| nom cmt = The Nobel Peace Prize winner will be announced 9 hours from now. ITN should post a picture of the winner if there's a free picture available.
| nom cmt = <s>The Nobel Peace Prize winner will be announced 9 hours from now. ITN should post a picture of the winner if there's a free picture available.<s> Updated to list winners. However, I don't think a picture's doable with three winners, and it would seem odd to include a picture of just one of them.
*'''Support''' pending actual announcement and update to article (regardless of how long the update is). The Nobel Peace Prize winners are inherently ITN-worthy. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 05:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' pending actual announcement and update to article (regardless of how long the update is). The Nobel Peace Prize winners are inherently ITN-worthy. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 05:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Article needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The Nobel Peace Prize winner will be announced 9 hours from now. ITN should post a picture of the winner if there's a free picture available. Updated to list winners. However, I don't think a picture's doable with three winners, and it would seem odd to include a picture of just one of them. --OCNative (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending actual announcement and update to article (regardless of how long the update is). The Nobel Peace Prize winners are inherently ITN-worthy. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom indicates, this is an ITNR item. Swarm 08:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wo ho!!!!! My article creation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As good as an award to me!!!Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two participants of the World's hottest chilli eating contest hospitalized
OK, that's enough messing about. There's no need to ridicule the nomination any further, you've all had your fun. Modest Geniustalk 01:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys this is the WORLD'S HOTTEST CHILLI EATING CONTEST!!11 Serious business. Post immediately, no consensus necessary. Get on it. WikifanBe nice 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only if our blurb is: "It was very painful and felt like I was being chainsawed in the stomach with hot sauce on the chainsaw", with no further explanation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aww yeah? JORGENEV 00:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not yanking our chains, you are the stupidest admin ever. If you are so yanking, well done. --FormerIP (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2011 (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.
Nominator's comments: Winner will be announced in less than 12 hours. Lihaas (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damn you, I was waiting to nominate this all day! Support. I'm rather hoping Bob Dylan will win as the article is an FA. - JuneGloomTalk 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas Tranströmer is the laureate. The article needs some work. But when it's ready, there's a free photo for the Main page. --Tone 11:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not fart around for days waiting for a novella of updates to the article of this Nobel laureate like we've been doing for days. Aside from winning the prize, and the reason for winning the prize, there's bugger-all we can say about it at this point. DeterenceTalk 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm, there's massive copyvio on this article (see: any AP about the award) I'm going to try to tackle it, but I'm a engineer, not a literary expert, help needed (but want to see the ITN up there). --MASEM (t) 13:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've tried to do some updating (copyvios nixed, more refs added), I think there's more that can be added, but I dunno if this right now is sufficient for posting. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article on the author is much better than the articles on some other Nobel laureates in literature. Iwould oppose though using his picture on the main page; Steve Jobs has been a much more influential figure and his death should be in the spotlight. Desiderius82 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support. The article seems better now and the tags don't appear to be necessary, so I've removed them. Marking 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To provide context, may I suggest adding "for his influential poetry" as the reason why he received the prize (I agree the Nobel's statement is too flowery for the main page). --MASEM (t) 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll add the poetry part, otherwise it's just too short. Posting. --Tone 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're changing ITN leading pictures rather quickly, aren't we? We barely had a picture of the quasi-crystals yesterday, then Steve Jobs' mug when he died, and now just this morning the Nobel Laureate Tomas Tranströmer. I think we should pick one picture and stick with it for a couple of days before changing.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most likely we will have a new one of tomorrow's peace prize winner. --Tone 19:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The picture at DYK changes every twelve hours, and the others change on a daily basis. Just because ITN is known for stagnant images doesn't mean it should be that way. I'm for illustrating the topmost item that has a free image. That also staves off the recurring complaints that the image isn't associated with the top item next to it. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Tariqabjotu's suggestion. A picture (when available) for the topmost ITN item seems like a natural solution. DeterenceTalk 21:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support - definitly for itn.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A strike by Greek public sector workers leads to the closure of transport services, schools and most public hospitals, with thousands of people protesting against government austerity measures in Athens. (Reuters)
Support. Obviously. --FormerIP (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Was until very recently at the very top of the business world. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
umm obvious support Please wait for proper update -- Ashish-g55 23:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, once the work has been done on the article. —WFC— 23:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending more info. Two sentences isn't enough. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not many people have changed the world. Jobs did. Jusdafax 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Per Mkativerata and Jusdafax. Awfully sad news. - JuneGloomTalk 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source that this is because of the cancer? Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apple confirmed it, everyone is quoting them. Actually, I can't really find an Apple source. But everyone's reporting it that way and we're supposed to be going with that. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per synthesis above "at the very top" what does that vague statement mean. And lots of biz leaders with innovations on grand scales, we cant post them all.Lihaas (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
seriously? theres only a couple of people who fall into the category he was in. not just some biz leader... this was steve jobs. I dont even want to explain actually. -- Ashish-g55 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I almost never support deaths added into ITN as we all know, but this is an exception given his stature in the technological world. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. I also consider the article to be sufficuently updated at present, ready for posting. Physchim62(talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (edit conflict) x2 internationally important figure despite the guidelines I am not going state the obvious but instead suggest snow closure on this one. --wintoniantalk 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Traditionally we leave images up for 24 hours before replacing them, to prevent situations whereby a run of items without suitable pictures occur and the image remains the same for days (Fernando Lugo, anyone?). His picture should go up tomorrow. oh and an obvious post-posting support as well. Modest Geniustalk 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-belated support. Obviously an important figurehead of innovation, and quite likely the icon for technological business worldwide. ~AH1(discuss!) 00:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled Um, Steve Jobs is not sufficiently updated. It's basically one long quote. -- tariqabjotu 00:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect it to say besides: "He died of cancer on Oct 5 2011"? The article clearly already explains his impact (compared to the Nobel Prize ITN things below). --MASEM (t) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum, usual nonsense when it comes to deaths. The article has been updated to reflect his death, that is what we expect of an up-to-dsate online encyclopedia, and it is what our readers expect. Our readers couldn't care less about how many sentences or references have been added, so long as the tenses of the verbs are all correct. Please restore this story forthwith. Physchim62(talk) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The update is more than sufficient in the circumstances. Do we want live updates from his bedside? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are going against consensus on that one. And at the current rate it will get hundreds of edits within an hour, so how much more updated do you want? I suggest it be restored. Prodegotalk 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And whoever restores please don't include the cancer cause part. I have yet to see a source explicitly state he died of cancer.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the New York Daily News article, "waged a courageous battle with pancreatic cancer for more than six years before the disease finally took him." Jenks24 (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict>Hold until more information is available. We're much too hasty to post this when barely enough information has become available to entail a sufficient update.--WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple ec)I have restored it, there is clear consensus to have it there as shown here, and there's no doubt that a good number of users that will come here for that page. BorgQueen has kindly removed the oldest entry for balance after I restored. SnowolfHow can I help? 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) Comment There was/is little doubt in my mind that someone will revert that very quickly. But, I am making my position very clear that I don't think it's at all fair that if your news item is well-covered enough or big enough, you can bypass the requirements and get by with just one or two sentences. We give people a hard time with updates even better than this one, and I think rightfully so. We are not a news ticker, and if people can't come up with more than a quote from Apple and "He died", then perhaps the story isn't really all that important. I find it ironic that people clamor about not-important-enough stories that get tons of updates and then shout "super important" and "post this right away" and then claim "well, there's nothing more that can be said anyway" when someone notes the lack of update. Go ahead and put it back; I wasn't expecting anything else. But, like with the World Cup opening debacle last year, this is essentially a cave-in against our standards. -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tariq on this one. I know this is one of those shocking deaths that we want to rush to post, update be damned, but it's absolutely inappropriate to circumvent our normal requirements just because "it's Steve Jobs". Swarm 00:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tariq and Swarm. It's certain that this is something that should be posted, but not before it's ready and not at the expense of ITN standards. There's no rush here, guys. ITN is intended to showcase articles that have been significantly updated to reflect a recent news event. It is not a news ticker. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. Tariq made the right decision. JimSukwutput 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Wikipedia "rules" are guidelines, not rules. If a simple update to say that he died and how contains all known and relevant information, and there is no obvious lacks, then I think it is wiki-lawyering to demand that some arbitrary criteria is fulfilled. It is far more important that ITN is up to date, than that some arbitrary criteria about the article is fulfilled. Thue | talk 08:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR are central Wikipedia principles, but as a general rule, we have processes set up for a reason, and we shouldn't get in the habit of circumventing it just for sensationalist stories such as this one. Swarm 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Pulled-Posted-Again-Facepalm Support Obviously. And the constant pulling of obviously notable ITN posts is pissing me off. DeterenceTalk 00:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The update looks quite big enough with a picture from apple.com... More than most deaths. Posting and pulling is no better than just waiting 5 min for it to be updated. I agree should have waited to be properly updated before posting but at the rate the article is getting updated could have just waited a min rather than pulling to be honest. -- Ashish-g55 00:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - May I suggest everyone concerned review the 'Illness and Death' section? It seems quite well-developed at this time. Jusdafax 00:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The objections I have aren't that the article was posted to ITN, which I think it definitely qualifies for, but that 'to hell with process, post it now and update it later' prevailed over normal ITN process. Yes, there was consensus to post the entry. No, there was not consensus to post it before it was ready. