped the Missy Franklin image in, especially since it would be nice to get some female representation in ITN photos for once. -- tariqabjotu11:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THe ITNR typ event would be the whole event 2013 World Aquatics Championships not the focus of ONYL swimming (there was more than that) and the individual nomination. We don't mention that for any event (ie who won how many medlas). No need to do so here. Some of the supports above also mentioned the entire tournament in supporting.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the blurb to include more of the overall results. It seemed opinion was divided on whether to write the blurb about the overall results or Franklin's achievement. I feel this formulation appropriately notes both. -- tariqabjotu11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as typical "Pakistan and Afghanistan [are] frequently hit by flooding during monsoon season. Every year since 2010, the region has suffered devastating floods that left hundreds dead.[2]" unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Support As others have said this is a complete disaster. The oppose citing the regular occurrence of these disasters do not convince me, seeing as we usually post hurricanes in the United States which do not get even nearly as large of a death toll.75.73.114.111 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Five time pro-bowl selection and Hall of Fame American football player who remained well-known long after his playing days due to his appearance on numerous TV shows. Defensive players are rarely well known, so I think its safe to say Donovan was one of the best at his position ever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see any evidence that he was one of the best at his position (and I'm not sure that would be enough--one of the best defensive players ever maybe). I just did a search of 'Best defensive NFL players of all time' and I came across this link at Yahoo sports which ranks the 10 best ever and doesn't include Donovan. This list at the Bleacher Report doesn't rank him in teh top 25.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The latter list cited by Johnsemlak is a list of defensive players since 1965; Donovan played until 1961. Both lists are just the opinions of the writers of the lists. He is a Hall of Famer with other achievements that ThaddeusB mentions which meet the "notable in their field" criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 331dot. Pro Football Hall of Fame is a much better indicator of significance in his field than Bleacher Report, which is a terrible website that I delete references from whenever I see one, or Yahoo Sports, which isn't much better. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 331Dot is right that these are just oppinions, but there is no way he can be said to have been influential in his field as far as playing style, etc. Compare Joe Namatah who was revild by mant during his time precisely because of the influence he had on the sport, and ask whether today's players resemble Namath or Donovan. Donovan's TV presence simply followed from his beening able to speak articulately, not his skill at tackling TV producers. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pro Football Hall of Famer. Member of the official 1950's All-Decade team. The first defensive player inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. That last one in and of itself should be enough. --12.41.124.5 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not notable in that the sport itself is in my opinion not a world interest sport. secondly he doesnt seem to be an outstanding sportsman within his sport. sorry--BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can not agree with that personally I find this sport to be at best an American national sport that is seen as a "show" by other countries considering super bowl final each year.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have many "national sports" on the ITNR list; personally I don't understand why cricket and rugby are listed, but others find them important. As stated at the top of this page, we have many events that only relate to a single country; if we prohibited events from being posted based on that, we would have very little to post. The NFL has also recently been playing at least one game a year at Wembley Stadium in London which draws a crowd and is also considering having a permanent team there. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The target article is a shambles, written mostly in disjoint sentences, with material duplicated in various places (e.g., the PETA prize). Where it's not hagiographic it's POV-laden and where it's not POV-laden it's pure speculation. Might be easier to start over with a new article, but this "burger" is apparently unpalatable and the press event is a press event. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch lab has been making announcements since 2009. I don't believe we have any independent sources. I find it extremely hard to believe they will actually be risking a live first tasting Saturday. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been widely reported in the news sources I frequent. That said, it is clearly a publicity stunt (they've tested and eaten a few less lavishly prepared pieces of "meat" already with fewer camera's pointing at them) so its debatable whether anything particularly significant actually occurred today. --LukeSurltc13:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"First" is always going to be a bit of a wooden lie with a story like this. If we were posting Elvis's first live performance in 36 years (or however long), we would be discounting him singing in the shower and the fact that he is likely to have rehearsed. As far as I can tell, this is the first time lab-grown meat has been eaten by non-scientists or in public and also the first time it has been prepared so that it tastes like a commercially viable product rather than a gimmick. Formerip (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. I acknowledge all of the concerns above, but the progress of in vitro meat is to food what putting a human on Mars is to space exploration. By no means the holy grail, but as big a leap as we have ever taken. Although I'm mindful of straying into an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style line of reasoning, it is fair to say that this is a bigger milestone for food than the launch of a random orbital spaceflight is for space exploration. —WFC— FL wishlist15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if a good update occurs - the press is treating this as a historic first, so that should be good enough for us. "First" will almost always be debatable in the context of true innovation, as noted above, but that is insufficient reason to deny a story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I oppose this nomination as a press conference by a private company not doing peer-reviewed work. Whether some of us find the concept morally praiseworthy doesn't affect the fact that this is a commercial stunt. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now updated (not by me, although I've given it a bit of a short back and sides).
The "commercial stunt" aspect of this is really what makes it historic, I think, not a limiter on its significance. If you think about it, the basic technology (cultivating animal tissue in vitro) has been around since the 1990s. The technological bridge between that and saying you've produced meat is really just a few seconds in the microwave and a nice Chianti. In vitro tissue was first eaten a decade ago - a tiny morsel of frog, although it apparently tasted nothing like frog. The step forward today is producing enough tissue with enough similarity to natural meat so that it can undertake (and pass) a taste-test. So it's a culinary/commercial milestone, rather than a strictly scientific one. But it's pretty massive as a proof-of-concept.
Incidentally, not that it's very important, this is a university project, rather than a corporate one. It doesn't even appear to have a corporate sponsor, which makes it less "corporate" than almost all science. Formerip (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that this is just a stunt is what makes it not just a stunt? I am glad you found the source on the artificial meat from the 90's. I looked but couldn't. The bottom line is we have people reproducing work from the 90's, but in the form of American fast food, given the $300,000 in grant money they got to do so. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Christopher Columbus was sponsored by the Crown of Castile does not change the fact that he increased European awareness of the New World. The fact that the space race primarily happened because of the intense political and ideological rivalry between East and West does not lessen the achievement of Yuri Gagarin going around in a large circle, or of Neil Armstrong's small step. And it's the same story here. The way of invalidating the supporting arguments here is surely to refute the culinary and/or scientific achievement, rather than to play up the fact that a sum of money equivalent to second or third prize in the lottery was involved. —WFC— FL wishlist21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a publicity stunt; the actual announcement that they had grown meat in the lab was quite some time ago. --PlasmaTwa207:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a publicity stunt. As Plasma said, this "meat" had already been created. Perhaps if this product is approved for commercial manufacture/consumption by a government, we could post that. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article:No article specified Blurb: The United States closes 22 embassies in the Middle East and North Africa due to intelligence of an Al-Qaeda attack, while Canada closes its embassy in Bangladesh and Britain, France and Germany close their embassy in Yemen amid terror threats. (Post) News source(s):(BBC)(CNN)(Toronto Sun) Credits:
I think such a large-scale closing of embassies is notable, though like the nominator I'm not sure what article should be posted. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on ostriches? We do have one on cheese eating surrender monkeys, quite ironically. This should go up some how if we can get a target article. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been posted twice and pulled twice. Enough is enough. If editors absolutely have to go on beating a dead horse with a stick, take it to the ITN Talk page, please. We need to move on with ITN business here. Jusdafax11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose - Big entertainment news, but not big news news. I doubt that we would post the selection of a new James Bond actor either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Seriously? A casting decision for a television show? How is this a "significant development" in world events? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I actually think this is fine for ITN, but the precedent it would set, the pointy follow-up nominations etc is probably not worth it. Formerip (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it for its uniqueness... all entertainment news we ever post is awards, film festivals and more awards. You will not get a new doctor every year... and to comment on FormerIP's concern, being afraid of future moron's may not be the greatest reason to not post it -- Ashish-g5521:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must not really know what Doctor who is or the influence it can have over British audience to call this stupid. My point is we do not really ever post TV related news and this definitely has worldwide interest. Just because its a topic that we dont post regularly doesnt make it stupid -- Ashish-g5521:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the show. It's long running, but just a television show. Who they cast for the part does not matter relative to ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nomination, the only comparable character would be James Bond (which I would also support). Otherwise I can't see what this would open the floodgates to. --LukeSurltc21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK I won't oppose, since I would surely go to hell if I did. And I would love to see this on ITN personally. But there is no way this meets ITN requirements, and it belongs on DYK under Twelfth Doctor anyway. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there is no question this is big news to the public (i.e. our readers). There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting important entertainment news (NOT gossip - there is a difference) despite some people's extreme bias against it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please read guidelines above and refrain from opposing/supporting without providing a reason for it. "absolutely not" is not a reason -- Ashish-g5521:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There is unusually broad interest in this item. The speculation about the new Doctor was mainstream news here in the U.S., and the level of editing activity on Peter Capaldi indicates that this news is something that many Wikipedia users are very interested in. --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not those editors' fault that other socioeconomic groups aren't as numerous in editing the Capaldi article. Their views are not irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought about this, and had the initial thought that it was a mere casting decision- but as the nom suggests, a very small handful of roles (such as James Bond) have heavy interest in them and are covered by mainstream media (not just entertainment news). I think this rises to that level Part of the role of ITN is to direct readers to stories "in the news" if they are sufficiently covered and of wide interest- and I think this qualifies. It also doesn't hurt to have a variety of stories in ITN. As such, I support. I think any precedent here is limited; I think the number of similar roles can be counted on one hand, or close to it. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doctor Who and James Bond are clearly exceptional casting news in terms of cultural impact. I cannot think of a third example of similar, for lack of a better term, "importance". As this prefix search seems to agree. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. I'm as much of a science fiction fan as anybody but this is way below our notability standards. A permanent cancellation of the show would be notable. This is fancruft, and is far less notable than many stories we do not post. Also, I think some leeway would be given to above opposes who simply wrote 'absolutely not' or something similar. This shouldn't require discussion. I'd even be bold enough to nominate this as a SNOW close.