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no kidding. 28 minutes from nom to post. It's quite sad and ridiculous actually. Poor GLONASS didn't stand a chance. (PS: No, I am **NOT** a damned troll). --108.132.169.195 (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Support the posting after the suitable update, as per Tariq. This happened while I was asleep so I'm not sure how long this took but I think people should have realized the death of a figure as notable as Steve Jobs was bound to provoke reactions, including statements from other notable individuals, and inevitably result in a suitable update. I little patience would have made this process smoother.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I assume that those statements were not available at the time the article was posted, so you can't really say that the article didn't contain all information. And why couldn't the updates have been just added to the article after posting? I see this blind adherence to the "update must be this big, no matter what" as unnecessarily rigid, and not in the reader's or Wikipedia's interest. Thue | talk 08:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the purpose of ITN is to post articles that have been substantially updated. Posting an article that doesn't meet that requirement simply doesn't serve the core pupose of ITN. As as said many times, (too often IMO but appropriate here)wikipeida is not a news service.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to wonder if we need to revisit the purpose of ITN. Personally, I think promoting useful, high quality, and informative content on topics of current interest better fulfills Wikipedia's educational mission than arguing about whether a particular article has had a big enough update. Dragons flight (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the simplest solution to this if we wanted to enable an article like Steve Jobs to be posted immediately would be have a 'recent deaths' section on the main page, as do some non-en Wikipedia pages do. However, I think requiring the update has it's use. In a way it's a useful litmus test of notability--if the figure is truly notable, the update will be done. The lack of a sufficient update can be an indication that the figure wasn't all that significant. In Jobs case it was clear from the start he's notable enough, of course. But in any case, what's the big deal really that it took a short time to get the update up?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just Jobs, he's just the current example of silly bickering about an update. When an article is long, high quality, and detailed, my point is that the information it contains is still useful to the reader even when the update is trivial. If we are not a news source, then why do we decide what to post based on how much news has been added to the article? Seems like we should put more emphasis on the general quality and relevance of the articles we highlight and less on the size of updates. Dragons flight (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bert Jansch was one of the most influential guitar players in the twentieth century - Jimi Hendrix once described him as the best acoustic guitar player, and his style has been emulated by folk guitar players for decades.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eh, these are tough. I remember that it was hard getting Les Paul on ITN when he died (people opposed left and right), and he was a revolutionary in the field of rock music - I'm not sure we'll have consensus to post Jansch's death, as influential and amazing as he is. m.o.p 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His obituary in the Telegraph reads like a veritable who's-who of the British music industry in it's heyday, (Telegraph). DeterenceTalk 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support He has been at the front of the game for 40 years, influencing many and impressing millions. His style was groundbreaking, and as his obit shows, there's almost nobody he hasn't been associated with in modern music for generations. I have no doubt that it will be hard to get him on the front page but he does deserve to be heralded as one of the absolute icons of his genre. doktorbwordsdeeds 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not significant enough a person, in my subjective view. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A heck of a lot more significant than any rugby, cricket, basketball and soccer game in my equally subjective opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would happily see 90% of the sport dumped from the ITN/R. Some of those events are bordering on fringe, even for those who are sporting mad. DeterenceTalk 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though I did at last consider it since the article is in very good shape. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 23:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose what globla coverage?Lihaas (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National News in Denmark for example.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Much as I admire the guy, not sure this is big enough news. But ITN is looking a bit like a science and technology newsfeed at the moment. If somebody doesn't find something else soon, I think maybe this should go up. --FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good lord, ive met my match (and that came out right ;))Lihaas (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence. In my view he meets the significance criteria, but I'm uneasy about the precident that posting multiple deaths simultaneously could set. If badgered for this position I will most likely jump the other way. —WFC— 13:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Something that would meet the recent deaths criterion if we had a section for that. But I don't really see this as news. JimSukwutput 23:19, 6 October 2011 (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.
Nominator's comments: Winner/s will be announced in about 12 hours.as exciting as the UNGA Gen. Debate. Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us post this timely. IMO, errors of omission ITN is a worse problem than linking to a somewhat poorly formatted article. Perhaps the readers can even improve the article themselves; this is Wikipedia, you know :). Thue | talk 11:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way the previous Nobel Prizes (Medicine and Physics) are still languishing the the waiting room I've all but washed my hands of the Nobel nominations. The whole process has become ridiculous. DeterenceTalk 12:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about reformatting so that it read something like: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to Daniel Shechtman for the discovery of quasicrystals. I know it might be a little unusual to highlight the discovery rather than the winner, but that looks like a pretty good article. ETA: Actually, looking again at the article, I find it quite hard to work out what a quasicrystal is precisely. Maybe someone could look at that.--FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think quasicrystal is the right article; the fact that work in it (specifically, that such crystals do exist in real-life materials) isn't going to be of significant update. It's Shehctman's work that will be the fact.
I think the pattern I'm seeing is that while everyone here agrees that Nobel Prizes are ITN worthy, there's very little that can be said in any of the recipent articles beyond "They won the prize on this date", which seems contradictory to the ITN restriction on having more than the just the blurb be updated in the article. At most, based on the merit of the award, maybe one or two lines can be added to explain why the award was given (which usually any of these articles state, like the medicine one about being towards cancer research), but, say, unlike breaking disasters or the like, that's really all you can add to it. Ergo, I propose that in the case of certain awards, which are based on past success (like Nobels, Oscars, etc.) that we already deem ITN worthy, the idea that the article needs a significant update should be dropped, as long as the event is discussed there. Having ITN point to these articles may help them to grow by those interested in it. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, a sentence or two about the reaction of the laureate or a colleague of him would suffice. Check Andre Geim#Nobel Prize in Physics. There were responses reported last year, a quick search should find some here as well. --Tone 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what's being said. There are certain things that don't need a great deal of updating to report what has happened and it is stupid for us to be slaves to guideline. However, some ITN candidacies come when a relatively obscure person or thing is suddenly thrust into the limelight. What's needed then is "updates" to the background information. Our current article on Dan Shechtman, for example, provides no overview of the achievement for which he has been awarded the prize. It's a shame not to post the news, but someone needs to revamp the article (I would, be I don't even understand the science of it). --FormerIP (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 3-4 sentences to establish what quasicrystals are good within Shechtman's article and leading to the Nobel in his article.--MASEM (t) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is exactly what is going on. People need to remember one of the most important rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Thue | talk 15:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's good update in my opinion. A context provided for understanding why he got the prize. Posting. --Tone 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated criterion met. Posted. —David Levy 15:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, somehow I have a feeling that we get the same ideas simultaneously... ;-) Now someone please update the articles for physicists and the other two medicine laureates so that we can end this. --Tone 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we tripped over each other. (-: —David Levy 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we pop up that free image of the quasicrystal in the box? Colorful and free enough to be good FP material...--MASEM (t) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The ACTA treaty has been much criticized. For example, it contains an Anti-circumvention provision similar to the one in the much-criticized DMCA. And the Obama administration has tried to keep the treaty secret while being negotiated, claiming "damage to the national security" [having the people actually see the laws their leaders make on their behalf could make them unhappy, you see, and might give the people a chance to influence the process -ed]. Thue
Comment The full implications of this Agreement are unclear, in very large part due to the shroud of secrecy that has prevented public scrutiny and commentary during the years of negotiation. For all its high-brow rhetoric about protecting intellectual property rights, the heavy focus on the enforcement provisions in this Treaty suggest a suspiciously draconian objective with serious implications for freedom of expression, a suggestion that is not the least bit tamed by the use of tired jack-booted clichés about the risk of "damage to the national security" that transparency in the negotiation process would provide. However, my concern, before supporting this nomination, is that it simply hasn't had anywhere near enough media attention to qualify it as "notable" by the standards employed by ITN, (the story appears to be buried on page 8, and days late, in most of the media sources I looked at). DeterenceTalk 12:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this has not been widely reported. Which puzzles me, because it was my impression that the treaty have been covered in the news regularly before this. My own instinct is that the most important ITN criteria is whether an event is significant, not whether it was widely covered, so I would post it anyway :). It is the signing of a controversial world-wide trade agreement - how could it not be notable? Thue | talk 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Thue— I can't really imagine how this would not be significant enough for ITN. And the article is...solid. Swarm 05:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as stale. While I'd support inclusion, it has already been a week since the event - coupled with the relative lack of media attention this week, I don't think this will come to see ITN. m.o.p 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5 days, not a week. Thue | talk 21:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I mean. m.o.p 02:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regulators in the European Union are close to making a formal announcement that they object to a proposed merger of NYSE Euronext with Deutsche Boerse AG, according to an anonymous source cited by Reuters. (Reuters).