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no grounds here whatsoever for a SNOW close; given the support it clearly has at least a chance of success. The suggestion is, frankly, outrageous. Your opposition boils down to I don't like it as what is notable is determined by consensus. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "I don't like it", I see "why are we discussing this?" because it falls far short of the significance required for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'I don't like it'. I do like the subject material, even if I'm a trekkie. The matter is this falls way short of our notability guidelines and I think that's plainly obvious. If SNOW isn't teh appropriate policy (I don't see why not--there's a snowball's chance this can meet the notability guidelines), then perhaps IAR is the right policy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are citing IAR then you need to establish how dismissing the views of those who support this and ignoring any potential consensus that this is notable is somehow beneficial to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is Ignore all Rules. As i see it supporters are ignoring a few rules to try and get this story onto ITN in benefit of the encyclopedia. So how in the world is IAR going to be invoked to keep it out of ITN lol. what rule would we be ignoring... consensus? -- Ashish-g5522:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment--teh blurb is a classic example of systemic bias--the overwhelming majority of people in the world have no idea who the 12th doctor is. And I'd strongly contest teh notion that Dr Who is anywhere near James Bond on global notability. If Dr Who get's a big blockbuster movie franchise, then I'd consider that thought.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add on the "James Bond" thing, if Daniel Craig gets replaced and someone else is cast as Bond, I would oppose that nomination too. James Bond is far more culturally significant than Doctor Who, and still not ITN-worthy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. I'm not going to be bold enough to close this via WP:SNOW but if a third or forth editor agrees I hope they do so. This is really beyond ridiculous that this is getting this much discussion. A little broader perspective is required here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some people would think a royal baby getting attention was also ridiculous... infact i think that was more ridiculous than this, however consensus was to post and hence it was posted. Suggesting SNOW close for something with heavy support is taking the discussion in a wrong direction. You should oppose if you feel so since thats what ITN/C is for, however this discussion right here about snow close is frankly the only ridiculous thing here -- Ashish-g5522:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with a SNOW close (and really, the royal birth, as stupid as it was, did relate to the British monarchy, so it's a lot more relevant to "news" than this"), but with all of the opposition that has been raised, I'd be disappointed if an admin found anything other than "no consensus to post". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like others has said this is a casting decision in a tv show. It can't possible be important enough for us to post. Like Johnsemlak said, little perspective here please. SeraV (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well I disagree with you on that 331dot, and I even like doctor who quite much if you think that is relevant. SeraV (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When this gets posted, we should deliberately not replace the photo of Robert Mugabe with one of Peter Capaldi, just to see how many confused people post at ERRORS. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't generally post pop culture stuff of this ilk. Major award winners, deaths of significant actors are probably fine. But actors getting roles, even iconic ones, fall well below common standards here. --Jayron3202:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured on BBC homepage, front pages of the Guardian, Telegraph, Times etc etc. It might be pop culture news, but it is exceptional pop culture news. Plus, Capaldi's page here on Wikipedia got 431,325 visits yesterday - yes, nearly half a million - [13] so people want to know about him. So why not put it in the news where they can find it easily? 86.133.51.86 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Most everyone agrees that it is in the news, with the main opposition coming from the perspective that it is not a significant enough event. Even among the opposition I see mentions that this is an iconic role above and beyond the significance of a usual casting, and so after sitting here weighing it all I find that there is consensus enough to post. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)08:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotta be kidding me (i.e. strong oppose). How did you think this was consensus enough to post? Please remove. Casting decisions do not even reflect actual time spent acting. Teply (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was consensus enough to post because there was (I gave a short explanation of my analysis in my posing comment). If consensus swings in the opposite direction rather rapidly I'll be more than happy to remove, but as it stands it stays. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)08:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the posting of this item, has no consensus so far. If there are other formalities to do in such an unposting, please let me know. No objection to this getting reposted if it actually does get consensus, but let's wait until then... Fram (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't really exist at ITN for this sort of situation. The decisions are basically binary (post or don't post) with no latitude for compromise. We don't have the luxury of time for the "grind down opposition by attrition" form of "consensus" that exists elsewhere on the wiki. Controversial items have to be decided one way or another and those who object have to just have to deal with decisions not going their way from time to time. --LukeSurltc09:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the posting admin claimed consensus (which seems to be lacking though), and Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions starts with: "Make sure the item has consensus for posting at WP:ITN/C." (bolding in original). Determining consensus doesn't mean that the decision can't be binary, but it does mean that in more unclear situations ("no consensus" discussions like this one so far), one group will be unhappy. Anyway, the page I linked to above continues with " If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old." I see no reason not to do just that in this case. Fram (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated this for DYK, my suggestion is that we wait until Christmas, when he starts, to put this up. Matty.007
I think that would fall under IAR. It's purely because it was posted at ITN with Twelfth Doctor bolded rather than Peter Capaldi that technically make it fall foul of the criteria; assuming the article meets all other DYK criteria I think the ~ 30 minute appearance is neither here nor there. Pedro : Chat 10:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we shall see. But I have seen someone from DYK mention this precise point here when someone suggested a pulled article be nominated at DYK instead. -- tariqabjotu10:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's this DYK "rule" where the articles have to be "recent" at the time of posting. This article can't be possibly new by December. And unless it is posted again at ITN, this can no longer be posted at DYK, which screwed any chance of this article getting on the Main Page. –HTD10:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the DYK queue you're allowed to delay the submission for a calendarically meaningful release. Beyond that, DYK has become rather absurdly bureaucratic over the last few years. The intended purpose of DYK is to bring public attention to new articles, even if they're not quite polished. You can probably bend a rule or two there if you're persuasive enough. As much as I oppose this for ITN, I don't see any significant problems for DYK. Teply (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, there's some rule that disallows a potential blurb languishing at the queues for a long period of time. In any case, an argument is to post this at DYK now (or after it is approved). –HTD18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the posting. The admin's decision to post was sound; most (not all) of the opposes boil down to IDONTLIKEIT and even a lot of those concede this is a unique, iconic role/situation. It is being covered by mainstream news in several countries, it is clearly "in the news", whether we disagree with the merits of them doing so or not. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Google gives me 685 fresh news sources for "Capaldi". The comparable figure for "Mugabe" is 398 and "super rugby" is 351. This is big news. Warden (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Come on guys, this is a british-american-centric matter. I mean Dr Who casting is definitly NOT of world interest. Had this been a series of any other country than the US or the UK every single one of you would have said Oppose.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is after all the English Wikipedia. I'm personally opposed to this being posted, but being a "british-american-centric matter" is not a good reason why something should not be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This show is not all that important in those 49 other countries, it is just another tv show. Fairly good one certainly. Who plays next doctor does not get that much interest outside UK. SeraV (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey at least the Glee dude who died stayed in the news for a week in my neck of the woods. This? Zip. –HTD18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Not if the article on said hypothetical series established that it had been on (with one interruption) since 1961 and the role was as iconic as a James Bond. If you can find such a comparable role, I would be happy to support it. Objections about an item relating to a single country are not valid(see top of page). 331dot (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Is that what you're going off of? An episode that took place in New York? Is this also French too because there was an episode in Paris? I don't watch this show and know very little about it, but if that's the closest connection to the U.S., that's really pushing it. Unless we're going with Sex and the City 2 being an Emirati film. -- tariqabjotu17:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, to claim this is some kind of jingoistic nomination is flawed. Doctor Who has been running for decades, it's popular in all corners of the globe. I have no real interest in whether this is posted at ITN or not, but it's a good test of how defensive various nationalities become when it comes to something as straight-forward as this. It's made massive news across the world (for whatever reason, you can consider it like the royal baby if you find it hard to envisage), and, after all, if it has consensus to post here, it should be posted, regardless of criteria etc (see Cory Monteith). Oftentimes, Wikipedia is critiqued for not going with modern popular culture. Perhaps this is an example of such. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, a lot of the opposes have had some strange notions. The show's been syndicated world-wide since the 70's and earlier, with lost episodes being retrieved from tapes sent overseas for viewing. I started watching it in the US in 1978, not 2005. That being said, this is a casting decision for a TV show. Posting this would be like posting Tim Tebow being traded to the Cowboys. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I can't believe this was posted with 50/50 support. Had my suggestion it is only fit for DYK been counted it would have been under %50. Now it is not even eligible for DYK, brilliant! We have a continuing serious problem with admin prerogative. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "precedent" is a self-fulfilling prophecy you manufactured. No one is forcing you to bring it up in every nomination, especially ones beyond comparison. It has no relevance to this nomination whatsoever, but you choose to raise it here twice (once in response to, again, an irrelevant comment) to rile me and hopefully attract more of my critics to join you in your game. Pathetic. -- tariqabjotu17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is one you made of your own volition. Pathetic is correct. A shame you didn't think about it before you set the precedent itself. Now deal with the consequences. Popular culture is now ready to go, with little discussion. This is as notable, if not more so, than the death of a Glee actor. You know that. I'm not here to attract any more of your critics, you're doing a marvellous job of that yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, as you well know Wikipedia doesn't work based on a "precedence" system. First, mistakes can and do happen. Second, consensus can change. You repeatedly bringing up a posting you disagreed with in unrelated topics is very much not helpful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it clearly does work on precedents, if it didn't, it'd be unique. Secondly, are you suggesting Tariq's posting was a mistake? Thirdly, there was no consensus (other than the rapid fanboy ex-criteria supports) for the Glee kid. I'm afraid the stall has been set out that certain posting admins apply different criteria to those agreed at ITN. Your tacit acceptance of such is very much not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither approving or disapproving of Tariq's posting - I am disapproving of your repeatedly bringing it up to make a point. Doing so serves only to turn ITN into a battleground. The posting of an unexpected death of one person is not going to decide any other ITN nomination ever, especially not ones that aren't even RD noms. Every situation is unique and even if they were not we are under absolutely no obligation to respect precedent. This isn't a court of law. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question' how did pulling (as in posting and removing) this make the encyclopedia any better? Pulling items should be done only if there was major consensus against posting... i see about 50/50. Im ok with waiting for consensus if its that unclear and then posting but really pulling just makes ITN and wikipedia in general look bad. A normal person viewing the main page doesnt know what goes on in background... -- Ashish-g5517:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who has sunk to personal attacks. I'm dealing with content. And calling TMZ "shit" is neither uncivil nor inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - It would be an encyclopedic embarrassment to post about a new actor in a television show, especially given the number of much worthier national and international topics that never make ITN. If this project truly is an encyclopedia, then the proper criteria to judge whether something should be included ITN isn't merely the popularity of the topic in Western media. Even the discovery of a new ant species is more noteworthy on an encyclopedia. And I'm sorry to be "that guy", but if something this trivial to most of the world is posted when topics like the resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestine, the US Voting Rights Act being struck down, or the dismissal of the Tuvalu Prime Minister are ignored, we might as well be honest with readers about Wikipedia's content priorities and redirect the Main Page to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some people seem to think that we must get as many page views as possible by posting these popular culture pieces, like some sort of common tabloid paper. Frankly I find it annoying. SeraV (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is probably an ITN eventually on Doctor Who, but that it likely when the BBC offically say they've concluded the complete series (ignoring side media), and thus hallmarking the end of the longest-run scripted shows on television anywhere. But that's not this point. I would be quick not to have ITN dismiss anything pop culture (we run sports stories all the time, and that's pop culture too), but we have to be more selective about it. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the final end of the entire Dr Who series is notable for mention at ITN absolutely. But a cast change even if it is Dr Who himself is at best "national news of national interest".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of not having this particular item to be posted and I agree it should have been pulled, though I will point out that the show has a wide international audience and not really restricted to a national story as claimed. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted After much consideration, I believe that there is consensus for this to be posted. Unlike several people above stated, consensus is based on policy based, or in this case, reasonable arguments which many of the support commentators had. CONSENSUS IS NOT A VOTE COUNT Many of the oppose votes read like WP:IDONTLIKEIT simply because is a television show and not a bus accident or a election. There is a few comments above that this might lead to a slippery slope which I took into consideration, however Masem is correct that we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture. Note I never seen a Doctor Who episode in my life, and wouldn't care less about the show. I recommend any concerns about the posting to be mentioned in the ITN talk page and not here. Thanks Secretaccount00:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I recommend any concerns about the posting to be mentioned in the ITN talk page and not here." So the correct place to discuss whether a candidate should go on ITN is not the ITN candidates page? That's... very interesting. - BanyanTree00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant on how we treat future candidates related to pop culture that isn't an obvious pass (death of iconic celebrity) or fail (celebrity X married to celebrity Y), such as this case. The discussion started getting off-topic, and soon afterwards out of hand, and that should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Secretaccount00:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Secret, consensus is not based the number of !votes, but as summarized on WP:CLOSE, Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. There is no such agreement here to post this article; in fact, disagreement has escalated since it was originally pulled, and the discussion continues. Furthermore, your statement that "we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture" is just as susceptible to a WP:ILIKEIT response as contrary views are suspectible to a WP:IDONTLIKEIT response; neither citation makes any sense, however, given that unlike most of Wikipedia, the ITN nomination process is almost entirely subjective because such little objective criteria exists to guide editors in it. And certainly, none of the criteria that do exist state that "we must accept pop culture topics" and dismiss all arguments to the contrary; that is simply you imposing your own view on this conversation and taking consensus into your own hands. I ask that you reconsider your decision to post this article in light of the fact that no consensus exists to post it; if you refuse, then I ask another admin to do so. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once the "Opppose No, absolutely not" votes with no reasoning, as well as the "unencyclopedic" arguments about an article in this encyclopedia are weeded out, there is indeed consensus, as Secret said. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And once the "Support just because it's covered a lot in the media" arguments are weeded it, there is a consensus in the other direction. That's not the point. Neither argument is against the ITN criteria or Wikipedia policy, and therefore an admin should not discard either argument when determining whether consensus exists among editors. When both arguments are properly considered, it is clear that no consensus to post exists. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is "in the news"; what is actually "in the news" is relevant, and no one can deny that this event was. This page specifically states that simple "oppose" or "support" votes without any reasoning are discouraged and should not carry as much weight. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/pull. As a fan of the show who checked on the news first thing this morning, this is far outside the boundaries of what has historically been considered ITN-worthy. Wikipedia has around for two of the previous "regenerations" and, IIRC, there was never even a serious suggestion it was worth a post. I've certainly not seen why this regeneration is more notable than the other two. - BanyanTree00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prohibition on "pop culture stuff" on ITN, (and it was covered by mainstream news, not just pop culture sections) and an event relating to one or a few countries is not an argument against an event(see top of this page). It's also broadcast in many more than "a few" countries. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I make no comment on any of the three admin actions so far, and have no problem in principle with a bit of pop culture on the Main Page. But my jaw drops when I see some of the ITN nominations this has been taken more seriously than. —WFC— FL wishlist00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We need to think about precisely what, precisely, is the relevance of this posting. Essentially, it reports a plot development within the Doctor Who Universe; it's akin to posting in 1980, as a major news story, "Darth Vader is revealed to be Luke Skywalker's father in the latest Star Wars film". So what's the relevance of this posting outside of the Doctor Who franchise? What's the relevance for parties outside of the niche? Even postings on teams which have won sports tournaments or actors who have won awards have some widespread interest, because they've reached a significant achievement. Even if regular people don't read about the achievement when it is a news item, they might encounter it in a record book. But why would anybody who doesn't watch Doctor Who care about who plays the Doctor?theBOBbobato (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I have been watching Doctor Who since 1978, I have a hand knit Tom Baker scarf for fuck sake. This being posted against majority opposition is a shameful farce. Why we even go through this when admins will just do what they want is beyond me. Please notify me if there's an ANI over this. I'll contribute a comment there too, even if it won't matter. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that there are not enough subjects relating to certain countries or socioeconomic groups, then I suggest you nominate some for posting. That's not a reason to prevent this one. 331dot (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy Doctor Who, but to call this "news" is astounding. How will this affect the world? Or anyone? I don't like it? No, I'm thinking critically. I don't see why this was posted when consensus is clearly against. If an admin disagrees with the opinion, fine, but don't go posting it because you don't believe the arguments to be logical. Beerest355Talk01:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't feel this is news, then speak to the numerous media outlets around the world who ran this story(and not just entertainment news outlets). If we're not going to base what goes on here on logical arguments, then we should just take straight votes on everything. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So 331dot, "being covered by a lot of Western media" is a more logical argument than "it is not an encyclopedic topic"? Last I checked, this is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. If we're going to let articles come in based solely on the fact that they receive a lot of media coverage irrespective of their encyclopedic value, then we might as well replace the "In The News" section with a Google News feed. And you can batter people's arguments with WP:IDONTLIKEIT all you want, and they can just as easily cite back to you WP:ILIKEIT, but both arguments would be irrelevant in this context. The entire ITN nomination process is subjective; there are hardly any objective criteria that guide the process, making that essay's relevance to this conversation negligible. Judging a topic to not be sufficiently encyclopedic in nature to be on the main page because it is pop culture topic of limited interest to most in the world is at least as logical as the blanket argument that that something should come in on the main page simply because "a lot of media covers it!" –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is "in the news"; what the media covers is certainly relevant. I'm confused as to what "encyclopedic topic" means; does that mean ITN can only contain stories about new species, governments, and politicians? If Doctor Who is not encyclopedic then I suggest you propose its deletion from this encyclopedia. Saying "it's not important enough" is not an argument against an event without something to back it up- "it's a TV show" doesn't count. Statistics or information does. Some tried to say it's "british-american centric" which aside from being specifically listed as an argument to avoid on this very page, isn't true as this show is seen in dozens of countries by millions and has since the early 1960s. How many programs can you say that about? This page is also concerned with what readers might be looking for, and whether any of us like it or not that includes this event. 331dot (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India Today might be disappointed in being lumped into "Western media" by you. If you think there are too many "Western media" stories, then nominate some Eastern media stories. 331dot (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics and information are important, yes, but ultimately we are the ones who decide which statistics and information to give value to. You clearly only give value to information relating to the amount of media coverage a topic has. I and others place more value on consistency and fairness in the ITN process, and here, that value is being discarded. The information I base my argument on is the number of encyclopedic topics that are nominated and never make it to ITN despite being of greater relevance to more people in the world than an actor change in a television show, and also on the traditional purposes of a general encyclopedia, which has never been to specially highlight popular culture topics of interest only to their particular fans. –Prototime (talkcontribs) 02:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if this subject is "unencyclopedic", then propose its removal from this encyclopedia. Something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pull. I think there's a consensus that this doesn't belong on the main page. The rationale for going against WP:consensus was that the opposes were IDONTLIKEIT votes. Prototime and Bob bobato's rationales are hardly IDONTLIKEIT. --24.90.93.88 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More editors than just Bob bobato and myself, such as 24.90.93.88 in this very part of the conversation, support the rationales we have been giving, or have made other legitimate points. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support retention: when I saw it, I initially thought it not newsworthy enough, but after thinking it through I've come around. Certainly, this is more newsworthy than Cory Monteith dying. The casting of a new lead actor for Doctor Who is typically very big news, particularly in Britain; in 2008, in 2009 when Smith got cast, and this week, there has been a lot of coverage. That the casting show was simulcast in at least four countries (UK, US, Australia, Canada) also lends credence to it not being just a provincial thing (although being provincial is not a disqualifier for American stories). Sceptre(talk)02:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pull Consenses has clearly been against posting this. Being provincial is disqualifier for pop culture things from any other place on the world but UK US apparently, with lack of support. Most likely same people who are supporting this arguing agaist them even. I feel it seems pointless to even discuss things here when administrators can post these things with completely backward reasoning (most of the supports are basically ILIKEIT after all) even against consensus. Usually when it comes to stories from UK/US only I might add. SeraV (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I assume good faith, I agree with you that in this instance the posting administrator discarded opposing views simply because he or she disagreed with those views and not because they were invalid arguments that disregarded Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria. Once all views are properly considered, it is clear that no consensus exists to post this. The article should be immediately pulled. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the serious and quite substantial opposition to this blurb, both before and after posting. Supporters of this one are just bending Wikipedia terms and guidelines to get what they want. Consensus is now clearly in favor of an immediate pull. If that doesn't happen pretty quick I'd actually be in favor of going to a noticeboard, and that is something I very rarely advocate. Jusdafax05:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I usually try to stay out of these arguments but this stands out, in my view, as deeply unencyclopedic and an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Is ITN now to become become a popular culture fan site? We can't post the nomination of a new CIA Director but we can go with this blatant fancruft? I question the taste and good sense of everyone involved in supporting this nonsense, especially the posting admin. Shame on you, sir! There is now more opposition than support by far, and I strongly suggest that an admin pull this at once. Jusdafax04:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off the disclaimer : I supported the inclusion within 10 mins of the nomination. Now for the observation, let us not loose sight of what ITN is for, it (in my view) is a set of links to articles that have recently been updated in response to some developing news story, that assist visitors who may be looking for information on a topic (you can reed the official version here), this is a fine balancing act because as everyone knows Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and we cater for a global English speaking world. Now lets look at was this story in the news, well yes it was, there are numerous links above to major news outlets covering this; I happened to be reading the nomination with the main breakfast news on in the background covering it live from the UK, it was second only to the election; as Colonel Warden pointed out "Google gives me 685 fresh news sources for "Capaldi". The comparable figure for "Mugabe" is 398 and "super rugby" is 351. This is big news". So what item did it displace ? well that was a seven day old link to the Cambodian general election, 2013 so to all those that are asking to pull this because its fancruft or that there is no consensus; why is it more important to have that link on the main than the Dr Who one and how does that serve the encyclopaedia ? LGAtalkedits05:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument "it's already there, so let's keep it even though there's no consensus" were the rule, then Wikipedia's fundamental policy of consensus would be meaningless, and we might as well grant people the right to post whatever they feel like on ITN irrespective of the community's views. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the default in absence of (new) consensus is always the status quo on Wikipedia. The posting admin (Secret) assessed that there was consensus to post at that time. You are welcome to disagree, but as an interested party you aren't really qualified to judge consensus (neither am I). Assuming good faith, Secret's comment that he had no opinion of his own is true. If a decision is not out of process (and there is no evidence this one was), it remains intact until a new consensus forms. Consensus can change, but keep in mind any late comments will always be biased against posting since people are substantially less likely to come here to say something after seeing the post if they are fine with it than if they are not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although unrelated to my point, I agree that both of us are interested parties and it would be inappropriate for either of us to be in a position to post, pull, or close the discussion, but we are not inhibited from highlighting the flaws in how someone else determined whether consensus existed. Here, Secret justifies the determination of consensus by stating that the views of opposing editors should be ignored because "we shouldn't dismiss anything related to pop culture". However, that pronouncement exists nowhere in Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria, nor is there any contention that the opposing views in this discussion violate Wikipedia policy or the ITN criteria. An administrator should not dismiss legitimate views when determining consensus even if he or she disagrees with them (per WP:CONSENSUS, not my biased opinion). And when the opposing views in this discussion aren't dismissed, it becomes clear that agreement to post does not exist now nor did it exist at the time of posting. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was pulled once already by Fram, who assessed that there was no consensus. Then this was posted again after this got 1 more support vote and 3 more oppose votes. How are you saying that those 4 votes somehow build a new consensus to post? Or are you saying that Fram somehow make a mistake in his own assesment? SeraV (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read why people are against posting this, some including me are against this because this is such a great example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. If we start to put pop culture pieces in the news section only ones there will be from UK/US. I personally don't find it very endearing. Yes there are sports but they are generally INT/R which makes them much more fair because people can't oppose or support them based on their geographical location. Basically this nomination makes a very very poor precedence. SeraV (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be blunt but not to post this because of any perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is just another way of saying it only applies to one or two countries (please see big blue box at the top of page as to why we don't do that). I also don't think that it is an example of that, look at Doctor_Who#International to see where this show gets shown. (for the record I am not a fan, have probably only watched a handful of episodes and none since the revival). LGAtalkedits06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The systemic bias point isn't merely that Doctor Who is relevant only to a few countries; it's that similar pop culture material of relevance to other countries is not included ITN. This disparate treatment of subjects is a clear manifestation of systemic bias and the blue box at the top of the page does not address this issue at all. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see pop culture events from other countries, then nominate them. I don't think there are as many that rise to an equivalent level as this one, though(a show on for roughly fifty years, seen in 50 countries and with millions of viewers) 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the fault of WP that this received the level of coverage it did (again I should point the stats posted by User:Colonel Warden above) if there was a similar level of reporting for a TV show from a non-english speaking country and we did not post that, then that could well be WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, but to use any perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS as a reason to pull this is wrong. It also should be noted that this is the English language version of WP and our readership by its nature is drawn from the English speaking countries so the content of ITN will reflect what the English language news sources are reporting our job here (I am not talking about in articles) is not to try and correct any imbalance or bias. LGAtalkedits06:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the systemic bias isn't a good reason for it to be pulled, but I still think it ought to be pulled. The systemic bias is more from an insufficient number of non-English articles getting nominated. I have no personal objection to occasional pop culture passing ITN. If you'd like to see more non-English pop culture also passing ITN, then you should help edit the relevant articles and nominate them. The reason I do not support this on ITN is as I stated before, that it's a mere casting decision, which does not reflect any actual achievement. These are prone to change for a variety of reasons such as contract disputes and are therefore of low lasting encyclopedic value. I'm no big fan of the show, but I could easily imagine some more ITN-worthy details that would make me think "gee whiz" if I saw them on the main page: the airing of the 1000th episode, the 50th anniversary, heck, even a blurb about Capaldi's first appearance in the season premiere when that happens would have more value than a casting decision. Teply (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is just a casting; but we as WP don't get to decided on the value of that; our job is to look at what others are saying, and in this case for better or worse it got a significant news coverage, at the risk of repeating myself ABC News Breakfast (notice not US or UK) ran it as their second story Monday morning (due to the time zones about 3-4 hrs after the announcement) devoting more screen time to it than the first item which was the calling of the election. It was written about and covered in main stream news reports in numerous countries. Are there more ITN-worthy stories out there that wont get the level of coverage and wont get posted - Yes; but that is not WP's fault and it moist defiantly not the fault of ITN. LGAtalkedits07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the fault of WP. It's the Wikipedians' job to be "above" the mainstream media and winnow out what really is of encyclopedic importance. Then again, maybe that's just my idealism showing.Teply (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English wikipedia is far more international than any other language wiki, that's why we should strive to be as balanced and neutral as possible. I agree that some bias here is a necessary evil. But we should still try to be something else than merely a soundhorn for british and american niche interest. SeraV (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage is not some sort of gospel that we should blindly follow here, we make our own decisions. At least we should. Newspapers do write stories about things that are important to their own citizens, but those aren't necessarily (and often aren't) important enough for us to put in the news here. This is niche in a way that it only is mostly important to british and then only a certain group of british, those who are fans of the show. This has no international importance whatsoever, sure it has been coveraged in other countries, but then most stories are. SeraV (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For almost everywhere else on WP you are 110% right, but here in "In the news" we do have to look at what the media (across multiple countries) is covering and give the amount of coverage full weight. LGAtalkedits09:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull This isn't major news. We have an very high bar for other things (national elections, almost never regional ones; accidents only if there's a high death toll or some other significance; etc.). Doctor Who is culturally significant, but unless it's cancelled or something similarly momentous happens, I don't think it should be on ITN. wctaiwan (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pull The clear consensus (definition: majority of opinion) in this discussion is for this to be removed from ITN. I don't know if I have ever seen so many pull votes for an item as this one has. --PlasmaTwa207:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds does it need to be pulled ? - is there a error ? is it not in the news ? is there a WP:BLP problem ? You should reverse that and discuss it here and not take a unilateral unannounced action. LGAtalkedits09:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also call for the pull to be reversed; the opposes are mostly "WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have no logical reason for their opposition; "It isn't major news", the news would disagree; "it's not important", in your opinion"; "it's unencyclopedic", something in this encyclopedia cannot be unencyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is insane - as an observer and reader, can I just say how insanely unprofessional this makes WP look. I don't have strong opinions over whether it should be posted or pulled or whatever, but at this point I'd strongly oppose posting it again purely on the basis that constantly deleting and re-adding something to the main page makes us look crazy. OrganicsLRO09:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes us look particularly crazy is the high number of Opposes that are just factually wrong. These especially include the claims of it only being a US-British thing. That's clearly wrong, but none of the several people pushing that line have yet apologised, nor changed their vote to Support. If the Oppose school cannot get facts right, nor apologise, nor recant, THAT'S a very bad look for Wikipedia. (Oh, and I neither support nor oppose this. I just HATE poor argument!) HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ladies and gentlemen, per WP:WHEEL we can bring, at the very least, Tone, to Arbcom for a desysoping for wheel warring. Tone, could you please give reasoning more than just "consensus has been established" to foreclude that? There needs to be discussion here, people, especially from those who are playing keep-away with WHEEL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to rules at WP:Wheel Tone wouldn't be the only admin to be taken to Arbcom. I think it's rather rude to start calling for an admin to be punished because they made a decision you do not disagree with. Why not try changing the minds of the thirteen people who called for the item to be pulled after it was reposted instead of immediately going after the admin? --PlasmaTwa210:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced any admin here needs to be punished, but the thirteen people need to have a better reason than IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think IDONTLIKEIT is applicable to every oppose given, just the same as how not every support is a logical, well thought-out piece of critical analysis (WP:LWTOPCA?). Many of the pulls have given legitimate and logical concerns based upon the conventions ITN has ran upon for years and others question the true significance of the item, which I think is a legitimate argument to be had. --10:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