The European Court of Justice rules against "the imposition of national borders to sell broadcasting rights on a territory-by-territory basis", as this is in contravention of EU laws on free trade. It would allow members of the public to seek cheaper providers of Premier League football, whilst finding against a landlady who used Greek television to show live football in her public house. (The Guardian)
The Italian Wikipedia shuts down in protest against a privacy law drafted by Silvio Berlusconi's government which would impose restrictions on newspapers and Internet pages. (Reuters)(Italian Wikipedia)
Nominator's comments: we usually post the election result but since this wasnt posted, we also have precedent to post it when the government takes office as we did with Peru/Humala. Heck in some cases like Aus/Canada/UK we posted it 2 or eve 3 times Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Ready The article is comprehensive and well-referenced. Perhaps the blurb can be amended slightly: the use of the words "Danish" and "Denmark" is a little messy. DeterenceTalk 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my bad, dont usually do that. just slipped my mind. but i added enough and sourced about the more impotant govt formation bit.Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Tweaked the tagline and added an image. m.o.p 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The election with Helle Thorning-Schmidt designated as Prime Minister was in ITN for 3 days: [1][2]. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That changes things. Do we normally post election results when the election happens or when the government comes into session? m.o.p 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hm,, missed it too.
but weve done it before. Id just change the bolded word to her name instead the election. (though the govt formation stuff is new and current)
Also, like the uk, the anti incumbency and coalition factor, is the bigger news (which was not even there on can/aus)Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This should be pulled. We've already posted this and we knew at that time that Thorning-Schmidt would be PM and that her coalition had won the election. This is not ITN/R, either, and is completely different to the UK/AUS situations. Jenks24 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we show it ITN again then we should at least link Cabinet of Helle Thorning-Schmidt on "government" as the only really new item, but it may not have quality to be bolded. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. ill add the govt formation there (sa we did with finland)
as for not the same as "aus" its rubbish! the aus one posted THRICE was only diff in that its an eng speaking country.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, of course English speaking countries are going to get a bigger go – it's the English Wikipedia. Secondly, this is completely different to the last Aus election – the Aus election resulted in a hung parliament (for the first time since 1940) and it was not known which party would form government until weeks after the election. We knew that Thorning-Schmidt's coalition had won the balance of power the day the election results came in – completely different. Jenks24 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We seldom know the outcome of an election on election night when the legislature is determined by a system of proportional representation. This is especially the case when a moderate/centre party appears ambivalent between the two major factions in the legislature. In the present case, the support of the Social Liberal Party - which held the balance of power on election night - was by no means certain on election night, (notwithstanding pre-election pledges of support). Indeed, it took over 2 weeks for the coalition government to be formalised. DeterenceTalk 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per deterence, Jenks2 misses the pt completely. This was NOT decided before, as in aus, as in Finland.
This is also the english wikipedia thats why articles in the english language are posted, not that it gives attention to pander to stereotypes.
although bolding the government/pm instead of the election is a fair compromise?Lihaas (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Deterence, did it really take two weeks? Because we posted on the main page that Thorning-Schmidt had won and that was only two days after the election. To anyone, has anything of significance actually happened since we last posted this? Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The expected thing happened, but it wasn't certain to happen. The original blurb correctly said Helle Thorning-Schmidt is designated to become the first female Prime Minister of Denmark, where designated did not mean that she was merely waiting for her term to begin. If she had an own majority then she could have been Prime Minister within days. Cabinet of Helle Thorning-Schmidt#Government formations mentions the 4 required parties to secure a parliament majority behind Helle Thorning-Schmidt as Prime Minister. They cover a wide spectrum but were united in wanting to overthrow the 10-year old government. She needed time to negotiate a policy platform for the new government and agree on ministers. The negotiations are not public and we don't know whether they actually had a serious risk of falling apart. Government can go much faster in Denmark. 3 of the 4 parties joined the government as expected. One of them is Danish Social Liberal Party, the one farthest to the right of the 4, but they had been in goverment with the incumbent government parties in the 1980's (see Cabinet of Denmark). Now they had to join or support a minority-government relying on the far left Red-Green Alliance (Denmark) for votes. It was uncertain whether they would join the government, support it without joining, or possibly be scared by influence to the Red-Green Alliance and switch sides again (they are known for that in Denmark). By the way, a big story in Denmark (not ITN material) in the days leading up to Thorning-Schmidt taking office was her close ally and expected Finance Minister Henrik Sass Larsen suddenly withdrawing from the coming cabinet after not getting a security clearance (apparently due to a dubious friendship). PrimeHunter (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After fixing some typos and adding a reference, I have linked Cabinet of Helle Thorning-Schmidt in the ITN template since we don't have much real news without it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we did, in fact, post the election results. It doesn't seem like the admin who posted this was aware of that. I think this should be pulled until the item gains more support as to post something we don't normally post after a single support doesn't seem right. --PlasmaTwa2 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because we posted this already, and pull because a government 'taking office' is not ITNR, and even if we gain consensus to post again, it should be done after a regular discussion, not one !vote. Swarm 03:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aus was posted THRICE!!! wHY THE BIAS???Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about, but I didn't play any part in posting another story three times. Swarm 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Since we're into posting election of prime ministers now, are we going to post elections in similar positions in presidential systems? Such as elections to the Senate presidency and House speakership? –HTD 05:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No thi sis ofor heads of govt and heads of state, not parliamentary whips.Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and pull I am a strong supporter of the posting of election results from every sovereign nation, once per election. But unless the difficulty/delay in forming a government is of itself newsworthy beyond the borders of that country (Belgium's delay, unprecedented UK situation), the constitutional enactment of that result is merely a matter of routine. This applies equally to presidential inaugurations/kissing of queen's hands. Posting admin has, one assumes, taken erroneous ITN/R claim on good faith, discussion here suggests it was misapplied, so I'm being bold and removing it. Later note: I'm going to be even BOLDER and post a different note in the header to bring this to admin attention: both the posting admin and the nominator acknowledge a false assumption that was integral to their original position, and the overwhelming consensus of other opinions expressed is to pull. Kevin McE (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AND WHAT ABOUT AUSTRALIA???? WHY THE BIGOTRY>??Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fIRST you sulk/bitch about "shouting" and wrting a proper note then you post "Alright, alright... pulled"??!!!!Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read "Alright, alright... pulled" as being impolite, so I don't see a problem with it. Thue | talk 10:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever was or wasn't posted about the Australian elections doesn't bind us to do the same (or in some people's mind same) thing for every single country on earth. Every situation should looked at separately. And increasing ITN's attention to the politics of a relatively small European nation, no offence to Denmark which I hope to visit soon, will hardly do anything to counter the more serious issues of Systemic bias on Wikipedia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: At least 65 people have been killed after a suicide attack in Mogadishu, Somalia. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport pending significantly more content. Currently, the article is only one sentence long. The WP:RS is good (BBC) and the subject is clearly notable. DeterenceTalk 10:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Largest attack since August from a militant group that has supposedly withdrawn their forces from the area but strikes back in times of hardship. BBC reports more than 70 are killed with dozens more injured - quite notable. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've expanded and referenced the article. I'm not going to post it yet, as our article is barebones, though I doubt we'll be able to expand much yet - reports are still coming in. m.o.p 13:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Seems like significant news, but I see that it is described above as the "largest attack since August", which may put a different perspective on things. Also agree that more content is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. It's surely significant with such attention drawn, and the high death toll on the other hand.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
major expansion and marked ready.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with the tagline: " A suicide bombing in Mogadishu, Somalia, kills at least 70 people, in the region's deadliest attack since 2007." Good work to everybody who prepped the article for inclusion! m.o.p 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: There was a successful and notable satellite launch which is WP:ITN/R. GreyHoodTalk 09:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC) GreyHoodTalk 09:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Every launch is a highly important news. The article also is in very good shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also support mentioning the recently launched GLONASS-M in the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Winner/s will be annouinced in less than 12 hours Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. But, note that there is currently only a single unreferenced sentence about the award in each of the Nobel laureates' articles. This should not stop posting in the way it dragged on for yesterday's award. DeterenceTalk 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All three articles have had thousands of characters added to them so far. More than doubling the size of the articles for Saul and Schmidt, though less of improvement for Reiss so far. But hopefully this won't take all day to get posted. Dragons flight (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment the award was not shared equally between all. Permutter got half and the others got 25%[3]Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this not been posted yet? SPattalk 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think this is a long wait? They still haven't posted the Nobel Prize for Medicine from the day before (see below). DeterenceTalk 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With previous Nobels, there have been single-sentence mentions of the Nobel Prize, but much more written about the work of the recipients. That said, I will post, but the sections about what the three discovered need more references (Saul_Perlmutter#Work, Brian_P._Schmidt#Work (this one could use a little expansion too), Adam_Riess#Work). SpencerT♦C 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just updated all three awardees to explain the award (I know || this much about astrophysics, but enough to understand what's going on to a layperson). --MASEM (t) 16:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the updates, I find them sufficient. Nice work. Explaining the whole story. Posting. --Tone 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose navel-gazing. The response of the Italian Wikipedia may be of interest to us but is minor to the World. If anything should be in the news (I don't think so) then it should be about the proposed bill and mention protests generally without mentioning Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...theres no chance of this going anywhere without an article. the english wikipedia wont link to the italian one, esp on the main page.Lihaas (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The surge of Italian media coverage is mostly about the Wikipedia strike rather than the bill itself. Don't underestimate the global importance of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link above was a search for wikipedia on google news .it. -- A Certain White Catchi? 22:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Support After reading the meta-discussion and a few articles on the topic, it's clear this is way more than something that affects only Wikipedia. An online petition started today against the law already has over 1000 signatures. Here is another article on the topic. And if I'm reading it correctly, this law goes cross-borders because it deals with content deemed detrimental to any Italian citizen, irrespective of where that content is hosted. The end effect would be that all of Wikimedia would have to be blocked in Italy to prevent Wikimedia from being sued at $16,000 a pop. N419BH 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the way it is structured is anyone could get you fined 12k euros without even providing any evidence that what you put on the site as hurtful. The laws extent is hardly restricted to Italian wikipedia. Any editor to any wiki could be fined. I am unsure if the bills extend is restricted to Italian nationals. Only one person cannot be fined by this and that's Berlisconi as he gave himself immunity from the law. Wikipedia could easily be the encyclopedia only Berlisconi could edit. :p I am not necessarily happy with the current wording mind you, if anyone has a better wording I would not object (probably). -- A Certain White Catchi? 03:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. I am very much intrigued by what the Italian Wikipedians are doing, but I don't think we should be promoting our own project's controversies on the front page of en like this. It's basically naval gazing, and using the front page to further our own agenda. Resolute 03:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the point of this protest. If Italy passes such law, how will it affect Wikipedia servers located in the Netherlands or Florida, USA? Wikipedia(s) should, in my view, not engage themselves in political debate, and the Foundation's goal is to provide access to free information to all people, including those living in undemocratic and repressive regimes like Berlusconi's Italy. By same reasoning, all Wikipedias should show a blunt political manifesto to visitors from North Korea and block access to all articles. --hydrox (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what about Wikipedians who live in Italy and are therefore subject to Italian law? Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know how the law affects us for certain which is the problem. Because the law is drafted as vague as possible and fines are enforced based on victims request without involving any kind of proof anyone could be subjected to the law for any edit even those of us that lives outside of Italy. Of course Italy wouldn't be able to enforce this outside of Italy currently but bear in mind some countries have agreements between each other to exchange criminals and EU/NATO is working to harmonize handling of crime over the internet. This is the basis of the concern. Italy is a democracy unlike North Korea so the protest may make a difference. -- A Certain White Catchi? 15:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose "Navel-gazing", as per above, is a very appropriate term. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Freedom of expression and of the press is important, and Wikipedia is an important organization in that regard. So this is newsworthy. That Wikipedia is involved doesn't detract from the newsworthiness. Of course the blurb should not link to Wikipedia meta-pages. Thue | talk 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe we have an article on the act or on the blackout and as I mentioned before, if anyone has a better wording I'd be happy to oblige. :) -- A Certain White Catchi? 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Support This is making headlines all over the world, I can provide tens of articles covering this issue in Dutch at least. Definitely more noteworthy than some local US super-bawlish event that we find very often on the frontage.--Rafytalk 12:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - see below. Actually, I don't think it is navel-gazing. But it may look like that to readers, so not a good idea. --FormerIP (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Navel-gazing or not, we don't decide what's in the news - ITN just reflects what is. And this blackout is covered by many many news sources (even here in Germany now ([11], [12], [13], [14] etc.)). Regards SoWhy 15:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I wanted to just write "navel-gazing" and figured it was going to be somewhat original, turns out it wasn't. Anyway, one website being mass-blanked in protest in a smallish country isn't really front page material.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we should promote Wikipedia news, even more so if they are everywhere in the news. Crnorizec (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The protest would have to gather a huge amount of press before I would consider it appropriate to feature another Wikipedia on ITN. So far, it has gathered only a very small amount as far as I can see. If it were any other Italian website I doubt that it would even have been nominated here. Dragons flight (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is over 500+300 Italian sources (alone) despite Berlisconi being a media boss. What is a "huge amount" in your opinion? This isn't US news only you know. World news matters. -- A Certain White Catchi? 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
There are only 48 reports in English per [15]. We do want to cover world events, but generally only when they are substantially expressed in the English speaking press, since English speakers are our audience. I'm sure the story matters to many Italians and Italian speakers, but I don't see it as having much broader press. I'm still opposed. Dragons flight (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For broadly similar reasons as Dragons flight above, who ec'd my original and said it better than I. Whilst I have no doubt lots of RS can be dug out from the internet, it seems that a number of major news sources haven't even got a whisper of it (BBC for example). Pedro : Chat 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Unprecedented and notable, also mentioned by BBC among other news outlets, so it is getting picked up by major news sources. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) 21:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb suggestion (article is updated):
The editors of the Italian Wikipedia go on strike and hide all content on the site in protest against the proposed Italian Wiretapping Bill.
Support What is done in german, netherland an danish wp should also be done on en:wp -- Andreas Werle (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notwithstanding my personal opinion that we should be doing this anyway, it has hit mainstream media such as the BBC now. —WFC— 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very important information about Wikipedia itself. The Protest has been featured by most european media. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN does not give precedence to Wikipedia news. from a NPOV this would never make it to ITN -- Ashish-g55 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are advocating that we deliberately ignore a mainstream news story because it has something to do with Wikipedia, which in itself is a POV. NPOV is about reconciling different perspectives in order to achieve neutral, factual coverage. Provided we do that, and this story meets the criteria that all others have to, Wikipedia's involvement does not come into it. —WFC— 23:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment does not say that at all. I clearly stated that if looking from a NPOV as in if this was some other site doing similar thing we would never post it. This is a protest, We have not actually stopped italian wikipedia. I highly doubt protests by any other site would get any supports here. So yes this is only being posted because its wikipedia. -- Ashish-g55 23:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10 support and 8 oppose (9 including myself) is not by any stretch of the imagination 'consensus'. This does not belong in ITN and looks far too much like self-obsession (navel-gazing if you prefer). TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
even though this isnt a vote. I dont see consensus at all. Ed you have done this many times before now... Please warn before posting controversial topics. A simple Posting soon would have helped. I dont see consensus at all by reading above comments. This is not a poll -- Ashish-g55 23:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partially discounted opposes based on little coverage and 'naval gazing'. The first was disproved by later coverage, and the second has no basis in the ITN criteria. Given that and the strength of certain supports, I judged that this had enough support. I don't count the !votes. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you also discount support votes based on 'interesting' or 'we should support Wikipedia'? These aren't valid arguments either. I am aware it's not a vote (I quoted the numbers above for a broad overview) but I simply do not see any consensus to post here. The concerns raised by oppose votes is valid, Wikipedia is not intended to create news. Running this is self-serving and strongly appears to be attempting to further an agenda, which is something Wikipedia has for years strived to not have the appearance of having. Our interests are in furthering knowledge and learning, not to be used as a platform for political posturing. A posting like this is, in my view, completely inappropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i almost never support pulling an item. But i agree with above, this really seems like agenda pushing by wikipedia. All we do here (at ITN/C) is debate the notability of items since we want it to be high for it to make it to ITN. How is this notable? nobody has properly shown that yet. Please pull till this gains consensus. -- Ashish-g55 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Navel-gazing" doesn't have to be in the guideline, it just has to be a valid reason, which it is. This was an inappropriate call. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree. This is notable enough to have made it international news ranging from Washington Post to BBC and all the way to Reuters India. It is hardly a local Italian or an internal Wikipedia issue. Just because Wikipedia is in the news doesn't mean it should forever be off of ITN. -- A Certain White Catchi? 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It's in the international news because the Italian WP threw a tantrum and then very publicly drew attention to that tantrum. We could achieve the same thing here by shutting down the English WP and leaving a message about how some hypothetical new bill in front of the US Congress might increase the cost of bandwidth, thus increasing Wikipedia's hosting costs. The point is that the event and its notability are fabricated by Wikipedians, which flies completely in the face of what we stand for in terms of neutrality and observation. Again, it's not our purpose to create news, and the Italian Wikipedia has undermined the efforts of the project globally by taking the action that they've taken. We shouldn't be propagating their agenda. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong post-posting oppose. Notability is rather lacking, english language coverage rather spotty, and stuff like this is better fit for signpost. I remember in the past someone mentioned not posting any Wikipedia-related items on ITN, and I think items like that give credence to the argument. SpencerT♦C 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose on procedural grounds and suggest pulling. There is no consensus, period. An admin cannot simply disregard all comments that he disagree with when he is determining a consensus, unless they are obviously contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, there is little point for us "mortal beings" to participate in the discussion. JimSukwutput 01:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? As an admin, I'm supposed to read the discussion, determine the strength of the arguments, and make a decision. That's what I did. I also don't believe "Wikipedia-related material should never be on ITN" is a valid argument based on the ITN criteria. If there is consensus on WT:ITN that we should never post this sort of news, then it becomes a much more valid argument. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's been almost unanimous opposition (4/1) since the posting that both the consensus was misread and that the item shouldn't have been posted. Ed, it appears your choice is being questioned, could you please review your decision? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, please review your decision. I actually don't mind the story being there, but it seems like an egregious decision against consensus. You are indeed supposed to read the votes and determine the strength of the arguments. Not read the votes and dismiss the ones you don't like. The "navel- gazing" argument, even though I don't actually agree with it, is a perfectly reasonable argument made by a number of editors whose votes do count. --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-oppose I was neutral all day on this, but one of the opposes above changed my mind. This story was completely caused by the actions of Italian wikipedians. Plus, it's only a proposed bill. Maybe we could reconsider if the Italian site is forced to shut down, but this is premature. As an aside, I'm tagging this as needing re-evaluation. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 04:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling this as there are now more opposes which throw consensus into doubt. I still reiterate, though, that opposes built on "we shouldn't post stuff about Wikipedia" were and should be discounted. Saying "it's not important enough" and backing that up is one thing. Saying that we can't ever post something from a certain topic, no matter its importance, holds no water under the current ITN criteria. The same goes for the supports that advocated for posting more Wikipedia-related content. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 04:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons Wikipedia has never had hard-and-fast rules is to allow the flexibility of the community to make decisions based on context without being hindered by necessarily broad restrictions in the form of rules that attempt to apply to all situations. The community does not need to ratify a separate overarcing decision that 'Wikipedia should not itself appear in ITN' in order to decide whether this particular event should be on ITN.