By my reading, the only one who has not tried to make his or her point absolutely clear (i.e. initiated or offered discussion regarding post/unpost, rather than just "it's done") is Tone. I couldn't give a rats what happens to this nomination, but the admins here need to stop the wheel warring. If all of them come up in front of Arbcom, so be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I don't think there was any malicious intent here by any admin(even the ones who improperly pulled this) so I think a desysopping is not appropriate. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus was, in my opinion, not totally clear when this was posted by User:Secret; however it's certainly not clear that there was no consensus either. I don't think Secret was wrong to post it. Given the blunt number of pull comments (and we can have a seperate debate about wether the arguments to pull were good, bad or indifferent) since the seond posting, I think Tone was quite right to pull this as well - in fact I was considering doing so myself (FWIW). Those calling for desysopping per WP:WHEEL need to get a sense of perspective over what we're discussing. This isn't some punitive block or deletion. It's two lines on ITN - and the presence or absence of this bit of news there does nothing particularly to either promote or damage the encyclopedia. Pedro : Chat 10:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it pulled I would had strongly opposed it had I not being too busy with other things and since this came on in ITN earlier today, I think Wikipedia have brought themselves to a new low. I mean there have been so many blurbs that deserved better than this, talking about significance compared to other sci-fi shows, have this won any serious awards that is non-British (Golden Globes and Emmy). Donnie Park (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely support Tone's action, obviously, and have already given my reasoning why I felt the tv show actor blurb should be pulled. It was posted, then pulled and unlike Pedro, above, in my view this never should have been re-posted by Secret, with what I'd call highly dubious reasoning - and if need be I will go to any civil lengths needed to defend Tone's appropriate corrective action for listening to a clear consensus. Calls for sanctions are way out of line, as Pedro notes. I am hoping cooler heads will now prevail: editors on both sides really need to drop the stick and walk away. Jusdafax10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little opposition that isn't IDONTLIKEIT, and a lot of that has been refuted. If we're going to include those kinds of opposes, then we should just hold actual binding votes on this page and forget about reasoning and logical arguments. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pulled. Nowhere near any of the other current events in actual importance, and of very narrow regional interest only. And the show of consensus against this item on this page is overwhelming. Trying to dismiss these oppose votes as mere "don'tlikeit" opinions is misguided, because ITN selection is, by its very nature, largely and unavoidably a matter of subjective judgment of importance, so subjective opinions about what we as editors find important, and, even more crucially, what image of Wikipedia's editorial priorities and principles we want to see projected on the main page, do have a legitimate place in this discussion. As such, the oppose votes are legitimate. Fut.Perf.☼11:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't re-post I didn't give a very good explanation as to why I opposed above...simply put, this should of never of been nominated. This is simply not front-page news to begin with, and re-posting a story that is now stale...plus the fact there isn't enough support...? No no, put this to bed. And I was waiting on tenterhooks for the announcement on Sunday, so stick that up your bias pipe and smoke it! Hehe. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that something be on the front page in large print(I did see this on a few front pages, if not near the top). 331dot (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ad that's where the facts get in the way of the Oppose and WP:IDONTLIKEIT VOTES. Read the thread properly. It was major new all around the world. This discussion is appalling. I didn't think we had so many incompetent editors here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get a grip and stop attacking people based on the fact you don't like their reasons for opposing. "It was major new all around the world." No, it wasn't - an outright, distorted half-truth and you know it. You are confusing major hype of non-importance with real news. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)if we are making the benchmark "front-page news" (or for sports - back page) then we need to start to scrap a lot of things from ITN/R and lets start by pulling Lavasoa dwarf lemur off now. LGAtalkedits11:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This 'casting decision' was worldwide news, precisely because it affects the future direction of TV show that has major cultural significance to millions of people spread across several countries around the world. Anyone who claims otherwise is either being deliberately obtuse, or is just too incompetent to be even commenting here. Alongside the factual programme Top Gear, it's basically one of the two crown jewels of the BBC, a worldwide broadcaster, which is why both shows make them millions through BBC Worldwide. If you don't like Wikipedia posting stuff like this that is so clearly "In the News", why not change the title to something more appropriate, like stuff that I like and you might too?. The title "In the News" is clearly wrong when things like a new bat species, a new leader of a tiny island, or a new ISS rotation, are posted, despite the media not giving a tiny rat's ass about any of those 'events of global significance', certainly not when compared to the coverage announcements like ths get. As for the people claiming Doctor Who is not 'encyclopedic', what are you smoking? If that was really true, then why the hell does Wikipedia, the "online encyclopedia", have 1947 articles on it? It's stupidity like this that takes a lot of the gloss off of Wikipedia as an otherwise fine project. DW meter (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: it's ridiculous to post on ITN a casting decision of a show that's mainly popular in the UK. There's got to be hundreds of popular TV dramas in India, China, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, etc. that get higher viewership than Doctor Who (and many of them are popular in multiple countries). Are we ready to post casting calls of all those shows as well? -Zanhe (talk) 11:41, 6 August 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: Not sure how notable this is but I thought it might be notable enough for ITN (even though some people are not huge on new species stories). Andise1 (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately cavefish redirects to Amblyopsidae, an unrelated family of cave-dwelling fish from the United States. There is no article on cave fish! So to be posted an article on Typhleotris mararybe would have to be created expanded (and perhaps one on fish who live in caves). As for ITN-worthiness, there are 150-170 known species of cave-dwelling fish in the world, a nice low number and roughly the same as the number of described lemur species, so finding one more is rather significant. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cavefish should probably be turned into a dab page. Any idea what other taxon(s) are commonly referred to as "cave fish" besides Amblyopsidae? Obviously there is at least one, but it is not immediately apparent to me what level of classification Typhleotris mararybe and related cave fish share in common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cave fish evolve from whatever surface species there happen to be in the area, so there is no connection (other than they are all freshwater, as far as I know). I have other stuff to do irl but I'm thinking about this situation. Abductive (reasoning) 15:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I should have been more clear... The linked article implies there is some relationship between this fish and the otehr cave fish mentioned (which is not all by any means). The question is not what all cave-dwelling fish have in common but what taxons are commonly called "cavefish". Please review/expand/fix the cave fish dab page if you get a chance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A man crashes his car into a crowd of pedestrians in Venice Beach, California, U.S., injuring eleven people and killing one. The driver fled the scene and was being sought by authorities, but later turned himself in. (CNN)(CBS Los Angeles)
Law and crime
16-year-old Hannah Anderson was abducted after cheerleading practice from Sweetwater High School in National City, California. The suspect was later identified by authorities as 40-year-old James Lee DiMaggio, owner of a home in Boulevard, California. The bodies of her mother Christina and brother Ethan Anderson and the family's dog, Cali, were found in DiMaggio's burned home. DiMaggio was later killed by FBI agents during a shootout at the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho, where he had been camping with Hannah Anderson. (Los Angeles Times)
Robert Mugabe is declared the run-away winner of Zimbabwe's controversial presidential election by a 61% majority, extending his 33-year rule. (AFP via News24)
Wait - right now this is unsubstantiated allegations by a newspaper about an unpublished government report. If the story proves to be accepted as plausible when the report is published then of course this is huge news. However, it is probably too soon for ITN given the extraordinary nature of the claims (no athlete or official has ever come forward with such allegation before as far as I know; keeping such a large scale conspiracy quite for 40 years is improbable to say the least). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and we aren't there yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 5 August 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: Nothing in the RD line currently so I thought I'd nominate this; journalist with a long career and several awards, including two Emmys and the Merriman Smith Memorial Award for excellence in presidential journalism(was the first broadcast journalist to receive that award). I believe that suggests he was notable in his field. --331dot (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing personal, but this guy was on the C-end of the B-list, and he was on air during the time I actually watched broadcast news. There won't be a single iconic clip or accomplishment on youtube or elsewhere to demonstrate his influence, notability, or markworthiness. μηδείς (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that someone be recently notable in their field. I also would disagree with that contention, given the many comments from current journalists that have been mentioned in the media. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Why is it pointless? Are you saying that these teams don't really represent anybody or anywhere? Are they just the playthings of some rich bastards who just buy the best players? (Like Manchester United?) If they don't represent anywhere, what does this even prove? And why should we post it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Chiefs represent Bay of Plenty, Counties Manukau, King Country, Thames Valley and Waikato – that might be a little verbose for ITN. Why don't you click the Chiefs article rather than just asking questions? This information is in there. They are based in Hamilton, but do play outside of the city sometimes. So Hamilton-based is accurate, but it paints an incomplete picture. I'm happy leaving the blurb as is. You offered no suggestions, just a complaint (that you didn't like the names). -- Shuddetalk07:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strewth, these teams are from different countries! Surely that's worth a mention? Or is this a refreshing acknowledgement that many modern sports teams are just collections of players bought by a wealthy person or consortium to play together to satisfy a TV audience, and don't represent anything at all? Should we follow that lead for all professional sports? Leave out the localities? HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I omitted the city names because they're not part of the team names and I don't feel they add much to the blurb. It's also unlikely people will know where "Hamilton" is without having to click on the link to the city name. -- tariqabjotu08:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Fonterra is New Zealand's largest company and the world's largest exporter of dairy products. The recall of this scale - big enough to attract attention in multiple countries that aren't directly effected - is quite rare. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 tons of product - not sure what that equates to in money, but it is obviously a lot. Nomination is based primarily on it affecting 7 countries. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you know me, always trying to kill the babies to earn the shekels. Don't be silly, HiLo, some sort of objective measure is helpful, and 1,000 tons is really not that much in the scope of things. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we assume the wholesale value of this product is $1/kg we are looking at a total market value of $1 million, which as far as recalls go is nothing. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our food-recall category seems a bit scattershot, but the Peanut Corporation of America recall accompanied 9 deaths, almost 1,000 salmonella cases, and did an estimated US $1,000,000,000.00 in damage. The 2008 Irish pork crisis did an estimated Euro 100,000,000.00 in damages and may have shortened the lifespan of the average Irishman by a year (i.e., 20% of the population by five years). μηδείς (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you think this is not news if no-one has got sick or died? I can similarly argue that if we post this it might stop some people from buying or using affected products. SeraV (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an entirely invalid reason to post (or will we start posting Tornado warnings and nutrtional adviceto save lives?) and as worded "so you think" amounts to a personal attack. Try assuming good faith and focussing on the topic--not motives and editors. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not very good reason either to oppose just because there are no victims in cases like this. And well if hot stop took that as a personal attack he can tell me and I apologise. It certainly wasn't meant as one, and since he agreed that that was his argument your opinion about this just seems petty. How about you try assuming good faith before you start throwing around accusations. SeraV (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
China banned the import of powdered milk products from NZ+Australia today. 90% of China's imports come from NZ. Its unclear how long teh ban will last, but say it is one month - that amounts to $140 million of lost sales for NZ/$140 million of product China needs to find a new source for. I'd say that is a pretty significant effect above and beyond the recall itself. Russia which wasn't even part of the recall is also blocking Fonterra imports temporarily. There are ways to measure impact besides deaths. Here it seems the problem was found before much product got into the hands of consumers, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A 1,000 toms sound like a lot without any frame of reference but some quick checks show it is a fairly small quantity. A 1,000 toms is roughly equivalent to 1 million kg (long tons are a little more, short tons a little less, and 1,000 tonnes are exactly 1,000,000 kg). This compares to 1.3 billion tons of production for New Zealand in 2007 (as shown by Dairy farming in New Zealand), of which Fonterra controls ~94.8%. The math is a little rough due to rounding in the available numbers, but the recall volume works out to a little less than 30% of a single day's average volume for the company. This in turn could be caused by problems with one day worth of production at one of the company's four processing facilities. --Allen3talk20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but the 1,000 tons are diluted product. It is actually only 42 tons of whey protein, not 1,000, compared to the 1.3 billion total tons of milk solids. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Also the structural completion of the world's first trio of supertall skyscrapers. May modify the blurb accordingly to serve as a hook. --GotRTalk22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's more than twice as tall as The Shard, which was on ITN last year. The blurb should probably also mention that it's the second tallest building in the world. -Zanhe (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. So is the tallest or the second tallest? I think that makes a big difference to whether it should be posted. A new worlds-tallest-building seems to come along regularly enough that even that might be questionable, without us starting to post just any really tall building. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When completed, it will be the second-tallest building. I don't, however, see the need to stick to superlatives. For one thing, the Burj Khalifa set a very high mark; Shanghai Tower is about three-quarters the height of Burj Khalifa, and it will still be the second-tallest building in the world. It took more than twenty-five years for the Sears Tower to be surpassed, and it wasn't much taller than other buildings at the time. Among buildings currently under construction, only one -- Kingdom Tower -- is taller than the Burj Khalifa. It won't be completed until at least 2019, if it's completed at all. (We also have Sky City, which China hopes to be constructed in less than a year next year, but I'll believe it when I see it.) So, second-tallest building is about the best feat in this field we can expect for awhile. -- tariqabjotu23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the above, despite reports in the media, it's not the second-tallest building in the world until it's completed and habitable (see the last two pages of this document). And I believe that's generally why we wait until the building is open for business, not topped out. That's what happened with The Shard and the Burj Khalifa (although I believe we may also posted the latter when it became the world's tallest structure during construction), and what seemed to be the consensus for One World Trade Center. -- tariqabjotu23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second-tallest building in the world is obviously notable enough for ITN, but since the topping out height isn't a record, we should probably wait for completion of the building as we usually do. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An alt. blurb has already been suggested to make it about the world in general, but the fact that it only deals with one country (the most populated in the world) is not relevant: "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) 11:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per precedence. When I nominated the topping out of One World Trade Center a few months ago, it was shot down with no supports, and I agreed to withdraw and wait until the building opens. What's the difference here? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Since the World Aquatics Championships is not on ITN/R, I may as well nominate this. A fifth medal in a single world championships is a record equalling amount or do we wait until she gets her sixth. I do not know what is in store for her for the final day tomorrow but if she breaks the record, then I will put more weight to it. --Donnie Park (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm game. It is a record achievement at a major world championship event. It should be "Missy Franklin wins a record-equaling fifth gold medal...", however. Resolute18:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now - The World Aquatics should be ITN/R and I was planning on nominating it at the conclusion. Even ignoring that, the record makes this year especially notable and should be posted now (it can be adjusted if things change - I assume she will swim the 4×100 m medley relay which the US has a good chance to win). I would leave off "at age 18" though as that is of little importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Event article would need a significant prose update. Franklin's article is sort of updated, but the new section is completely unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose individual mentions but support the overall mention of the tournament in line with all sports tournamanets we list. and yes, it should be added to ITNR\Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral while it's interesting, it's not record-breaking until the record is broken. Perhaps then it'd be worth a punt at nomination. Right now it's just trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question and Comment Are we sure this is a record? I'm sure I've heard claims like this in the past. Of course, these days, there are a lot more events than swimmers decades ago had the chance to compete in. And, only swimmers from countries with lots of competitors near the highest level have a chance of winning relays. A great swimmer from a lesser nation in swimming will never have that opportunity. To count relay wins as part of a swimmer's total glory is discriminatory. (And I say this as someone from a strong swimming nation where the media does this all the time.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: "Venkateswaran Dakshinamoorthy was a veteran carnatic musician and music director of Malayalam, Tamil and Hindi films, predominantly in Malayalam films. He has set scores for the songs in over 125 films. He has to his credit as many as 859 songs composed over a period of 50 years." Andise1 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I would support this, article is not good enough to be posted. Is there actually any change that it might be updated enough to post? SeraV (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see evidence in the article of major awards or achievements of the kind we often consider in judging someone for RD. He doesn't seem to have ever been nominated for the Filmfare Awards (or Filmfare Awards South), for example. What is it that might put him at the top of his field? Formerip (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Foreign Office has warned its embassy staff in Southwest Asia to be vigilant as Eid al-Fitr approaches. British embassies remained open. (WSJ)
In his Ramadan message to Muslims, Pope Francis calls for mutual respect. The message is timed for the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, Since 1967, the Vatican has issued an annual greeting to the world’s Muslims on that date. (CNN)
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: Don't think this is ITN/R given the status of Zim, but this is certainly a newsworthy item, paticularly considering the indications (and denials) of rigging. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's the recognized head of state of Zimbabwe, regardless of how he carries that job out, so this is ITNR ("The results of the elections for head of state, In the those countries which qualify under the criteria above, and where the head of state is an elected position.") 331dot (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the most relevant article would be Zimbabwean general election, 2013, which has some decent background but has no update on the results. - 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Funnily enough, we have outside observers saying it's a fair election, and mainstream news outlets declaring a massive win for Mugabe. How odd is that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: I didn't quote any article from the Daily Telegraph, you must be mistaken, or else you're talking to someone else, either way this comment is incorrectly indented and confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, I don't think this would happen this year. 15 years ago, yes, but since there have been steps toward more power sharing, especially since Mugabe realized that it was freer elections or a big crackdown by other nations in Africa. In addition, regarding this election, the Southern African Development Community election observers said "the elections had been free and peaceful". However, the article also states that massive fraud was suspected. So even though the opposition wouldn't be jailed or shot, it's not as if ZANU-PF would simply let them win. SpencerT♦C15:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My impression the key to this is that Mugabe would quite probably have been inclined to rig this election had he needed to, but the MDC have spent the past five years blowing their credibility. Whatever anyone's take is, though, there's no clause in ITNR that we post general elections provided we are happy about the outcome. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed both the focus article and the blurb, as elections should have as the primary article that for the election rather than an individual. By the way, I don't think the presidential result is official yet.--LukeSurltc20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its ITNR so it WILL be posted when updated. Medeis' non-reason presumption aside. Also the AU sanctioned it . V.s. partisan opposition parties crying foul. alone.Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - I updated/cleaned up article to (hopefully) meet minimum ITN standards. Unless someone objects on quality grounds, the article is ready to post. (For the record, I am against blindly posting all elections but this one is actually quite important.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The results section has only two sources. If the accusations section is to be added then the blurb is no good. (Given the huge coverage of corruption) We need a more neutral blurb in any case, so I don't think a full 3-5 sources in the results would actually be enough. μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reactions would also be considered part of the update and is where all the Western concern went... Not including any accusation in the blurb is kind of the definition of neutral; I fail to see how adding accusation would make it more neutral. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I went back to the original blurb as results of elections for legislative bodies are not ITN/R and, thus, are usually not posted unless it's for a prime minister position or where the nomination is specifically for that. I dated the event August 3 as that appears to be the date that the official announcement came out (even though this nomination is dated August 2). -- tariqabjotu09:20, 4 August 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:Adam and Eve (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Scientists conclude that Adam lived over 135,000 years ago, longer than what had previously been suspected and that Adam did not know Eve at the time of their existence. (Post) News source(s):NBC NewsBloombergDaily MailXinhua Credits:
Nominator's comments: New research shows that Adam lived a longer time ago than previously thought and that Adam did not know Eve at the time of their existence. Andise1 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)e[reply]
Whoops, my bad. feel free to modify the blurb to correct it to a version you think is suitable. I did not intend to link to the bible Adam and Eve but I must have not been paying much attention. Andise1 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We did a story on Y-chromosomal Adam a few months ago when there was a major revision to the date. That Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve were probably separated by thousands of years has been an established part of the science ever since those terms were coined. Also this doesn't seem to be a new discovery, only a minor refinement. The date quoted in these new stories fall within the established range for the non-A00 Haplogroup Y-chromosomal Adam. --LukeSurltc07:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unlike Y-chromosomal Aaron, Y-Adam and mt-Eve have literally no connection with the biblical figures of the same names, and it was already well-known that they could not have been contemporaries. The blurb misrepresents the story, which in turn is not that interesting. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AlexTiefling. Besides, these two conceptual humans in anthropology have nothing to do with the religious figures, and should never be confused. Linking to that article would be wildly inappropriate. Modest Geniustalk11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simply not good science. And please, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. I personally think Evolution is a Satanic lie as do many others, so keep it off the front page. God bless. --85.211.118.34 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:ITN#Criteria to learn the criteria by which ITN nominations are judged. Note that Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view when discussing a notable topic; neutrality does not mean Wikipedia censors certain topics because some editors are offended by them (see WP:UNCENSORED). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:40, 2 August 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.