I strongly disagree with your assessment that the opinions of editors should be discarded if they don't conform specifically to guidance that, itself, was determined by consensus. As you're no doubt aware, consensus can change and editors have always been free to determine local consensus that may contradict broader guidance (examples include the naming of controversial articles by consensus contrary to standard naming policies, or local style changes contrary to the MOS). It's not appropriate to discard the view of editors here that this topic - an event caused by Wikipedians, no less - would be inappropriate for inclusion, simply on the basis that the existing guidelines don't have anything explicit to say on the matter.
The guidelines are there to help guide consensus, not to dictate consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize they are they to help guide consensus, and that's what I used them for. :-) "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content." I realize that not all situations can be covered by that sentence (e.g. pop culture items get opposition for other reasons), but I didn't think that a blanket oppose of all Wikipedia-related material, with little or no commentary on the individual event in question, is valid reasoning for the purposes of ITN. As we can see, people disagree with my assessment, but administrators are forced to do this all the time on this page, at the various deletion processes, in RfCs, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, we can only rarely please everyone involved, and occasionally we may read a consensus wrong. I'm not quite ready to admit that my reasoning was flawed, but I can clearly see that there may be problems with it, so that's why I removed this item from ITN. Regards, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The behaviour of some users is quite emberassing and shameful. The italian community fights for its project and some users here tell them to be happy with censorship. This comes close to treason. People who do not support the projects basic ideas should not complain, if they can not tollerate the demand for the freedom of speech, they should not participate. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of tripe. Arguing that this is not appropriate for ITN is not the same as telling them "to be happy with censorship". In fact, your argument offers a very strong argument against posting this: We should not be using ITN to advocate a position. No matter how much we support our peers at it.wikipedia - and one would be a fool to actually believe any body here does not). Resolute 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Multiparagraph - Tenebris start) Yet taking it down at this point has even more problems than leaving it up! There was not full consensus for putting it up (and bluntly, full consensus never happens) -- but there also was not consensus for *unposting* it. The current voices now misrepresent the whole, for those who wrote in favour and already saw it posted -- implying a final decision -- won't know to come back here and continue the discussion until they check in again on the front page, presumably after sleep; and others who don't check everyday may not even know that there is a reason to come here and look further down beyond the current date.
Navelgazing - not! It is fully as self-absorbed to deliberately underplay news about oneself as to overplay it. Not to post it suggests a deliberate personal blind spot, somewhat comes across as a tacit rebuke to Italian Wikipedia, and may even come close to self-censorship. The action is newsworthy and ITN-worthy in its own right, based solely on its historic value and impact. Try a test - a site not linked with Wikipedia but of equivalent value, size, and traffic to Italian Wikipedia shuts down to protest a law, in part because it feels threatened by that law. The action is unique and unprecedented, is clearly not a short-term hiccough, and is covered by most major media outlets on the continent.
Yet at the same time, to answer the poster just above me (with whom I edit-conflicted) -- and possibly a fair number of the initial objectors -- ITF is not a union action. Either an event is ITF-noteworthy or it is not. It should make no difference whether or not another branch of Wikipedia is involved. The current event happens to be both current events noteworthy and historic on a significant scale. For that reason and that reason alone, the ITF news article should stay up.
The uncomfortable point is that this time, it happened to be the "reporters" who made the news. That is *always* an uncomfortable point for any news outlet. (Remember "sweating like a Fox reporter covering Rupert Murdoch and the cellphone hacking scandal"?) Nevertheless, noteworthy events are noteworthy regardless of whether reporters happen to be involved in them or even cause them. A significant event does not become non-significant just because reporters or editors happened to be behind it. The current strike by Italian Wikipedia has a widespread effect (it doesn't have to be a shut-down-the-city type of effect) and it also crossed an unprecedented line. It is acknowledged as such in the mainstream media. As such, it meets all the requirements of ITN. - Tenebris 207.112.29.219 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I'll change by vote to support, just on the basis that I don't really mind it going up (note: also not a policy-based reason). But the problem isn't whether or not this should pass, it's calling a dubious consensus on something (a WP-related news story) that really ought to have a very clear consensus before it is posted.
I'd add that it is also not about supporting or not supporting Italian WP. In fact, I think posting an ITN blurb is a pretty lame gesture. We ought to be redirecting Silvio Berlusconi to Toilet paper orientation, but we're just too conservative and not clear enough about what's going on. --FormerIP (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any form of sympathy with the colleagues in Italy would have been more welcome and more courageous. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advocates for prisoners in the US state of California claim that more than 12,000 inmates are now participating in a hunger strike over prison conditions. (Los Angeles Times)
US golfer Tiger Woods drops out of the top 50 in the world ranking for the first time in nearly 15 years, ending a streak of 778 consecutive weeks inside the top 50, dating to when Woods was No. 61 on October 13, 1996. (Los Angeles Times)
Oppose Although large portions of the media have given disproportionate attention to this case, there is nothing intrinsic to the case that demands more attention than any of untold thousands of murders around the world in any given year. Just because the anglophone media go weak-kneed about how a case where both the victim and the accused/convicted/acquitted are good looking middle class white women, we do not have to do so. The fact that the proposer, and the headline in the news source that he/she links to, make no mention of Raffaele Sollecito speaks volumes as to the grounds of attention to this story. Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if Raffaele is included. this is a major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Of international interest, with this featured on the front page of BBC, la Rebpubblica, CNN, news.com.au, NZ Herald, etc. Agree that the other guy should be included in the blurb as well. (Edit: I was also unaware that we featured the conviction and have switched to strong support (FWIW). See my comments below.) Swarm 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kevin McE. As he says, the media attention is almost entirely explained by the fact that Knox is "good looking middle class white women". Similar media attention was brought to the case of the attractive Australian girl, Schapelle Corby, while the cases of countless other defendants (less attractive men) are all but ignored. That said, I'm willing to be persuaded if anyone points to precedents where high profile criminal trials were posted into ITN. Edit: Support Editor Dragons flight has revealed (below) that the original conviction of Knox was posted in ITN two years ago. Justice requires that we pay equal attention to her subsequent exoneration. I'm a little surprised that this important piece of back-story wasn't mentioned earlier. DeterenceTalk 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We post the results of high profile trials fairly routinely. We just recently posted the dismissal of the Strauss-Kahn case. We posted convictions here and here and acquittals here and here. Swarm 20:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, with a question I too see this as trivial media pap, but since this sort of item inevitably arises from time to time, do we actually have a formal guideline that says we don't post stories that are really gossip column filler? (I could probably propose a new Hollywood wedding/divorce/baby story every week.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "trivial media pap" sums it up well. Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is no significance to this event, as opposed to "international interest". I think it is that word in the relevant guidelines that cuts out the kind of stories to which HiLo48 refers. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is rather hard of ITN to oppose this given that it was just two weeks ago that another cause celebre was posted - Troy Davis. I wonder if the West Memphis Three was posted too? Resolute 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You raise an excellent point. And Swarm raised some good examples, also (above). But, I wonder if we might distinguish those criminal trials/sentences that have notable political implications (such as the conviction of an internationally recognised political official) from those that are nothing more than fodder for trashy magazines? DeterenceTalk 20:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to know where to draw the line. What is the real significance of all the sporting events we post? What is the significance of that Harry Potter film that we posted? We can't pretend like we only post major events with serious real-world implications, because we don't. Is this story significant in that it will effect the grand scheme of the universe? Of course not. However, is it significant in that it's front page news all over the world? Yeah, I would say so. Swarm 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we've posted rubbish here before is no reason to stop trying to raise the standard. Wikipedia's "other stuff exists" policy discusses this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I opposed the Troy Davis story, that differs significantly from this in as much as the execution was carried out in the face of specific and focussed attention from significant world figures. That gave it a significance and gravitas that this story (despite the obviously serious nature of a murder and lengthy potential incarceration) lacks. The Davis story differed from any other failed appeal on the basis of intervention of authoritative figures: the Kercher/Knox case differs from any other successful appeal on the basis of ability of the photos to shift newspapers. Kevin McE (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will absolutely rue the day that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS becomes policy. Until then, it is still an essay.--WaltCip (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing significant about this case. A person was convicted of murder and the conviction was later overturned. Big deal. This happen many times during a year. And Western media always love to print stories about pretty white girls, be it missing person cases or criminal cases.—Chris!c/t 21:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No particular view, but this is clearly a big news story, so ought to be considered. However, as a veteran of the article, I can say that it has traditionally been in right old state in terms of POV warring. I haven't read it in a while, but think caution should be exercised. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really our job to decide whether a story is newsworthy. The international media do that for us. Our job is to identify quality Wikipedia content that can inform and educate the public on a topic that many of them have already become interested in because of all the news. We aren't a news ticker, rather we are a different kind of resource that at the best of times can provide broader background and more details than 99 out of 100 news reports. And at the same time, hopefully we can promote some of Wikipedia's best work. We have a long and detailed article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and I for one support using this occasion to highlight that. It is true that there are many cases worldwide that don't get similar news exposure, and that is a shame. However, it is also true that there are many cases that don't have a similar level of Wikipedia coverage, and we should be prepared to highlight good articles when we have them. As a minor additional point, the conviction of Knox and Sollecito appeared in ITN two years ago when it occurred, and there is perhaps a certain degree of fairness in also covering the overturning of that conviction. Dragons flight (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. As is the argument that the article has been used as a platform to push a POV in the past, and likely, the present. I guess the best question, from those who watch it far closer than I, is whether the article is in a state that we are willing to present on our front page? Resolute 22:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dragons flight, "As a minor additional point, the conviction of Knox and Sollecito appeared in ITN two years ago when it occurred...". That is no minor point. That information has convinced me to change my vote (above) to Support. DeterenceTalk 22:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support I will do the rare thing here and actually support a nomination because this clearly is not going to get posted based on the current trend. I always get this bad taste in my mouth when people show up here with the idea that our job here is present what should be in the news, rather than what actually is. Yeah, so the fact that there's a young white girl involved is contributing to its prevalence in the media. So what? If that's what's in the news, so be it. Have you not heard the phrase dog bites man -- not news; man bites dog -- news? Same applies here. A dude with a long criminal history being accused on killing a random man is not as big a story as a couple young students with no criminal history being accused of killing a roommate. Add to that the fact that the victim and accused are from three different countries, and that the accused are finally determined to be innocent... um... hello? How is that not a reasonable news story? I understand that the Wikipedia editor demographic is too hipster to be into stories like this, but, what you want to be in the news isn't what always is In the News. Provided we get a reasonable update (which is not to hard to conjure up, frankly), this deserves to be on ITN. Or are Nobel prizes the only important things that go on this week? -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is plainly a huge story that has been building to this final conclusion for freaking years. Vranak (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tariq and Dragons Flight sum it up nicely. This is getting major press, and it appeared on ITN when they were convicted, so logic holds that it should be posted now. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I respect the reasons for supporting but I really, really press onto you the importance of taste and decency here. We're not talking about an unprecedented miscarriage of justice. The media have turned these two into celebrities, pushing the deceased victim into the background. Wiki is better than that. Is it really necessary to award front page status to this event? How do we deal with the issue of a dead woman whose murder has been essentially relegated to second place behind that of a court room drama? doktorbwordsdeeds 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with focusing on the living rather than the dead. Their fate is still indeterminate. Vranak (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dragons Flight's "minor" point, which is actually a rather crucial aspect of this discussion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It was removed after two and a half hours. -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What has made international front page news now is this, the fact that the Daily Mail got it completely wrong. That's definitely front page news here in Melbourne, Australia. (Admittedly, as the place where Rupert Murdoch grew up and where his mum still lives, we pay attention to British newspaper dramas.) Can I post this stuffup as an ITN item? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey. Prefabricated sensationalist crap dressed-up as journalism. This almost deserves to be considered for its own ITN post. DeterenceTalk 02:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tariqabjotu. C628 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per arguments above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant coverage? Yeah, lots of it. Tabloid fodder? Yup. But in the end this case has been massively sensationalized by the media because the two ladies involved are young, middle class, and attractive. There's basically no mention of the guy. Add in sex, drugs and rock and roll and you have a perfect headliner that's great for attracting viewers so you can charge more to advertisers for the commercials. The international nature, a Brit an Italian and an American also add to the general hoopla. But in the end, there's really nothing important here. Why don't we focus on the protests in the middle east that are currently toppling governments rather than this crap. N419BH 06:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree this isn't news and that the only reason it has got this much coverage is that the demographics of the victim and alleged perpetrator appeal to the market for newspapers. The case isn't comparable to most of the examples mentioned above in that the alleged perpetrator is not a high-profile politician, the crime itself wasn't particularly remarkable and the coverage is not focused on wider social issues such as the death penalty. However we did post the conviction and it's only fair that we post the acquittal. Hut 8.5 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis of significance. Nightw 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since I am inclined to doubt the real significance of this recent event (i.e. the success of a court appeal) compared to that of other recent news stories such as record ozone depletion being reported over the Arctic. SuperMarioMan 14:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To those who say we posted the conviction so it's only fair that we post the acquittal: the conviction was more than 18 months ago. Since that time, ITN has gotten better, including if I recall correctly, not posting the acquittal of Casey (Anderson/Anthony?). As you can see, I care very little about tabloid fodder. That's a trend we should be continuing. NW(Talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept here isn't 'we posted tabloid fodder two years ago, so we should post it now', it's 'we featured the conviction of a person on Wikipedia's front page, and they turned out to be innocent, so in the interest of basic, basic fairness, we should feature the acquittal of that person as well. We posted the dismissal of the Strauss-Kahn case with these considerations two months ago: we posted his arrest, so we posted his release. We should do the same here. Should we have posted this originally? That's debatable, but should we post this in fairness? I absolutely think so. (Although I think this can be posted on its own merits as an international, front page news story anyway.) Swarm 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of those who supported posting DSK's acquittal and I agreed that one of the good reasons is because we posted his charges. However, I do not think the same reasoning applies here. DSK was the head of the IMF and a leading politician in France who was widely expected to be elected president. The accusations made against him had a huge international impact - in terms of the financial health of Europe; in terms of the relations between France and the U.S.; and so on. That's the kind of stuff that I imagine would still be on Wikipedia ten years from now. These two college kids, however - I don't even think anyone will remember who they are a generation from now on. And I don't think Wikipedia should post something on the main page that will be virtually forgotten in a matter of years. JimSukwutput 23:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's in the news, it's getting attention, and we have a Wikipedia article on it. What bothers me is the cries of "missing white woman syndrome" and our beliefs that by not posting this story we'll somehow be averting a tenet of media sensationalism. Unfortunately, that also means that we will set a precedence of deliberately avoiding posting stories of this sort no matter how significant they are, thus committing systemic bias in the opposite direction. I feel that MWSS is not valid grounds for opposing this particular candidate, and that this would not be a precedence worth setting in WP:ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it about time someone made a decision one way or another? Just put the damn thing up I say -- it's starting to become old news. Vranak (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. WP:NOTNEWS. Personally, I don't even think a trivial case like this deserves an article. Think of how many people get murdered each day - we will have hundreds of thousands of article just about specific murders if we were consistent about our "notability" guidelines. But I'm not going to propose an AfD because I know Wikipedia can never be a project truly based on long-term significance rather than spontaneous sensationalism. Putting this on the front page, however, is simply out of the question for me. JimSukwutput 23:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Winners are due to be announced in the next hour or so. Modest Geniustalk 09:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce A. Beutler and Jules A. Hoffmannfor their discoveries concerning the activation of innate immunity and Ralph M. Steinmanfor his discovery of the dendritic cell and its role in adaptive immunity. Now the articles need to be updated. --Tone 09:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, such a blurb would be extremely long and thus impractical for ITN. Any suggestion to make it shorter? As for the bolded article, I guess all three laureates get that. --Tone 10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All three articles have single-sentence references to their Nobel prizes. However, the Bruce Beutler reference is not sourced. DeterenceTalk 10:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles need some more work, indeed. --Tone 10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the sourcing in the articles, but they do need longer updates. OCNative (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dragons flight's blurb. (That seems to be an accurate summarization, judging by many of the news media headlines. [16]) OCNative (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that blurb is a good way to summarise the situation. I've added it to the template above. Modest Geniustalk 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentToll-like receptor and dendritic cell ought to be linked from the blurb, like "Bruce A. Beutler, Jules A. Hoffmann, and Ralph M. Steinman share the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their discoveries of Toll-like receptors and dendritic cells of the immune system.", these articles are more interesting than the biographies. Narayanese (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the shortest version of the blurb is fine. Let me know when the updates are sufficient so that I can post it. --Tone 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but makes the blurb rather long... Modest Geniustalk 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that there's the issue that Steinman dies last Friday, and the Nobel committee is trying to figure out what to do here (since the 70s, they don't give awards posthumously.) [17] Buetler and Hoffman will still get their half, but there's no decision (that I see) about Steinman's portion. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally Nobels are allowed to be awarded posthumously iff the recipient dies after the decision is made, but before it is announced. Either way, it doesn't really affect our blurb. Modest Geniustalk 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally yes, as the stories pointed out in 1931 and 1961 they happened. But as these stories are pointing out, they changed the ruling in 1970s, and this situation falls into that crack. I very much doubt the Nobel committee will reverse their decision of that award, but there's a chance it could. I don't think this should stop the blurb being posted, but we need to be award it may need changing later today due to this. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Nobel Committee has decided to let the award stand as is. [18] I would recommend that we should add ("posthumously") to the blurb for Steinman once the articles are updated - that might drive more eyes to that page as well. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. As discussed above, the articles have not yet received sufficient updates. —David Levy 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will be posted after the articles are updated, yes? Also, if that takes a day, should we have one blurb for Physiology and Medicine/Physics? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is how much of an update we can get for the articles. I believe not every laureate will have an extensive section on reaction to the award etc. And, in some short articles (2/3 here), such a section would be disproportionate. Ok, sure, for peace prize, there are usually long articles written afterwards but not so much for the other ones. --Tone 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have much time to wait until any other laureates are announced. For the reader the news is most important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I see some more update at Steinman's article, about the fact that he passed away before the award was announced and about the consequent questions. Reposting. As for other two, there is at least a minimum update, so all the laureates stay bolded. Wouldn't make sense the other way. Still, for other awards this week, we should write more update from the beginning. --Tone 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a news website. ITN isn't a news ticker. —David Levy 22:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but something that would rather draw attention on the news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but this leads to an off-topic discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it, but I don't know what you mean. —David Levy 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support re-posting I see all the articles are substantially updated. More likely the article about Steinman is too short, but well referenced on the other hand.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To what substantial updates are you referring? Apart from Steinman's article (which contains information about his death and the accidental posthumous award), I see nothing but bare mentions that the Nobel Prize was awarded (the same as earlier). Per Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria, "updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." —David Levy 21:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I didn't see that, editing at the same time, apparently... well, no more handling this item from my side. --Tone 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to wheel war, so I've de-bolded the links to the two articles that haven't been substantially updated. Logically, however, the item should be pulled until they have been. —David Levy 22:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. The articles all mention the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, and that's the core thing we need to post this. Or if you're referring to the current shape of these articles, it's another problem that should be resolved on the particular discussion pages. I don't intend to post this regardless of the criteria managing the articles in the blurb, but seems like we have reached the sufficiency.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." The blurb "[mentions] the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize," and the articles contain virtually no additional relevant information. ITN's primary purpose is to link to articles that provide such information, not to report news. —David Levy 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here I agree completely. The reason I put it back was that one of the articles actually has that sufficient update we need. David, a nice compromise with de-bolding the other two. Could look a bit unconventional to have just one bolded but that's what's the standard way. --Tone 22:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. De-bolding is a really good solution, and now it seems many of our readers can assume Steinman's death beyond his bolded article in the blurb without mentioning it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't understand what you've written. —David Levy 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the item could be reworded to make the inconsistent bolding seem less odd (particularly to someone unfamiliar with the section's criteria). —David Levy 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording to reflect Steinman's death, thereby drawing an actual distinction between the other two recipients and him:
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply put "(posthumously)" after Steinman's name in the blurb? Your revised blurb makes Steinman look like the principle recipient and the other two look like a couple of also-rans. DeterenceTalk 23:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, he was: Steinman was awarded half the prize money, the other two splitting the other half. However, I think the point here is that most of the update about this news is right now in the Steinman article due to his untimely passing. Thus it is, for all that materials, the most significant article of the news blurb. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I agree with Deterence. Steinman was not the principle recipient, technically or not. You said it yourself, he got half the prize money and the other half was shared between Beutler and Hoffman and their position should not be belittled because of that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Therequiembellishere and Deterence, this current form is misleading because it seems to implicate that Steinman was the principal recipent of the price. Usually Nobel prizes are not enumerated like this in brief writing (including official website). I would suggest following blurb instead: Nobel Prize in Medicine is awarded to Bruce A. Beutler, Jules A. Hoffmann and Ralph M. Steinman for their research in immunity. --hydrox (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...which would leave readers scratching their heads as to why Steinman's article has a bold link and the other two recipients' articles don't. (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is ineligible, as it contains no substantial update.)
Masem accurately described the situation above. No one is belittling Beutler and Hoffmann, but their articles haven't been sufficiently updated. Given the circumstances, my preference was (and remains) to simply pull the item. This is a compromise (reflecting the only element generating a substantial article update: the accidental posthumous award). —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it really takes a trained eye to understand that Steinman is the only highlighted item because the news here is that a Nobel prize was awarded posthumously, not because he made the most significant contribution. (He did not make any more "significant" contribution than the other two combined. The prize was given to two research projects with "equal" merits whatsoever, "personal portions" of contribution or prize money seem entirely irrelevant, and these people will go to history as sharing this price) There is a wealth of material available to update the articles with, and chances are those will be incorporated soon. I would tend to invoke WP:IAR here over rigorous clinging to ITNC thresholds in hopes this will encourage proper incorporation of material to the articles, as the Nobel prize is a pretty significant ITN event. --hydrox (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that "the news here is that a Nobel prize was awarded posthumously." I'm noting that we have no substantial article update focusing on anything other than that element. If this information is insignificant, we have nothing justifying the item's existence (so it should be pulled). We can't simultaneously cite a lone update and ignore its content.
The community has consistently rejected invocations of IAR based on that rationale (encouraging article updates after the fact). Otherwise, the exception would swallow the rule. —David Levy 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am finally starting to get it. a) I disagree the item should be pulled, as Nobel prizes are trivially ITN-worthy, b) but there is a disagreement on threshold of update. On the other hand, c) the current blurb highlights a non-significant aspect of this year's award, and d) it was already pulled once! So maybe it should be once again pulled until we have consensus on posting the real thing (not the side story)? --hydrox (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no dispute that Nobel Prizes are ITN-worthy. They're listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items (and therefore automatically qualify for inclusion, assuming that the requisite article updates occur).
I've believed from the start that the item should be pulled until all three recipients' articles have received substantial updates. Do I understand correctly that you prefer this course of action to the current compromise? —David Levy 04:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only feasible course of action to fix the current situation (of a misleading blurb), yes I do (but hope to see it eventually reposted as articles get updated.) --hydrox (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've pulled the blurb, but I want to make it clear that I'm in no way suggesting that this decision is set in stone. I'm doing my best to honor consensus (which is subject to change) within the confines of our rules, not to impose my will. —David Levy 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ed: leaving out (posthumously) altogether, because Nobel committee statement shows that actually the price was given "in good faith" prehumously. Thus, the side story of this being actually posthumous award, is a mistake, which is however not important in the mind of the committee. --hydrox (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The award wasn't intended to be posthumous, but it is. We can't elaborate on the circumstances in the blurb, but the article accomplishes this (and that's the only substantial update that it has!). —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to stay above, if you read the Nobel foundation press release, it seems that they don't consider this posthumous award, because they were not aware of his passing when making the decision. [19] --hydrox (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that. And while the foundation can record the award in the manner of its choosing, it can't alter reality. "Posthumous" means "occurring after one's death." While this was unintentional, Steinman factually was awarded the Nobel Prize after his death. —David Levy 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved request for admin attention
Comment Marking RAA per above (misleading blurb). --hydrox (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator attention provided. —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. You "attended" to your own arbitrary decision. DeterenceTalk 02:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying that my determination is sacrosanct. Numerous administrators watch this page. If one believes that I'm incorrect to decline a request that we bold-link another article lacking a substantial update, we'll take it from there. —David Levy 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, could please stop commenting on everything that happens here. Isn't it up to me to decide if the level of attention was satisfactory? The conflict-seeking mode is good for some articles, but I don't find it constructive on collaborative pages like this. --hydrox (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you addressing Deterence or me? —David Levy 04:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deterence (the indentation is correct). --hydrox (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. My apologies for initially assuming otherwise. —David Levy 04:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An error of omission is just as bad as an error of insufficient updates to the articles. This is news, and we should post it! Thue | talk 10:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the event's newsworthiness is undisputed. But Wikipedia isn't a news website and ITN isn't a news ticker. When bold-linked article provide little or no relevant information beyond what's stated in the blurbs, the section isn't serving its primary purpose; it's simply reporting news. Any "error of omission" lies in the articles. —David Levy 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly agree with the others. David, we all tend to reach the sufficient quality, but your role in this discussion is far from being proper. You've pulled out the blurb without any comment, and you're permanently referring to a criterion that leads to your own decision. Unfortunately, the most radical step you're doing here is the use of your admin rights against the others commenting. Even if you're right that's not the right way to react on a page like this, where the main principle is to respect other thoughts and not to thrust upon with yours. Sorry, but if you're here to comment, please come down and do it as we, the other "mortals" do; else it's a real waste of time to discuss with someone who claims power. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, stop. If half of the effort spent here would be used to improve the articles in question, we'd be posting medicine and physics prize by now. --Tone 16:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seems like a hard task to edit the articles according to some 5 sentence or what not update criterion without undue-weight problems (including neutrality if other researchers' studies are ignored). The biological parts kind of need to go in the biology aricles rather than the biographies. Narayanese (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that no major article updates are called for. In such a case, no ITN item is called for either. The section's primary purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events, not to report news. That the Nobel Prize award announcements are big news doesn't automatically mean that they belong on the front page of an encyclopedia. —David Levy 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by your claim that I "pulled out the blurb without any comment." I've explained my actions and engaged others from the start.
I'm equally baffled by your complaint that I'm "permanently referring to a criterion that leads to [my] own decision." What, in your view, is an administrator's role here? To ignore the criteria and count votes? I'm sorry, but "This is big news, so it should be posted!" isn't an appropriate rationale.
If you're under the impression that I reverse-engineered an excuse to impose my will, you're badly mistaken. This subject area is underrepresented in ITN, and I'd like very much to rectify that. But this isn't a news website, nor is ITN a news ticker. I'd be delighted to restore the blurb, if only the requisite article updates were to occur.
I even attempted to implement alternative wording (reliant on the single major article update), and I was told that pulling the item was preferable (because the aforementioned article update — the only substantial one that we have — focuses on a relatively insignificant element of the event).
I honestly don't know what else you expect me to do, apart from ignoring a fundamental criterion. —David Levy 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Levy, I am still unsure about what you want. This isn't some dramatic news development that occurred on top of complicated political back-story - it's a story about 3 men who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine. Just how much more can we say about it? DeterenceTalk 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I haven't felt strongly about this item at all, but looking through the discussion, the gist of what's happening seems to be that you [David] pulled this because of an insufficient update, others told you that it's been updated all it can be, and you replied, "It's entirely possible that no major article updates are called for. In such a case, no ITN item is called for either." Your second sentence is quite problematic because this, of course, is a pre-approved item; in other words, an ITN item is absolutely called for by a longstanding, already-established consensus. With this in mind, it kind of seems the article is being held hostage for something of an unimportant reason. It doesn't meet a written, arbitrary rule somewhere? So what? As Thue says, omitting the blurb entirely isn't helping anything, and we need to remember that out main purpose is to showcase articles—something that's not being done at the moment. Swarm 03:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section's main purpose is to showcase articles substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. "Updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." This isn't an arbitrary rule; it's one that ensures that the section accomplishes something other than reporting news. Readers clicking through to the bold-linked articles expect to find a significant amount of additional information about the event. If no such prose exists, we've failed them; we've reported a news headline and wasted their time by sending them to an encyclopedia article that merely regurgitates it.