In talks in Manila, the Philippines and Vietnam agree to work together on a framework for resolving maritime territorial disputes in the South China Sea. (Voice of America)
Law and crime
Russian police detain 1,200 illegal Vietnamese migrants in raids in Moscow. (ABC News)
Article:Edward Snowden (talk·history·tag) Blurb: American whistleblower Edward Snowden is granted temporary asylum in Russia. (Post) News source(s): The Guardian, BBC, L.A. Times, VOA Credits:
Nominator's comments: After more than a month being holed up in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow, the now-famous leaker of classified U.S. surveillance documents is granted asylum for one year in Russia and leaves the airport for an undisclosed location. Sca (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sure, we're probably all sick of Snowden, but this basically brings a conclusion to a story that had international ramifications, at least until his asylum expires or he gets nabbed by the CIA while in Russia.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Sorry, his 15 minutes of fame was already up a month ago, Wikipedia is not a place to give him his own platform of fame for another 15 minutes of fame. Donnie Park (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with "fame." (I should have said "controversial" rather than "now famous" above.) Whatever anyone thinks about Snowden's actions, it's a fascinating and complex personal story dealing with issues that could have extremely important political consequences.
Further, Snowden has been associated, at least tangentially, with Wiki, and for that reason has been very conspicuous by his absence from English Wiki's "In the News." Sca (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know — I wondered about that. But I venture to say that because of its use of Wiki, Wikileaks probably is associated in many peoples' minds with Wikipedia.
Yes, wiki- is a free morpheme at this point, since we can say there are various wikis, such as Wikipedia, Conservapedia, and Wikileaks. The latter two I would say are obviously glomming off the prestige of Wikipedia. Unfortunately for those of us who do not want to be associated with conserva- or -leaks, Wiki- and -pedia were not trademarked. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ready this is well-updated after several "wait" nominations and well supported; a few political opposes are not valid for ITN purposes. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Undisputable coverage and "asylum" was pointed to as the postable time in previous discussions. Traitor would normally imply co-operating with or leaking something to enemies, rather than to allies and fellow citizens. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Provoked a strong reaction from the US this one. (And can a certain editor give it a rest with the "traitor" crap?) --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. I object to the use of "dissident". This is a violation of NPOV. The article no longer used that term in the lede as of a few moments ago when I went in add the word "fugitive", which is how the New York Times describes him.[17]I believe the admin who posted this blub inserted his own personal editorial judgment in lieu of consensus. Can we please fix this now? Replace "dissident" with "fugitive". "Fugitive" is a very nice, neutral, factual term for a person who has been indited and is fleeing (and seeking asylum). Whether he is a whistleblower or a traitor is highly debatable and won't be settled until he faces a court of law. JehochmanTalk02:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whistleblower is correct, he was travelling before he was charged, and he is revealing unconstitutional activity condemned by just about every authourty outside the Obama regime. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's been charged with a crime. Because he has run from the law, he's a fugitive. The article explains who things he's a whistleblower and who thinks he's a criminal or traitor. There are some of each. It is definitely not for us to decide. We just report the facts in the most neutral way possible. JehochmanTalk02:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jehochman that fugitive is the least objectionable term here. It's 100% accurate, since he is evading arrest by legal authorities, regardless of whether you support or oppose what he did, or whether you support or oppose what the U.S. authorities are doing in response, he is a fugitive. Whether he is a dissident or not, and whether he is a whistleblower or not, depends on which political tribe you get your talking points from. But he is wanted by legal authorities, and he is evading them. --Jayron3202:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out the word "dissident" because it's just unnecessary and controversial. The article explains all the nuances: whether he's a dissident, whistleblower, criminal, traitor, etc. If there is a consensus to insert "fugitive" or "fugitive intelligence analyst", one of those could be added, but I don't feel comfortable doing that until there is a stronger consensus. JehochmanTalk02:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing npov with the word dissident, our own definition of dissident is "A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively challenges an established doctrine, policy, or institution". Who can really argue that Snowden is not one. I feel that Jehochmans oppose of the term is based on that it doesn't have that much negative connotations. However i think current blurb is also fine but I oppose putting fugitive in it, if dissident is npov then certainly fugitive is as well. I also object accusing Tariq of anything here. SeraV (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Medeis is on the US Supreme Court, no activity Snowden has revealed has yet been adjudicated to be unconstitutional. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this stuff is not illegal in USA, which would be a shame indeed for USA, most of that activity is illegal in other countries, including mine and Germany, which still makes Snowden a whistleblower. SeraV (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Laws of other countries do not apply in the US. For instance, in Germany it is illegal to walk around in a Nazi uniform. In the US this activity is protected as free speach. (2) Whether Snowden is a whistleblower/dissident or a criminal/traitor depends on whether he chooses to stand before a court of law and justify his actions, or perhaps Congress will pass a law or the current or future President will pardon him. We, Wikipedia, cannot decide which term is accurate. It is entirely possible that he will eventually return the USA and be acquitted by a jury of 12 citizens. For the moment, he is a fugitive because he chose to run away rather than to justify his actions. If you look at the biography of Nathan Hale you will see a different type of behavior. (Disclosure: My personal belief is that he needs to take responsibility and face the jury. Delivering those computers to Russia was the worst possible thing he could have done and will undermine his position severely. If he's not a traitor, he should stop acting like one.) JehochmanTalk13:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has been granted political asylum, with your logic we could just as well call him political dissident who is persecuted by his own government, but that would be biased. It is just as biased if we use the word fugitive, exactly since it it not our place to decide which term is accurate. With the word fugitive we would be taking the side of US government. And my point was that even if US goverment doesn't see him as a whistleblower other goverments might since he exposed illegal activity towards them. SeraV (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mistake you are making is that you are applying your own logic or analysis. Instead, just look at the words being used by reliable news sources, and use those same words. JehochmanTalk15:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has been called whisteblower quite often in reliable sources, you can't claim that most or even majority use the word fugitive. But seriously current wording about this is fine. I just wanted to say that I oppose the use of fugitive. SeraV (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the admin who posted this blub inserted his own personal editorial judgment in lieu of consensus.
@Jehochman: Excuse me? I request that you strike that comment immediately. There is no basis for that accusation. I have never in my life edited the Edward Snowden article, or any articles related to him. If the first sentence had said "Edward Snowden is an American whistleblower", I wouldn't have objected to the term on the Main Page. And subsequent to my comment, no one commented on the suitability of the term "whistleblower" or objected to my comment about "dissident". The reason I mentioned dissident is because it was in the first sentence of the article, and content on the Main Page defers to article content. Why is it acceptable for you to use the same rationale to promote "fugitive" (also not from the original blurb!), but my use of the same rationale is "personal editorial judgment"?