According to Hydrox, "there is a wealth of material available to update the articles with, and chances are those will be incorporated soon." As noted above, I'd be delighted to restore the item at that point.
If Hydrox is mistaken (and no such updates are called for), what is the justification for an ITN item? I see nothing other than a desire to report the news, which simply isn't our role.
Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items is a list of recurring events known to satisfy the "importance" criterion. As explicitly noted on the page, "the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately." We routinely omit WP:ITN/R items lacking such updates. I believe that some have never actually appeared. —David Levy 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this belated point, we're about to discover the winner(s) of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Yet, we still haven't posted this high-profile ITN/R item despite strong consensus to do so. For the love of all that is holy, and per WP:NABOBS, can we just post this already?! Before Christmas arrives?! DeterenceTalk 10:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all required articles atleast mention the nobel prize with ref... so whats the hold up here. Its a nobel prize that is given for someone's achievements. If the achievements itself are not well documented then i can understand but not enough updates for the nobel prize itself doesnt make sense. Updating article with more lines than needed to explain the news doesnt improve article in any way. -- Ashish-g55 12:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, according to our criteria, "updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient."
ITN's purpose isn't to report news. It's to link to encyclopedia articles substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. No one asserts that these articles should have prose shoehorned in for he purpose of complying with this criterion. As noted above, it's entirely possible that such updates (and therefore such an ITN item) aren't called for this time around. The argument "There's nothing left to add to the articles, so let's just report the news already!" ignores the section's reason for being. Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. —David Levy 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I see no such consensus. Consensus isn't gauged by counting votes. The rationale "This is big news, so let's post it!" is not "strong." —David Levy 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then nobel prize (or most other awards...) should not be ITNR since they will never produce enough updates to article. its an award given for an achievement... it wont ever produce enough updates to article to satisfy above requirement. Since we should be featuring the achievement, IAR can easily be invoked here. Reading all the comments above the consensus is to post. I'm sorry but you seem to be the only one against it. Stuff like awards, deaths, sports wins etc. will always produce little updates. Have them removed from ITNR if you feel this should not go up. -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly is consensus that this event satisfies the "importance criterion." That's why it's listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items. Again, as explicitly stated on that page, "the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately." We routinely omit WP:ITN/R items lacking such updates.
In the Nobel Prize in Chemistry section, Tone notes that we could add reactions from colleagues. (This is how we typically satisfy the update requirement when notable persons die.) FormerIP and Masem point out that an article also can be updated to include background information on the work for which the Nobel Prize was awarded.
I see no reason to invoke IAR. Given the fact that reporting news is the purpose of neither Wikipedia nor ITN, a desire to do so isn't a strong rationale. If it were, the exception would swallow the rule; we'd essentially abandon the update requirement and automatically post every major news story (thereby transforming the section into a news ticker). —David Levy 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to ignore the update requirement but news about a person recieving nobel prize should not require substantial updates. If the article properly mentions the achievement and achievement itself is properly documented then that should be enough. Putting random quotes from colleagues IMHO does not improve article rather its forcibly put there in order to achieve this ITN requirement. Goal should always be to improve article... thats why i said IAR can be invoked here. -- Ashish-g55 15:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you "have no intention to ignore the update requirement," but that's precisely the rule that you wish to ignore. I'm as strong a supporter of IAR as anyone, but a key element is that it should be applied when doing so serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia. I don't see how reporting news (not Wikipedia's or ITN's purpose) accomplishes that.
I disagree that comments from notable colleagues fail to improve an article. The addition of background information on the work for which the Nobel Prize was awarded is even better.
But if we assume that no major update is called for, that also means that no ITN item is called for. The section is intended to link to encyclopedia articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events, not to "feature achievements."
Please note that I posted the item about Dan Shechtman's receipt of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His article has been substantially updated to reflect this event. —David Levy 15:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the history of all 3 bolded articles and see large amount of updates that were made due to this nobel prize. You have simply ignored all those and are only looking for updates that mention or are directly about the nobel prize. By featuring achievement i meant featuring their work. And their work is what was updated. Updates dont need to be expansion of article they can be improvement also -- Ashish-g55 16:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The updates must pertain to the recent/current event. (General article expansion is DYK's area.)
The Bruce A. Beutler and Jules A. Hoffmann articles now do contain reasonably detailed explanations of the work leading to the Nobel prize award, so the update criterion has been met. (I was about to repost the item, but Tone beat me to it.) —David Levy 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Steinman's article now has an extensive update and although the other two are not updated to the same level, ITN requires one updated article. So back up it goes. To comply with the guidelines, I'll bold just the one article that has the most update, whatever... --Tone 16:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Bruce A. Beutler and Jules A. Hoffmann articles now contain reasonably detailed explanations of the work leading to the Nobel prize award, so the update criterion has been met for all three articles. (I was about to repost the item, but you beat me to it. I've bolded the other two links.) —David Levy 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Study published by Nature says that last winter saw record depletion of ozone above Arctic, with a loss of up to 80% of ozone in atmosphere, enough to create a hole similar to the antarctic one. --C628 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could someone with knowledge on this subject please put this development into a context that we can better understand? TIA DeterenceTalk 04:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Antarctic ozone hole was the thing that first sparked what's currently (in my opinion) the under-studied phenomenon of ozone loss - after its discovery in the mid-80's, the scientific community jumped to its feet to figure out how to stave off ozone depletion. However, the Antarctic hole has traditionally stolen the limelight - the Arctic, up until now, has not seen disruption even close to that of the opposite pole, as the polar stratospheric clouds that catalyze ozone depletion form far more easily in the colder Antarctic climate. For the Arctic ozone hole to be this big means that the Arctic is getting colder, fast. And, if the Arctic's getting colder, that means the world's climate is changing. So, in brief: bigger ozone holes in the Arctic equals global warming.
Now, that's all fun and interesting from a scientific perspective, but whether or not ITN's contributors will like the story is another matter. Just thought I'd give some context.
(disclaimer: yes, I know that this description is quite condensed and not meant to be an overview of the study of ozone by any means - particularly, PSC relation to ozone depletion is only lightly researched[20], there are other factors like chlorofluorocarbons and similar halocarbons, etc. Again, this is only a quick overview for context.) m.o.p 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All we can really say is that it was an exceptionally cold winter in the Arctic stratosphere, the coldest ever in 30 years of observations. That led to unprecedented Arctic ozone depletion because the ozone depleting processes are temperature sensitive. However, it is too early to say whether this is climate change or merely a natural fluctuation in the weather. This last winter was the coldest ever, but in the last ten years we've also had 4 of the 6 warmest winters ever. Overall, it is too early to discern if there is any trend, and the Nature paper doesn't even mention "global warming" or "climate change". Dragons flight (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb doesn't mention climate change or similar either - we don't need to argue about that (I think) to make a call on whether this fits the ITN requirements. The hole in the ozone is presumably notable, and in the news, mild supportEdwardLane (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ozone studies very rarely discuss trends - they focus on disruptive effects (see here), but this article's closing paragraph pretty clearly states a possible correlation. Ozone depletion/regeneration and global warming are said to (possibly) be linked to global warming by multiplesources.
Personally, I think putting global warming in blurbs is fun. It brings out the debaters and sensationalists. Makes for great news. All we have to say is "possibly linked to global warming". Or we could be boring and not mention that part. :P m.o.p 16:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why must we go there? The alarming risk here is excess radiation exposure affecting human health. See Biological effects. --NaturalRX 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ozone holes are a notable subject, and this is an interesting record. Some people might be directly affected due to UV radiation. Thue | talk 12:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - a hole in the Antarctic doesn't really harm anyone directly, as that region is unpopulated. A hole in the Arctic has the potential to harm Greenland, Russia and Norway (and is already thought to have done so). Link. m.o.p 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - We have m.o.p saying this equals global warming, Dragon's flight saying that that's not necessarily the case, and EdwardLane saying it doesn't matter either way. I'm going to have to go with EdwardLane and presume that this is significant even without a link to global warming. Swarm 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is significant in that it is new in the arctic, and as mentioned, is/could harm us and other biological life. --NaturalRX 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The item is significant enough, in my opinion, and we have a good update and an informative article. We do not, I think, need to mention in the blurb the possible causes or consequences of Arctic ozone depletion. Doing so at this time would, if I'm not mistaken, involve speculation and, especially if we suggest a link to global warming, is likely to create controversy. The only modification I think we ought to consider is replacing: "Researchers announce" with the more specific "A study in the journal Nature reports". -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I held back on this one but have since noticed additional media reports about the ozone hole. Agree that we don't need to discuss climate change, and that this item notable enough to post. Also agree with Black Falcon on the wording of the blurb. Jusdafax 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I was pondering switching the image to this one, but then I realized that most people don't understand false-colour scientific images and would not gain anything from it. m.o.p 05:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not the ozone hole for last winter. -- tariqabjotu 06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we could just say Antarctic ozone hole pictured or something. It's fine without, anyway. m.o.p 12:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