Now that the term has been removed from the first sentence (with "fugitive" added at your hands, but never mind), I have no objection to it being removed from the Main Page and no objection to the use of the term "fugitive" as now in the article. But, I do firmly object to your baseless suggestion that I usurped consensus in favor of what I wanted, and request that you strike that comment (which was entirely irrelevant to the rest of your comment) immediately. -- tariqabjotu03:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - I must say that those opposing from a personal POV with personal attacks and heated rhetoric are editors who should really get a grip. Jusdafax03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since people continue to comment, post-posting oppose. I don't care about the political and emotional furor in the US. My concern is that this is nothing more than an incremental update. There's nothing here except the fact that a man who was in Russia can stay in Russia. Resolute18:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The blurb as it is currently written suffers from goes-without-saying-everything-is-about-America-unless-otherwise-stated syndrome. Could we possibly replace "Former NSA contractor" with something line "Former US intelligence contractor"? Formerip (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can make the modification, but is the NSA really not recognizable here? I don't think it's "everything is about America" syndrome, more "NSA is recognizable with the link and without further context, especially considering this story has been in the news for two months" syndrome. I'd like to think there are some intelligence organizations -- FBI, CIA, Mossad, MI-6, etc -- that could suffice without beating people over the head which country is being discussed [in ITN headlines]. -- tariqabjotu00:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend dropping "American" and using "Former intelligence analyst". That's what the most reliable local media are calling him. We've discussed this at length at the article talk page. Shorter is sweeter. JehochmanTalk00:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, being American doesn't make his activities more or less significant. And Tariq..., I'd agree that CIA, FBI, Mossad & MI-6 are well known, but NSA is no better known than ASIO. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the vast, vast majority of British people (I can't speak to anything wider than that) will have no idea what NSA means. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We provide links in blurbs for a reason. I bet a large number of people don't know the National Assembly is the lower house in the Cambodian Parliament, but they can click on a link and find out. There is always information omitted from blurbs: for a brief time yesterday, we omitted that he had any ties to the intelligence community, for example. We have to draw a balance between being informative and being brief. (In this case, we have a well-known story with the title a basic formality; the former formulation provided a link to a relevant article.) I think the alternative you suggested is fine, as it's informative (perhaps more so?) and brief, but we face this issue on all blurbs, regardless on origin, and we don't need to levy accusations of bias. -- tariqabjotu01:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I feel like the connection to the U.S. is very important to the story, and thus the blurb. It's an American being granted asylum in Russia, after all, and it's only five more characters. I don't understand how one can make the argument that "NSA" can't be mentioned in the blurb because people don't know that's an American intelligence organization, but then state the fact that he's American is not relevant. At least some connection to the U.S. should be made -- by saying he's from the NSA, by saying he was a contractor for U.S. intelligence, or by explicitly saying he's American. I do agree "analyst" sounds more natural than "contractor" though. -- tariqabjotu01:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Terms: If I may add my 2 cents' worth, it seems to this ex-journalist that whether Snowden objectively meets the criteria for whistleblower remains to be seen — and the jury is likely to be out for a very long time. To call him a "dissident" sounds very odd in the U.S. context, since that word usually is applied in single-party states and dictatorships. The term "leaker" hasn't been used much historically in U.S. English, although it is in the Merriam-Wesbster online dictionary under the noun "leak." While "leaker" seems a rather inelegant term, it appears to be the most accurate one to describe Snowden's recent history and resultant status.
I note that the Guardian, for example, refers to Snowden simply as "the American whistleblower." However, if WP is to call Snowden a "whistleblower" it should be qualified, i.e. "self-proclaimed" or "putative." Sca (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, and feel free to change the blurb (my italo-english deserves it :-))! "Finally" means "definitively", "irrevocably" because in Italy we have three degrees of judgments (trial, appeal, appeal to the supreme court): he has been condemned several times in trial and appeal, but this is his first definitive condemn, and IMHO this should be pointed out in some way. Paraphrasing Churchill, maybe this is neither his end, nor the beginning of his end, but for sure the end of his beginning. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as I believe that exhausts the legal system and he will now actually go to jail. Another blurb suggestion, which attempts a middle ground between the two above:
Thanks - I think for the news blurb the clarity is not needed and possibly even lost on readers from some countries. The article looks like it covers it adequately. CaptRik (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated and marked ready - article is now updated. I adjusted the blurbs to make it clear that this is a denied (final) appeal, not a fresh conviction. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post posting Support - Berlusconi's final appeal being denied is a big deal, so even though there was a recent post about his legal issues, this is again an ITN-worthy blurb in my view. Jusdafax06:09, 3 August 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.
Support He is the actual Prime Minister, not just an acting one. What they mean is that he is acting subject to the caretaker convention until an election is held. It is very unusual for a PM to be dismissed by a Governor-General (or monarch) in a Westminster system - it hasn't occurred in decades. Neljack (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Objection - according to the article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald, the (?) former PM notified the Queen that he was dismissing the Governor-General so it is not clear whether the PM or GG has been dismissed and a constitutional crisis brewing. To me, that makes the story more noteworthy but also presently unclear whether a new PM will be needed. EdChem (talk) 13:41, 3 August 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.
Are these things really in the news? Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less every time a new species of mole rat is discovered wherever. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bongwarrior, it is always interesting and highly encyclopedic that a new animal species is discovered wherever. But main news? Unlike the ant story below in which its getting massive headlines for some reason (front page in Yahoo, CNN, etc...), I think this, and other similar articles should be discussed in DYK instead. Secretaccount04:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not vaguely familiar with zoology but according to a few studies only a minute number of mammals (estimates place it between a dozen and 3% of all known and unknown species) remain undiscovered, so perhaps discoveries as such are more notable than we thought even though there seems to be a spike in discoveries. YuMaNuMaContrib05:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support yeah, I understand the skepticism about what seems like literally every-day report of a new species, however, if there is one thing in biology that I genuinely believe should be ITNR, is a new species of primates is discovered. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if someone creates the article. Per Nergaal, a new species of primate is fairly significant. But, seriously guys 'n' gals, we need to establish that there is a high bar for new species stories. Formerip (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dwarf lemurs are sublime. The discovery of 39 species is irrelevant unless we've posted them all. Most will be splits from existing species anyway, not real discoveries. μηδείς (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If we refuse to post new species, mammals especially ITN will only have post about deaths, politics and sports. As an encyclopedia we really should look bit further than that. SeraV (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in order "to point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." A new mammal is "encyclopedic news". Even without any traditional news coverage discoveries like this meet our criteria when the relevant article is created/updated. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose As some of you know, I write extensively about lemurs on Wikipedia, and though I will probably end up writing this article as well, I have to agree with some of the early comments. Many of the small, nocturnal lemurs are being split into new species, and some years as many as 10 or more may be "discovered"... and it's done almost entirely based on DNA. DYK-worthy, yes. ITN-worthy... I'm not so sure. Personally, I only nominate new primate fossil discoveries and maybe a truly surprising lemur species discovery. Extinctions are another one I would definitely nominate. But not this. – Maky« talk »03:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify that I'm primarily concerned that frequent new lemur species being listed on ITN may make it more difficult for genuinely important discoveries to get mentioned. If, for example, 10 mouse and/or dwarf lemur species are described this year (and there have already been 3, including this one), will anyone support a related but more significant discovery if I bring it to ITN? At this point, I am weakly opposing because, yes, I would like to see lemur discoveries mentioned on ITN. However, professionally, I favor reserving ITN for more significant discoveries. – Maky« talk »03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although it was in 2006 (7 years ago), I think the explosive jump in sportive lemurs was pretty big, especially since hardly anyone studies them. Otherwise I think some of the fossil discoveries in Africa regarding Algeripithecus and others were quite significant since it helped begin to establish the evolutionary history of lemurs (beyond speculation). The same can be said of some of the cognitive studies that are slowly debunking long-held views about simian cognitive superiority and cognitive evolution. Also, the 2010 study by Ali & Huber that helped clinch some evidence for oceanic dispersal for the colonization of Madagascar was also very big. However, these latter cases don't get as much press. But then again, our news media is actually for our entertainment, not our enlightenment. People are more entertained by new, cute species than complex cognitive studies or primate fossils that aren't human ancestors. I guess it then becomes a question of what ITN is. Are you like the news media and primarily serve an entertainment role, or do you care about educating the public? I'm not trying to be combative—I'm asking a serious question that I've never seen addressed on ITN before. – Maky« talk »03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the "news" is a misnomer. The requirement is that the article is sufficiently updated to reflect sufficiently important recent events. 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case, if a pivotal research article in the study of lemurs (or primate evolution) is published but doesn't get mentioned on any major news sites, then can I still nominate a sufficiently updated article reflecting these important recent events and expect support? Or does it have to directly involve something cute and fluffy and/or relate to the popular topic of conservation (in which case it might get some press)? I'm just playing devil's advocate. Please understand that I if this nomination passes, then I will happily bring every new lemur species that gets announced to ITNC, even if it's 10 in one month, and I will not be happy if all the reasoning thrown around here in support gets tossed out the window. I want people to think about this fairly and proactively. Again, I'd be very happy to see this one on ITN rather than DYK. I just want this nomination and all future nominations judged evenly, and I don't want more important nominations knocked because less significant articles like this got approved too often. – Maky« talk »07:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two species of mouse lemur were described earlier this year, and were not considered for ITN. Three new species of slow loris were also discovered this year (and got a lot more press coverage), and they only made DYK. The same goes for a sportive lemur in 2011, another mouse lemur 2012, and two more mouse lemurs in 2009. Important, yes. Is it a huge event? No. And so far, no major news organization has covered it, as far as I can tell. – Maky« talk »05:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should cover all of them. They may not be "news", but they are "encyclopedic articles updated to reflect recent events". I would consider this a near-perfect case of "subjects [the readers] might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." 85.167.110.98 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'm reading the research article now, and the authors note that 3 other new species were also discovered, though not officially named. Expect more in the future. – Maky« talk »06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it up - about 25 species of mammal have been described each of the last few years (sometimes more than 1 at once, which would mean even if we covered all it would be less than 25 postings). That quite a bit more than I expected, as I was relying on old information of ~2/year before genetic testing caused the recent increase. Even so, I personally would support posting most or all of the new mammals (bats and rodentia make up the majority of the new species, so if we were to exclude some those would be good choices). Certainly, we have room for 2 primates (lemurs)/year on average if the trend holds - and it probably won't since at some point the genetic testing possibilities will be exhausted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the data for small, nocturnal lemurs, lorises, and galagos is suggesting that the new species descriptions are only just beginning. The inaccessibility of their deep, dark, wet forests is the only thing holding back the research. Well... that and a relative lack of academic interest in lorises and galagos. But in truth, we are only entering a new stage in taxonomic expansion, similar to what was seen during the 1700s and 1800s. Worse, there will probably be just as much of a mess to clean up afterwards. (In other words, some of these species will be erased and made taxonomic synonyms.) Again, I'm fine with it as long as everyone understands what kind of precedent we're setting. I will be citing this nomination in the future—that's why I'm playing devil's advocate so fervently. – Maky« talk »16:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be remiss of an encyclopedia with a "news" section to not use it for the discovery of new species of primates. Personally I would extend this beyond primates as well. A higher turnover rate is desirable, and an increase in "deathless" stories would be even better. 88.88.162.176 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
